In the Spring Festival of the Year of the Tiger, Hong Kong people have not had a good time: the new crown is raging, customs clearance is hopeless, governance is inefficient, and people's livelihood is very difficult.
On February 7, the number of confirmed new crown cases in Hong Kong exceeded 600 in a single day. This is still the result of incomplete testing and tracking. With Hong Kong's current prevention and control mechanisms and capabilities, it will be the norm to increase by more than 1,000 each day.
Whether customs clearance is correct for people's livelihood and national politics is to test whether the SAR government is truly "patriots ruling Hong Kong" and whether it is genuinely working for the welfare of the people and integrating with the country.
Written by: Tian Feilong (Associate Professor of the Law School of Beihang University, Director of the National Hong Kong and Macao Research Association)
Hong Kong has broken its defense against the epidemic. Tian Feilong, director of the National Hong Kong and Macao Research Association, wrote in an article that the crux is not a simple problem of responsibility and technical route, but a problem of institutional foundation and values, highlighting the gap between the "two systems" and the difficulty of integration.
(Photo by Lu Yiming)
Regrettably, Hong Kong's "AO parties" (administrative officials) did not sincerely follow the principle and mechanism of "dynamic clearing" and strictly implemented it, but perfunctory and powerless, and finally broke the defense.
Their defense has a strong Western frame of reference, which is a frame of reference for "coexisting with the virus", and is the model and standard of epidemic prevention in the so-called Western democratic world.
And the "AO parties" in Hong Kong are accustomed to and believe in the belief that the Western model of epidemic prevention is the only correct choice.
When the "People's Daily" published an article arguing that "dynamic clearing" is Hong Kong's scientific choice, Hong Kong's "AO parties" still disagreed.
Because since the capital said that she is not the "initiator" (implying a derogatory meaning) of "dynamic clearing", it is even less likely that other political officials are.
They still hold the old-fashioned Hong Kong-British civil servant mentality of "taking a job". Regarding the "dynamic clearing", they are just like a gourd and a gourd. They are duplicitous and passively implemented. Instead, they can “clear customs” with the West as soon as possible. Anyway, the basic values, lifestyle and family interests are closer to the West.
In Hong Kong's fight against the epidemic, it is not a simple matter of responsibility and technical route, but a matter of institutional foundation and values, which highlights the gap between the "two systems" and the difficulty of integration.
Although "One Country, Two Systems" has undergone the top-level restructuring of the "Hong Kong National Security Law" and the new election law, as well as the global governance coverage of "patriots ruling Hong Kong", the
top-down value and institutional penetration are limited and lagging behind, especially It is difficult to say that it has taken root in the minds of the society and civil servants.
Various social and procedural "soft resistances" exist, ranging from perfunctory to deliberate.
To truly forge a patriotic governance team that is in line with "one country, two systems" and to highlight the virtuous nature and leadership of "firm patriots", institutional reform is only the first step, and the subsequent reform process is complicated and complicated. Have a clear understanding and mental preparation.
The new crown epidemic has been raging for two years, and the dawn of customs clearance is bright and dark. The fundamental reason is that Hong Kong is swaying and struggling between Chinese and Western anti-epidemic models.
Today's anti-epidemic situation has gradually taken on a pattern of "Chinese and Western confrontation": China adheres to "dynamic clearing" and takes the health and safety of all people as its fundamental value. Philosophy; Western "herd immunity" is a priority, coexisting with viruses, relying on vaccines and natural infections to build the ultimate barrier against epidemics, but at the social cost of eliminating "some people" (the weak, not limited to the elderly), this is a kind of individualism and social Darwinism's anti-epidemic philosophy.
Comparatively speaking, "dynamic clearing" is a real overall survival strategy for all people, a real humanitarianism, and no one will give up, but the meaning is very high, and ordinary democracies do not have this ability, nor do societies that focus on individualism. This self-consciousness makes it impossible for the West to imitate China's "dynamic clearing".
