Disability in the UK vs Hong Kong (Part II)
In the previous article, we talked about how the general demographic of Hong Kong differs from the UK, as well as how the two countries handle accessibility. Up to this point, Hong Kong seems to be leading the game with its fantastic performance in terms of infrastructural design. However, is that all there is to the issue?
In this article, we will go through general societal perceptions and situations of discrimination toward the disabled community in the two countries. While access to work is very important, underlying social norms also have a massive impact on how the disabled community are treated.
Once the differences and similarities are evaluated, I will also spend some time talking about what the UK could learn from Hong Kong’s case, and vice versa. After all, by learning from each other we can understand more, innovate more, and society can become more inclusive.
Perception and disability in the UK
When I first arrived in the UK, I personally feel that the entire societal culture emphasises diversity and inclusion much more than in Hong Kong. And turns out certain social scientists agree with my claim.
According to Benomir, Nicolson and Beail (2016), societal culture in Western countries tends to be more positive towards people with intellectual disabilities. Bi (2010) and Corrigan (2010) further explain that this is very much likely due to values of individualism, instead of collectivism in the East.
Theoretically, as Western countries like the UK are more inclined towards individualism, people are more prone to accept personal differences. Whereas in Hong Kong, since education and cultural practices encourage people to work as a collective, people are more likely to discriminate against those who are different, and this includes those who are disabled.
Generally, due to strong reforms in the legal and educational system, the direct use of discriminative language in social settings is much lower in the UK in comparative terms. Most notably, the UK Equality Act 2010 prohibits direct or indirect discrimination with respect to age, disability, gender reassignment, marriage and civil partnership, and other related characteristics.
Under the Act, employers are obliged to make reasonable adjustments during recruitment and at work to suit the needs of disabled employees. Web access of the disabled community is also protected by the legislation. While many advocates and scholars (Mason & Minerva, 2020) criticised the legislation due to the fact that it does not tackle systematic structural problems, the legal process itself showed that the government is under strong pressure from society to conform.
There is still a long way to go if we are advocating for direct fair treatment for those without disabilities. While people might use slurs less or do not display discrimination, there are still hidden areas the law has yet to reach.
For instance, Clement, Brohan, Sayce, Pool and Thornicroft (2011) have demonstrated that due to intrinsic practices, many non-disabled people still tend to use language that displays ‘stereotypes about dangerous and unpredictability’ and their assumption that disabled people are ‘a lesser person’. These biases result in some of the interviewees feeling ‘unsafe’ and becoming afraid of the possibility of people ‘shouting abuses’.
Since victims would attempt to minimise risk and settle the issue for their personal safety, they do not want to escalate the event to a legal level. Since they might have already accepted these abuses as part of the social norm, similar to the perpetrators, they themselves do not consider these actions part of a hate crime.
In short, it could be argued that the UK has basic but insufficient legislation to protect the rights of the disabled community. The societal culture is generally more accepting, but deeply ingrained stereotypes towards disabled people have yet to be completely removed.
Stigmatisation and disability in Hong Kong
The situation is far worse in Hong Kong. According to the Hofstede Insights Index (2022), while the UK has a score of 89 for individualism, Hong Kong only reaches 25 on the same dimension. What lies behind the figures are Hong Kong people’s deeply rooted sense to survive together as a collective community, instead of as individual persons.
When even part of the disabled community in the UK are under constant fear to express their difficulties, imagine how difficult it would be for people to speak up in a society that constantly shouts that you have to be ‘normal’ and fits into social roles.
As illustrated by one of Hong Kong’s online newspapers, HKET, the generally accepted social role for disabled people is in service roles such as dish-washing, massage or participating in other repetitive work. Moreover, more than 70% of visually disabled people are not employed due to their physical conditions.
One should bear in mind that the above definition of disability mainly focuses on physical disability and excludes mental illness. According to a survey conducted by the Joyful (Mental Health) Foundation of Hong Kong (2021), more than 50% of the interviewee’s mental status scored lower than the generally accepted standard of the WHO.
One in every seven Hong Kong adults experiences mental health issues, but 74% of patients do not seek medical support and advice. More do not even realise that they are mentally unwell (Mak & Kwok, 2010). In contrast, only 4.5% of UK adults are depressed. The high mental illness rate is a side-effect of Hong Kong’s nature as one of the most competitive cities in the world.
There are no legal requirements for employers to cater to the needs of their disabled employees. Employers can also ask from the start for an employee’s health status or disability to assess whether they are physically suited to the job. To use the words of Cockain (2018), the Hong Kong government and society exercises ‘shallow inclusion’ but ‘deep exclusion’.
