Today’s Hong Kongers are still haunted by the tragic experience and memory of the deadly SARS epidemic that hit the territory in the spring of 2003, which infected hundreds and killed nearly 300 people.
SARS was transmitted from southern China into the territory on Feb. 21, 2003, by a retired doctor and professor, Liu Jianlun (劉劍倫), who was infected with the virus after treating patients in Guangzhou, when he checked into the Metropole Hotel in Kowloon.
Before his death on March 4, Liu infected a handful of hotel guests who then carried the virus to Thailand, Singapore, Vietnam and Canada. This patient zero seeded the global SARS outbreak from a single hotel floor on a single day.
That month, the WHO in Geneva, Switzerland, swiftly responded to the regional SARS outbreak, issuing a global travel warning for Hong Kong and other Asian countries. In April, a number of consulates withdrew their nonessential personnel from the territory. Normalcy did not return until May and June.
Ever since the SARS epidemic, Hong Kongers have recognized the need to maintain a high standard in personal hygiene during flu season. Through widespread public health education, they listen attentively to the opinions of international and local medical experts, and adhere to the government’s guidelines on hygiene, such as wearing masks and using alcohol-based sanitizers to clean hands.
Against this historical backdrop, it is logical to understand the public panic about an increase in confirmed cases of Wuhan coronavirus infections in the territory. Hong Kongers of all political stripes are urging Hong Kong Chief Executive Carrie Lam (林鄭月娥) to step up her leadership to prevent a potential epidemic.
Severely handicapped by the months-long governance crisis that started in June last year, the Lam administration is incapable of seizing this historic moment to reclaim credibility and integrity in the eyes of Hong Kongers.
If a large-scale outbreak of the 2019 novel coronavirus occurs, this would collide with the pre-existing governance crisis that has disrupted the territory since last summer, thereby exposing three major structural problems that are crippling the administration from within.
First, Lam’s reluctance to impose travel restrictions from China to the territory appears to derive from socioeconomic and political rather than medical considerations. Such restrictions might have dire social and economic consequences for daily cross-border activities, including countless families who reside in Shenzhen and travel to Hong Kong for work.
People would be less willing to disclose their travel information inside China, making it difficult for Hong Kong customs officials to track cases of infections and identify speedy medical treatment.
In the worst scenario, the travel restrictions might even stigmatize hundreds of thousands of mainland Chinese in a seemingly polarized Hong Kong society that has been troubled by the escalation of subethnic tensions between Mandarin-speaking outsiders and Cantonese insiders in the post-1997 era.
However, what remains unsaid officially is that Lam has to offer an exit route for senior officials of the Chinese Communist Party and their families to flee the infected areas, such as Wuhan and nearby townships.
A notorious example is former Wuhan Iron and Steel chief executive Deng Qilin (鄧崎琳), who in 2016 stepped down to face trial under Chinese President Xi Jinping’s (習近平) anti-corruption campaign. This high-profile fugitive allegedly fled the country last month, staying at several 5-star hotels in Hong Kong before being hospitalized. His escape to Hong Kong has made a mockery of Xi’s nationwide anti-corruption efforts.
Second, the Lam administration has perpetuated the divide-and-rule practice in controlling public access to scarce medical resources. Because of a frantic search for masks by Chinese shoppers worldwide, there has been a serious shortage in the territory.
Weaponizing this strategic item, Lam is determined to allocate public healthcare resources according to the recipients’ political loyalty. The administration is exploiting the free labor of local female prisoners to mass produce masks day and night. Instead of distributing these masks among medical personnel and vulnerable citizens, the government has given them to civil servants and police officers, as well as pro-Beijing political parties and trade unions.
Some police officers and low-ranking bureaucrats have even sold these prison-made masks on the black market. The entire system is corrupt to its core, and so are the officials who participate in it.
Third, even in this moment of deep anxiety, Lam does not intend to address the frustrations and worries of Hong Kongers. For the first time in the territory’s history, medical workers have organized a weeklong massive strike, opposing the administration’s refusal to temporarily close the border with China.
Whenever helpless residents gather to complain about the government’s sudden announcement of building isolation wards for the coronavirus carriers in their congested neighborhoods, Lam sends in riot police to silence people critical of her divisive policy.
The most tragic lesson of SARS is that Hong Kong officials have chosen to ignore the mistakes of the past.
In light of these organizational missteps, the territory risks becoming the next epicenter of the coronavirus outbreak outside China. If this happens, more radical and violent protests are bound to take place against the arrogance, incompetence and insensitivity of the Lam regime.
Joseph Tse-hei Lee is professor of history at Pace University in New York City.
Two sets of economic data released last week by the Directorate-General of Budget, Accounting and Statistics (DGBAS) have drawn mixed reactions from the public: One on the nation’s economic performance in the first quarter of the year and the other on Taiwan’s household wealth distribution in 2021. GDP growth for the first quarter was faster than expected, at 6.51 percent year-on-year, an acceleration from the previous quarter’s 4.93 percent and higher than the agency’s February estimate of 5.92 percent. It was also the highest growth since the second quarter of 2021, when the economy expanded 8.07 percent, DGBAS data showed. The growth
In the intricate ballet of geopolitics, names signify more than mere identification: They embody history, culture and sovereignty. The recent decision by China to refer to Arunachal Pradesh as “Tsang Nan” or South Tibet, and to rename Tibet as “Xizang,” is a strategic move that extends beyond cartography into the realm of diplomatic signaling. This op-ed explores the implications of these actions and India’s potential response. Names are potent symbols in international relations, encapsulating the essence of a nation’s stance on territorial disputes. China’s choice to rename regions within Indian territory is not merely a linguistic exercise, but a symbolic assertion
More than seven months into the armed conflict in Gaza, the International Court of Justice ordered Israel to take “immediate and effective measures” to protect Palestinians in Gaza from the risk of genocide following a case brought by South Africa regarding Israel’s breaches of the 1948 Genocide Convention. The international community, including Amnesty International, called for an immediate ceasefire by all parties to prevent further loss of civilian lives and to ensure access to life-saving aid. Several protests have been organized around the world, including at the University of California Los Angeles (UCLA) and many other universities in the US.
Every day since Oct. 7 last year, the world has watched an unprecedented wave of violence rain down on Israel and the occupied Palestinian Territories — more than 200 days of constant suffering and death in Gaza with just a seven-day pause. Many of us in the American expatriate community in Taiwan have been watching this tragedy unfold in horror. We know we are implicated with every US-made “dumb” bomb dropped on a civilian target and by the diplomatic cover our government gives to the Israeli government, which has only gotten more extreme with such impunity. Meantime, multicultural coalitions of US