To give or not to give is the ultimate question of this year's controversial budget. The government's dramatic U-turn to withdraw a proposal to inject HK$6,000 into Mandatory Provident Fund accounts and replace it with cash giveaways didn't placate public anger.
One explanation is that our deep-rooted, protracted social conflict has reached a critical point. So, no matter what the budget offers, the voices of discontent will not subside. Conversely, public anger has been building up and finally reached boiling point, triggering the so-called mini July 1 march on Sunday.
What's extraordinary is that, even with the offer of cash giveaways, over 10,000 demonstrators took part in the march, according to the organisers. The turnout would have been unimaginable had the government not offered HK$6,000 cash handouts to adult permanent residents and salaries tax reductions of 75 per cent. People seemed to be protesting for a variety of reasons and causes.
The level of discontent may have been exaggerated but, still, the government needs to address public concerns before it's too late.
As the government's chief adviser, sociologist Lau Siu-kai has failed to feel the pulse of the city and has misread public sentiment on numerous occasions.
Back in 2003, it wasn't difficult for all to notice that public outrage, whipped up by growing opposition against the proposed national security law, was getting out of control. Yet, on the eve of the July 1 march, Lau reassured the central government during a meeting with Premier Wen Jiabao that the turnout would be lower than 30,000. Some 500,000 people turned up. Lau's serious miscalculation effectively bankrupted his credibility and exposed his inadequate professional knowledge.
Wen was said to have been so upset by Lau that he reportedly vowed never to set foot in Hong Kong.
Eight years on, one would have expected Lau's knowledge to have advanced and for him to have learned from past experience. Yet, on the eve of this year's budget, he again failed to sense the volatile public mood and warn the administration about it. He failed to do his duty and, as a result, the government suffered a political backlash.
As a local delegate to the Chinese People's Political Consultative Conference, Lau also shouldn't have said that Hong Kong had reached a 'critical point' because of growing public grievances while attending CPPCC meetings in Beijing.
His comments seemed to imply that a social revolution was simmering in Hong Kong, which could eventually uproot stability and bring drastic changes.
Let's not delve into his political judgment, but focus instead on his role as head of the Central Policy Unit. Lau should have forewarned the government to avert a political crisis, but he didn't. On the contrary, he chose to make controversial comments that fuelled public outrage.
His action was not only inappropriate, it was also morally wrong, and similar to stabbing the government in the back. On a personal level, his action demonstrated that his integrity is in short supply.
Lau denied having made the grim warning on Hong Kong a day after his comment made headlines across the city and with television footage showing the interview.
He later tried to wriggle out of the trouble by saying he did not understand the meaning of 'critical point'. How ridiculous! And if that's true, he shouldn't be teaching sociology at Chinese University.
As a person who holds a high position in society, Lau shouldn't have behaved like that.
He should resign. He has nothing left to give; he has lost his credibility.
Albert Cheng King-hon is a political commentator. taipan@albertcheng.hk