There has been much talk recently about “telling the Hong Kong story well”. After all, after more than two years of self-imposed isolation, an ongoing exodus of talent and the political upheaval that preceded both, it is understandable that our government wants to revive the city’s international image.

It is also fair to say part of the criticism aimed at Hong Kong has had ulterior motives. Scoring points is easy, fixing problems is harder.

Yet, there are two core dimensions to Hong Kong’s malaise. The first constitutes the perception problem – Hong Kong is perceived to be a struggling, lethargic city, one with more departures than arrivals, more doom and gloom than hope and optimism. The second is the many socioeconomic and governance issues that have long afflicted the city.

On the first, attempting to hard-sell the city simply won’t cut it. The millions pumped into public relations have yielded stiff, stale campaigns riddled with slogans and assertions that neither speak to the hearts and minds of prospective audiences nor address how the city’s virtues and strengths have evolved over the years.

The low tax rates, concentration of wealth and robust legal infrastructure are virtues that are either accepted as normalised givens by supporters or neglected by naysayers.

Merely trotting out statistics and other evidence will not help assuage the worries from those in between that our city is losing out to regional competitors because of its ossified human capital and industrial policies, or that the “one country, two systems” formula has been severely damaged.

Highlighting where we stand in rankings and among polls of businesses might be marginally useful. It still falls short of organically pushing back against the criticism directed towards the city, though.

The second problem is rooted in a structural defect: the voices of the public – especially those who are disillusioned or critical of current government policies – are insufficiently incorporated into policymaking processes. I appreciate this current administration’s commitment to being result-oriented, but sometimes the process matters just as much, and maybe more.

The upcoming policy address certainly will contain many recommendations that bear positively on the city’s future development. Yet for the average Hong Kong youth who lack both connections and access to political structures, it is rather unlikely that their voices are addressed and incorporated into the administration’s recommendations and policies.

The consultative structures are both antiquated and inaccessible. Despite attempts at improving them, with Chief Executive John Lee Ka-chiu dedicating more time to visits and engagements with grass-roots groups, the problem remains unresolved.

More generally speaking, community participation and volunteering, engagement with electoral institutions and trust in the political and government apparatus have been damaged by the past few years of seismic changes. It will take time and sincerity for the government to win back the hearts and minds of many Hong Kong people.

There is a set of solutions that tackle both problems. They enable a dynamic and convincing telling of Hong Kong’s story as well as allow the administration to better target its reforms at addressing the genuine lived experiences of people on the ground.

I say let ordinary Hongkongers – the hawker in the wet market, the teacher dealing with piling stacks of homework to mark, the young professional deliberating over whether they should stay or go – be the voices the government platforms and shares with the world at large.

We might be pleasantly surprised – though should not be – that despite their many grievances and misgivings about the city, these people truly love Hong Kong, a city in which they are born and raised. Equally valuable is highlighting the struggles of those who have overcome great difficulties to prove wrong the naysayers and fatalists who insist their fates are written by their class and ethnicity.

I count among my friends social workers who have made it their life’s work to help residents in Chungking Mansions, lawyers who dedicate countless hours to working with cage-home tenants and socially engaged youth who – as much as they find the status quo jarring and problematic – are by no means daunted or disheartened by Hong Kong’s predicaments.

These people all have great ideas about how Hong Kong can move forward. Yet they, by virtue of their seeing the flaws and gaps in the city’s present state, would not qualify for the current brigade of good storytellers.

Volunteers visit the needy and distribute anti-pandemic packs at Lok Man Sun Chuen in To Kwa Wan on May 11.

There remains much to be loved about the city – its spectacular dynamism, cultural diversity, robust legal and financial infrastructure, fantastic greenery and world-class infrastructure, to name just a few.

Yet stories that exclusively orient themselves around these aspects while sweeping under the carpet the problems of socioeconomic inequalities and housing, the city’s demographics and workforce and its slipping international competitiveness are not good enough. We cannot tell a good story if it isn’t done in full.

We must be willing to embrace the truth about our defects, reflect upon our weaknesses and identify the openings for change. Only then can we truly regain the world’s trust and interest.