Can another 'rags to riches' story emerge in today's Hong Kong?

In an era where the bourgeoisie has solidified and the property market is deeply intertwined with political power, this question may seem naive. Yet, upon opening 'From Rags to Riches: Hong Kong Families and Society 1841–1941', what we see is not a虚幻的传奇, but a social self-organization map during the formative years of the system: in the early century when British colonial rule was minimally involved, who provided education, healthcare, and basic social order?

These were not the focal responsibilities of the colonial government—according to research by Zheng Hongtai and Gao Hao, from 1841 to 1941, the Hong Kong British government's management of the Chinese community mostly stayed at the judicial and taxation levels. The substantial needs for social services, education, and healthcare were essentially reliant on民间家族集资与兴办.

Families, not just economic units, but containers of trust?

When we reread 'From Rags to Riches', we discover that Hong Kong's early development was not purely the result of capital推动, but the product of a triangular relationship among 'family—community—market'. From Lo Man Kam's investments in the newspaper industry and healthcare, to the Lee Shau Kee family's深耕 in education and public services, to the journey of Lee Shih Pong expanding from pawnshops and real estate into a capital巨头, each 'rags to riches' story revolves around a core: how trust is构建.

Lo Man Kam was not the ideal collaborator in the eyes of the colonial rulers; his relationship with the government was介于协商与制衡之间. Yet, he gained widespread social support precisely because the 'Kung Sheung Daily News' and the Hong Kong Sanatorium & Hospital he主持 became reliable platforms for information and healthcare for the市民. He neither fully belonged to the business world nor was purely from the intellectual阶层, but created public value at the边缘 of the system based on family networks.

This trust mechanism is withering away in today's Hong Kong. Whether it's财团办报,跨代传承基金, or the family relationships of political and business figures, the public often views them with terms like 'nepotism', 'monopoly', and 'privilege'. When families are no longer the constructors of social trust but instead become symbols of power exclusion, it signifies that society's perception of family capital has shifted from仰望 to质疑.

The失语 of families in the new era: from 'community connection' to 'system embedding'

In the family stories of 'From Rags to Riches', there is a common characteristic: most of these families started before the system was完善, built their own networks in times when they couldn't rely on the government, and found gaps under the tolerance of colonial governance. But in today's Hong Kong, we observe a clear转变: families are no longer forces outside the system but have become彻底 embedded within it.

When families become members of the Chinese People's Political Consultative Conference (CPPCC), National People's Congress (NPC) representatives, or enter the Election Committee as part of the建制 political participants, their social role shifts from 'order creators' to 'power stabilizers'. This identity转换 has caused many families with reform aspirations to lose their independence, even losing the原始冲动 of 'coming from society and going back to society'.

Once, Lee Kuan Yew in Singapore emphasized a clear demarcation between the government and family businesses. Today, Hong Kong is moving in the opposite direction: real estate财团 influence almost all policy areas, including land supply, housing distribution, healthcare resources, and education funding. The formation of this 'political-economic共同体' means that families no longer need to gain status by serving the community but can ensure their survival merely through loyalty to power.

Hong Kong's 'family politics' in international comparison: the distance between Singapore, Taiwan, and us

Looking back at other regions in Asia, we can see different 'family and society' models. In Singapore, family businesses are restricted by anti-corruption agencies within the policy framework and cannot excessively penetrate the public sector; in Taiwan, business families often need to重塑 their corporate image through public discourse and social participation, such as the Chang Yung-fa Foundation and the Formosa Plastics Group's sustainability department, both striving to align商业活动 with social responsibility.

But what about Hong Kong? 'From Rags to Riches'展示的是一个从零开始的时代—那时候没有政策补贴、没有特权通道、没有「合作框架」，一切靠自己搭建信任网络、累积口碑与承担社群责任。这样的历史反而成为今天制度设计者该回望的坐标。

Can we enable the new generation of families or businesses to regain social recognition through substantial social contributions, rather than solely relying on political alignment? If not, what we will lose is not just another opportunity for 'rags to riches', but Hong Kong's core social再生能力.

The political and cultural retreat of family memory: from ancestral halls, family letters to the absence of public narrative

Another overlooked转变 is how family memory is gradually退出 Hong Kong's public narrative. The ancestral hall culture, family archives, and genealogy compilation of the past were forms of historical and identity connection, as well as practices of intergenerational responsibility. But today, family memory is often seen as a symbol of private wealth, rather than the foundation of cultural continuation.

Many chapters in 'From Rags to Riches' mention how families maintained their family道 and social influence through文书记录、族产分配、集体决议, such as the pawnshop ledgers of the Lee Shih Pong family, the asset trusts of Chow Shou-son, and the education donation备忘录 of Ho Tung, all serving as cultural 'institutions'. These seemingly琐碎的操作 actually constitute a民间治理技术 between law and trust.

When this culture is消解, and families are simplified to代名词 like 'powerful and privileged' or 'assets', we also lose the ability to govern the present with history. Today's Hong Kong urgently needs to rebuild the 'institution of memory'—whether it's community history, corporate history, or family history, all should regain their place in public narrative.

Conclusion: Do we want legends, or realistically replicable social动能?

The reason 'From Rags to Riches' is still worth reading in detail is not because it evokes nostalgia or感动, but because it offers a set of forgotten governance principles: when society faces difficulties, what is truly effective is not commands or resources, but the rebuilding of trust and responsibility.

Today's Hong Kong is at a分岔点. The system remains, but trust is damaged; wealth still exists, but social connections are断裂; public services persist, but公共性 is no more. Do we still have the opportunity to找回 that social动能 of starting from scratch, serving the community, and being trust-based from families, communities, businesses, and localities?

If the answer is yes, then 'rags to riches' is not just history, but also the code for the future.