The 2019 novel coronavirus outbreak in Wuhan, China, has caused serious concern across the world.
Hong Kong, as a special administrative region of China and a close neighbor, is gravely affected and in deep water.
Twenty-four cases have been confirmed in the territory, compared with 16 in Taiwan.
To say that Hong Kong is in a state of panic and hysteria is not an overstatement, and anger has been escalated by the first death being reported on Tuesday.
While frustration over a shortage of masks is nothing new in Hong Kong, like in Taiwan, more radical actions are on the way to respond to the approach adopted by the Hong Kong government in controlling the outbreak.
Thousands of hospital workers this week went on strike to protest the government for overburdening the hospital sector and to demand a complete closure of the border with China.
Similar mobilization for strikes has been circulating on social media, calling for workers from different sectors to go on strike to press the government for stricter segregation from China, at least in terms of epidemic control.
As reported by the South China Morning Post, explosives were found at Lo Wo train station, which is on the border between Hong Kong and China, and protesters targeted road and rail to protest against the government’s decision to keep the Hong Kong-China border open.
Facing mounting public discontent and radicalization of protests, the government finally announced the closure of three more border control points, leaving the airport and another two Hong Kong-China connecting points open.
Whether these sluggish preventive measures and incomplete quarantine from China can effectively control the spread of the coronavirus and calm the public is still a serious question to answer.
It is crystal clear that the public in Hong Kong is deeply dismayed about the government’s handling of the outbreak, but the government seems to have disconnected with the public mood characterized by anxiety and fear.
First there were empty reassurances given by senior officials while Hong Kong Chief Executive Carrie Lam (林鄭月娥) was out of town, whereby the government not only offered no concrete action, but rejected any proposal to exercise a health declaration at the border.
As a matter of fact, there is a huge inflow and outflow of population between Hong Kong and China, day in, day out, for private as well as commercial purposes.
It needs no expert knowledge to realize that interflow of population would rapidly increase during the Lunar New Year holiday, so the inaction has given the public an extremely negative impression that the Hong Kong government was somewhat daydreaming and totally ill-prepared.
A huge expectation gap between the government and the public has appeared, where simultaneously a strong sense of mistrust had developed.
The anxiety turned to genuine fear that the government was incapable of protecting Hong Kongers.
Although later the chief executive introduced a series of measures to prevent a local outbreak, the measures were regarded to be too little, too late, or completely missing the target.
Public discontent swiftly ended up in fierce protests, and fear and frustration originating from government health protection failure has quickly become anger and political mistrust.
Politically, in terms of Hong Kong-China relations, there is a suggestion that the local government has relinquished its autonomy promised by the Basic Law, and the refusal to close the Hong Kong-China border implies Hong Kong-China integration, which many Hong Kongers fear, because it essentially contradicts “one country, two systems.”
Political mistrust quickly fired up and became social mistrust, whereby the territory’s government is seen to have betrayed Hong Kongers, because it places the welfare of Chinese above that of Hong Kongers.
Circumscribed by a state of public panic, these two factors quickly intermingled and radical protests thus became self-justified.
What has happened in Hong Kong is nothing less than fatuity of the territory’s government. Not only that it is completely disconnected from public expectations and sluggish in action, it is also blind to public concerns.
What Hong Kongers needed from the outset was a clear and comprehensive set of the best possible prevention and protection measures.
However, it is the failure of the government that foments discontent, escalates anger and radicalizes protests.
It is also the fatuity of the government that shifts the focus of epidemic control, which should be scientifically considered to be a very narrow and shallow argument of border closure, to politically directed action.
Perhaps all are unavoidable given the not-yet-resolved political tension created by the extradition bill and police brutality has not yet been fairly and independently investigated.
The outcry for border closure signals that the wounds created by the government’s unfair handling of the protests and police brutality are far from being healed, and the deep social division is miles from being bridged.
Surely Hong Kong has been severely divided since the “stopping the violence and curbing the disorder” strategy was adopted to justify police brutality. This helps explain why closure of the Hong Kong-China border means so much, because it symbolizes the protection of Hong Kong’s autonomy, identity and the preservation of its own interests.
These are precisely the issues the protest movement has been demanding. It is time for the Hong Kong government to wake up, if it is not too late.
Sammy Chiu is an adjunct professor at the Chinese University of Hong Kong. Adrian Chiu is a doctoral candidate at SOAS, University of London.
Could Asia be on the verge of a new wave of nuclear proliferation? A look back at the early history of the North Atlantic Treaty Organization (NATO), which recently celebrated its 75th anniversary, illuminates some reasons for concern in the Indo-Pacific today. US Secretary of Defense Lloyd Austin recently described NATO as “the most powerful and successful alliance in history,” but the organization’s early years were not without challenges. At its inception, the signing of the North Atlantic Treaty marked a sea change in American strategic thinking. The United States had been intent on withdrawing from Europe in the years following
My wife and I spent the week in the interior of Taiwan where Shuyuan spent her childhood. In that town there is a street that functions as an open farmer’s market. Walk along that street, as Shuyuan did yesterday, and it is next to impossible to come home empty-handed. Some mangoes that looked vaguely like others we had seen around here ended up on our table. Shuyuan told how she had bought them from a little old farmer woman from the countryside who said the mangoes were from a very old tree she had on her property. The big surprise
The issue of China’s overcapacity has drawn greater global attention recently, with US Secretary of the Treasury Janet Yellen urging Beijing to address its excess production in key industries during her visit to China last week. Meanwhile in Brussels, European Commission President Ursula von der Leyen last week said that Europe must have a tough talk with China on its perceived overcapacity and unfair trade practices. The remarks by Yellen and Von der Leyen come as China’s economy is undergoing a painful transition. Beijing is trying to steer the world’s second-largest economy out of a COVID-19 slump, the property crisis and
As former president Ma Ying-jeou (馬英九) wrapped up his visit to the People’s Republic of China, he received his share of attention. Certainly, the trip must be seen within the full context of Ma’s life, that is, his eight-year presidency, the Sunflower movement and his failed Economic Cooperation Framework Agreement, as well as his eight years as Taipei mayor with its posturing, accusations of money laundering, and ups and downs. Through all that, basic questions stand out: “What drives Ma? What is his end game?” Having observed and commented on Ma for decades, it is all ironically reminiscent of former US president Harry