Like so many a politician, Chief Executive Leung Chun-ying altered his rhetoric from that of change to that of stability the day he came into office. But while he may prefer things as they are, our society is not satisfied with the status quo and crying out for change.

It is a pity that the CE isn't really a communist, or else he would have studied Karl Marx's and Mao Zedong's works on dialectics, just like all other officials of the Communist Party of China. He would have learned that nothing is absolute, and that the only constant is change. Contrary to mainstream empiricist thinking, things are not right or wrong, they are both right and wrong at the same time. If we understand the fact that a thing can be both good and bad, it is imperative that we keep on reexamining our past decisions and policies. That's because when one part of the system changes, other connected parts will be affected, making decisions that once were best options become sub-optimal.

That is common sense, but I have to spell it out as this ancient wisdom is often forgotten by our government and the pro-establishment camp at large. They think things can remain unchanged in a complex society such as ours, which is deeply embedded in the fluid and interconnected global economy.

It is often amusing to see both the dissidents and the pro-establishment people reciting Deng Xiaoping's words with no idea what Deng meant. One of their favorite quotes of Deng is, of course, that "Hong Kong's current social and economic systems will remain unchanged, its legal system will remain basically unchanged, its way of life and its status as a free port and an international trade and financial center will remain unchanged and it can continue to maintain or establish economic relations with other countries and regions."

When taken out of context this quotation yields amusing interpretations. However, when people take this fundamentalist approach, it is less hilarious than frightening.

How are we supposed to keep Hong Kong people's way of life unchanged for 50 years? Should we not use cellphones or Facebook, as they definitely have transformed our way of life? We can measure way of life in absolute terms by, for example, daily calorie intake, as there is not an ounce of doubt that we will be consuming the same amount of food (if not more) until 2047.

Our problems lie in the fact that we define our way of life in relative terms. A part of our way of life includes our "superiority" against our cousins in the mainland, and this part is quickly vanishing. This is the real reason behind all the unarticulated discontent. After all, Deng promised only that Hong Kong's "status as a free port and an international trade and financial center" will remain unchanged. He didn't grant us the status as the only free port and international trade and financial center in the region.

Recently, my old friend Professor Lui Tai-lok from the sociology department of the University of Hong Kong wrote two articles discussing the root cause of our current predicament. He seems to have identified regional integration as the culprit, saying that it was not envisioned when the "One Country, Two Systems" principle was formulated.

Be that as it may, the real and difficult question remains: should we adapt "One Country, Two Systems" to the new reality, or should we change the reality to fit the original design?

Either way, a lot of changes must be made, which gives rise to the operational question: who will lead the changes?

Today, in Hong Kong, the pro-establishment camp is seen as anti-change, and its members identify with this image and enjoy their role as conservatives. They think if the evil and foreign-backed dissidents are asking for changes, then changes must be negative and something they must fight against. Therefore, as the dissidents get increasingly radical, they get more and more conservative; as the dissidents want changes in everything, they insist on no change whatsoever.

It is obvious the pro-establishment camp keeps change from happening. Change will inevitably come: what we must do is lead them and not let them be forced upon us by undesirable elements.

The author is a member of the Commission on Strategic Development.

(HK Edition 04/30/2013 page1)