In fact, there are many uncertainties in the development of the epidemic. Some countries or cities in the West have also tried the "dynamic clearing" policy of strict control.
Persistence is the hardest, and giving up is easy, but the logic of Western politicians is that as long as the people understand and accept the so-called "partial elimination" price, it does not seem to damage the legitimacy of a democracy and the preservation of its political power.
For the West, "dynamic clearing" is either unwilling or impossible.
However, Western governments and media can abuse their propaganda and soft power to render a "failure" as a "success", and whitewash the human rights and community tragedy of "elimination of some people" as a hymn of individual freedom and scientism.
It should be noted that Social Darwinism has also advertised itself as a true "science".
Is this a victory for the West, or an elegy?
It is very regrettable that many people in Hong Kong believed in the Western anti-epidemic model and its discourse narrative.
The moral essence of "coexisting with the virus" is naturalism, survival of the fittest, and cruelty: in the face of the virus, the strong are unwilling to coexist with the weak, and they are unwilling to give up part of their economic interests and economic benefits for the sake of a community with the weak. Freedom, but let the virus eliminate the weak.
Living with the virus is actually social Darwinism with the virus, a re-discrimination and re-oppression of the elderly, the underprivileged and the marginalized.
This kind of discrimination and oppression can have high-sounding reasons for "individual freedom" and "natural selection", but it further exposes the logic of "survival in the jungle" behind Western liberal democratic values.
"Dynamic clearing" belongs to strict communal values and epidemic prevention strategies. It is an organic combination of individuals being responsible to all people and all people being responsible to individuals. It requires the government to undertake emergency protection responsibilities that exceed conventional governance requirements, and requires individuals to transfer commensurate interests and freedoms to support the collective victory over the virus threat.
Regrettably, the essence of modernity is individualism, anti-community, indulging selfishness and the jungle in the name of freedom, while the community model and ethics are constantly weakened, disintegrated and fragmented in the modernization process of Western society.
Tunnis's "Community and Society" reveals this change in social structure and ethics in ancient and modern times.
Therefore, in the modern society of "individualism", the government is a small government, the capital is a big capital, the individual is the sovereign, freedom is the clear code of communication, the community ethics and virtue obligations have been smashed, forgotten and abandoned, and you are the weak. Whether it is eliminated by the market or eliminated by natural viruses, it is natural and legitimate.
This is obviously in normative opposition to the community of national destiny and the community of human destiny pursued by China.
Although Hong Kong is tied to China in terms of sovereignty and order, and promises to respect and trust the country based on the fundamental principle of "patriots ruling Hong Kong", it has not completed social and governance "mental transformation" at all. "The route's anti-epidemic measures can only rely on luck, not rationality and responsibility.
This time, Omicron may be draining Hong Kong's luck.
In the face of the failure of the fight against the epidemic, it is not fair to just blame the Hong Kong government. Both the society and the people are responsible. The root cause lies in the "Western DNA" of Hong Kong's system and values. This is the basis of "one country, two systems" and its shortcoming. It depends on what kind of issues and scenarios it is presented in.
In the face of the "two sides" of the anti-epidemic "coexistence with the virus" that Hong Kong formally implements and the "coexistence with the virus" that Hong Kong believes in, we must objectively understand and respond responsibly. Mere criticism is not enough. There are institutional bottlenecks and social identity bottlenecks that the Hong Kong government and Hong Kong society cannot meet in the short term.
It is easy to play chess and make slander, but it is difficult to put yourself in the shoes and take responsibility.
In the face of the outbreak of Omicron in the community, Hong Kong society is even more chilled, the prestige of the Hong Kong government continues to decline, social panic rises, and the wavering and embarrassing between the two poles of "dynamic clearing" and "virus coexistence" continue to rise.