Generally, Hong Kong’s society lacks knowledge of disability and inclusiveness since these concepts are outside their cultural norm. Instead of trying to advocate positive societal change, as criticised by Gilson and Dymond (2012), the Hong Kong government is only trying to tick the basic checkboxes to guarantee its place as a world financial hub.
What can we learn from each other?
Now that we have gone through both of the major aspects of disability inclusion, we can start to ask if there are any things that we can borrow from each other’s individual experiences.
1. Enhancing Cultural Inclusion in Hong Kong
To start off, in terms of cultural acceptance and social support, I believe Hong Kong has much to learn from the UK. What Hong Kong needs is more than simple legal changes and inclusive legislation. Instead, systematic suppression of emotions and education through shaming has to be changed in order to allow people to open up about their disabilities and support each other.
In an academic journal discussing how the West and the East convey their emotions differently, Semnani-Azad and Adair (2014) pointed out that Westerners communicate generally with a more positive perception of their counterpart and tend to be expressive in voice. Meanwhile, the Chinese exhibit self-control and suppress emotions during discussion.
One of the primary reasons why this is the case is due to different parenting methods. Hong Kong parents, as well as many others from Asian society, have been well-known for using a control and discipline technique known as ‘shaming’.
Chao and Tseng (2002) illustrated that children from Asian households are constantly compared to other ‘well-behaved children’ and reminded that they should be aware of how others think of them. This is accompanied by methods of gaslighting and scolding to keep the children under control.
Under this social background, it is extremely difficult for disabled or mentally ill children to express their needs. They are taught not to voice their wants and to restrict themselves according to what society wants of them. This mindset grows old with them, and thus strengthens the existing social structure and hierarchy.
Although gaslighting and child abuse occur in the UK as well, in general, individualism and independence are encouraged. Moreover, the disabled community is often actively speaking out and demanding change. For instance, during the Disability Pride Month, the disabled community in the UK and the US will actively organise parades to celebrate their achievements and call for consecutive change.
While the Chinese way of parenting does have its benefits, including raising tougher children and producing high achievers, to change the systematic discrimination against disability, parents should learn to love their kids for who they are. They should encourage their kids to voice their needs and respect the differences.
2. Accelerating Administrative Efficiency in the UK
Nevertheless, in terms of providing accessible facilities, the UK should learn from Hong Kong’s efficiency and well-planned urban design. There are indeed attempts from the UK to redesign its landscape and introduce elements of accessibility.
For instance, the British Standard Design Guidance (BS 8300) of 2018 strongly recommended that in multi-storey buildings, at least one lift has to be available which can be accessed by wheelchair users. Meanwhile, the 2010 Equality Act also demanded that house owners or employers should allow access for wheelchair users.
However, upon legislation, whether the terms are actually put into effect is the question of concern here. According to the 2019 IMD World Competitiveness, which partly assesses the infrastructure and administrative efficiency of countries, the UK is ranked 9th, while Hong Kong is ranked 3rd.
What drags the UK’s ranking down is that its infrastructure development and policy implementation is slow to take effect. Bevir (2004) has criticised the UK’s system of government which hinders policy implementation. This comes into a huge contrast when we look at how the Hong Kong government implement its policies.
We could look at the MTR’s scheme to reform its railway accessibility as an example. While we have praised the Hong Kong Metro system for its accessibility, do you know that it started off similar to the Tube, with no elevators at all?
It was only in 1991 when the MTR, mainly owned by the government, reviewed its railway policy and started making inclusion a priority. Within three years, wheelchair accessibility has been added to 35 out of 38 existing stations, of which none of them was accessible originally. A further additional HK$500 million (the equivalent of £50 million) was then used to refit further stations from 2006 to 2011.
Therefore, the UK government should seriously review its administrative quality and its ability to implement policies. While it might be difficult to ask private houses to be made accessible, public transport, like the London Tube, is owned and managed by Transport For London. There’s no excuse for progress taking so long.
Final Remarks
Well, it is very difficult to conclude who did better and who did worse. After all, Hong Kong and the UK share different political, historical, and societal backgrounds. All these factors made assessing which one is more inclusive towards the disabled community challenging.
However, the complexity of the issue is exactly why I decided to do this comparison. When only looking at the equality and inclusion policies of one country, it is very hard to see the problems. We are trapped inside an echo chamber, making it difficult to see the blind spots.
With a fully fleshed-out side-by-side comparison, we can now see that norms and social barriers are different in every country, especially across cultural spheres. Hence, if we are indeed trying to make a difference and make the entire world inclusive and accessible to those in need, we must look broader. Only by stepping outside our comfort zone, can we establish change for the disabled community.