In Hong Kong, there have been official and non-governmental public opinions on the "coexistence of viruses" and appeals, but "dynamic clearing" as a politically correct anti-epidemic line cannot be changed for the time being.
Because if the "dynamic clearing" is terminated, no matter what price Hong Kong pays, it will only be able to clear customs with the "West" in the end, but not with the "Mainland".
The pain of "clearing customs" is the long-distance cold light between the Hong Kong system and the mainland, and a value barrier that cannot be penetrated by "patriots ruling Hong Kong".
Although this result seems to have "fulfilled" the wishes of the Hong Kong AO Party and the "Yellow Silk", and realized the long-term wish of isolation from the "Mainland" (the goal of local speculation) that neither Occupy Central nor the amendment bill could achieve, but However, it has brought serious setbacks and political blows to the integrated development of the Guangdong-Hong Kong-Macao Greater Bay Area, the northern metropolitan area and "one country, two systems", proving that Hong Kong cannot integrate into the overall development and governance system of the country in terms of institutions and capabilities.
"Lying flat" is comfortable for a while, but the cost is far more than "some people are eliminated".
Between China and the West, Hong Kong receives platform dividends when "time is quiet", and even discriminates against mainland people and the national system by replacing its ability with platforms. However, during social unrest or natural virus epidemics, Hong Kong is highly dependent on the state's protection and support.
The "two sides" of this physical and mental conflict and identity are both pros and cons.
The so-called "coexistence with the virus" is not an advanced experience or standard, it only exposes the capabilities of Western governments and the selfish nature of Western society.
This kind of Western anti-epidemic model that "brings its own halo" no matter how it is done, is nothing but contamination and sharing of the historical assets and discourse hegemony of Western centralism.
However, "one country, two systems" is destined to endure Hong Kong's swing and difficult transition between China and the West under the condition of continuing the "seamless" relationship between Hong Kong and the West.
Seeing that the Hong Kong government is in disagreement between the two anti-epidemic models, it is difficult to adjust hands and mouths; seeing that the people of Hong Kong are in panic, hopeless customs clearance, and how difficult people's livelihood is; There is a certain degree of "left behind" risk in the development of integration - these are very heartbreaking.
However, "one country, two systems" has determined that the central government cannot directly take over or direct orders, but can only provide human and material support.
However, just like the failure of the West to fight the epidemic was not due to the lack of human and material resources, the central government's resource support for Hong Kong will hardly change the basic system and values of Hong Kong's fight against the epidemic, and it is difficult to bridge the gap highlighted by the "two systems".
"Chairman Rabbit", who has continued to write on Hong Kong issues, issued an official account on February 8, calling for another choice for Hong Kong based on the status quo of capabilities and institutional differences, and calmly analyzed the social cost of the new choice and even the "significance of the pilot."
However,
can Hong Kong afford the long-term and repeated cost of "herd immunity"?
Can Hong Kong bear the long-term cost of closing customs with the mainland for a long time in the fight against the epidemic and only clearing customs with the West?
Can Hong Kong afford the strategic cost of being "left behind" in the process of Guangdong-Hong Kong-Macao Greater Bay Area and national rejuvenation?
The cost of resetting the anti-epidemic route is not only the intuitive part of "elimination of some people", but also the long-term part of the transformation and stagnation of Hong Kong's system and society.
In a word, Hong Kong's fight against the epidemic is a big political issue, which tests Hong Kong's true autonomy and its ability to undertake the important task of the strategic transformation of "One Country, Two Systems".
Whether Hong Kong is more confident or more frustrated in fighting the epidemic, whether it is more integrated into the country or more distant from the country, is still full of uncertainty.
The difficulties of Hong Kong go beyond all kinds of superficial observations and judgments, and need more than just criticism and encouragement, but more understanding, support and guidance.
/cloudfront-eu-central-1.images.arcpublishing.com/prisa/3I74UEXLYRBBRPGPSGWNN6WXH4.jpg)
