Since the outbreak of the fifth wave of the epidemic, more than 1.12 million people have been infected, and more than 7,200 people have died. Nearly 70% of the deceased were not vaccinated at all, and more than half came from more than 90% of elderly and disabled institutions in Hong Kong.
The SAR government undoubtedly bears the greatest responsibility for these casualties. Recently, there have been voices urging the authorities to set up an independent review committee after the epidemic has stabilized. Chief Executive Carrie Lam and Secretary for Labour and Welfare Law Chi-kwong are also open to this; however, they seem Only the focus of the "review" is on the level of epidemic prevention policies, and there is no mention of how to hold responsible officials accountable.
With reference to the Mainland, where accountability is "fast, ruthless and accurate", as early as 2003 in the late stage of the SARS epidemic, the "Regulations on Emergency Response to Public Health Emergencies" were promulgated. Officials responsible for dereliction of duty will be demoted, dismissed, fired, or even investigated for criminal responsibility according to law.
The SAR government undoubtedly bears the greatest responsibility for the casualties of the epidemic.
(Photo by O Jiale)
China punishes 60 officials in new wave of epidemic
As of March 28, the cumulative number of positive cases in Hong Kong's fifth wave of the epidemic exceeded 1.12 million, of which 7,207 died.
Residential care homes for the elderly and the disabled are the "hardest-hit areas". 784 residential care homes for the elderly and 285 residential care homes for the disabled experienced varying degrees of outbreaks, resulting in 3,856 residents dying of the disease.
In the face of serious casualties, Carrie Lam was asked about the post-epidemic investigation at the press conference for several days. She said that it is worth setting up a review committee for the epidemic, but now it should focus on fighting the epidemic. I believe the next government will handle it. She is also willing to cooperate with the experience of the person in charge of the epidemic.
Luo Zhiguang also admitted that the responsibility for the outbreak of the epidemic in residential homes lies with the Labor and Welfare Bureau. For example, the problems of ventilation, ventilation and manpower shortages could not be solved immediately. He also revealed that in the future, an inter-departmental working group will be set up to review and strengthen the anti-epidemic in residential homes. ability to prepare for the next wave of the epidemic.
However, neither the review committee proposed by Carrie Lam nor the inter-departmental working group to be set up by Luo Zhiguang has yet to fully hold the relevant officials accountable for the reasons for the wrong decision-making in epidemic prevention.
As we all know, compared with other developed economies of the same level, the mortality rate in Hong Kong is relatively high, which is absolutely inseparable from the decision-making mistakes of the responsible officials and the inefficiency of the executive department. Apart from Xu Yingwei, the former Secretary of Home Affairs who resigned due to political turmoil, the epidemic prevention officials who have clearly performed poorly so far have still not taken the initiative to take responsibility.
In contrast to the accountability situation in the Mainland, according to statistics from the Health Times under the People’s Daily, since February this year, with the outbreak of a new wave of epidemics, some local epidemics have exposed weaknesses and loopholes in the normalized epidemic prevention and control work. As many as 60 people were held accountable and punished due to problems such as ineffective performance of their duties and dereliction of duty, and many local officials were dismissed, such as Huang Shouying, member of the Party Committee and Deputy Director of the Guangdong Provincial Public Security Department, Wang Lu, Mayor of Jilin, and Weijian of Changchun City. Committee director Gao Yutang and so on.
Recently, since the outbreak of the epidemic in February in the mainland, 60 officials have been held accountable, and officials in many places have been dismissed.
The picture shows Huang Shouying, a member of the party committee and deputy director of the Guangdong Provincial Public Security Department, who was removed from office.
(Duanzhou District Government Website)
dereliction of duty or criminal responsibility
The fast and accurate "accountability" in the Mainland relies on a set of legal accountability mechanisms that have been established for a long time.
Taking the accountability of this epidemic as an example, the basis for its laws and powers comes from Chapter 5 "Legal Liability" of the Regulations on Emergency Response to Public Health Emergencies passed in 2003. For example, Article 48 stipulates The competent health administrative department of the people's government at the next level and other relevant departments are negligent, negligent, or derelict in their duties in the investigation, control, and medical treatment of emergencies, or even refuse to perform their emergency response duties, and they will face the consequences of the people's government at the same level or the people's government at a higher level. Departments order corrections, report criticisms, and give warnings; give administrative sanctions of demotion or dismissal to the main responsible person, responsible supervisors, and other responsible personnel in accordance with the law; cause the spread and prevalence of infectious diseases or cause other serious harm to public health. If a crime is constituted, criminal responsibility shall be investigated according to law.
In addition, Article 24 of the Regulations on Emergency Response to Public Health Emergencies also stipulates a "reporting system", which empowers any unit and individual to report to the people's government at a higher level and its relevant departments to report the local people's government and its relevant departments for non-compliance with emergencies Responsibilities for emergency handling of incidents, or failure to perform duties in accordance with regulations; those who report meritorious deeds will be rewarded.
It can be said that the above-mentioned reporting and punishment mechanism supervises government departments in various aspects in handling public health incidents such as epidemic prevention, and imposes political and even criminal sanctions to varying degrees on officials who are "derelict in their duties." In contrast, the SAR government Officials are like "no kings", because the design of the "accountability system for key officials" is a "voluntary accountability mechanism" - neither a culture of accountability that truly takes responsibility for the main body, nor an effective system for accountability and tools.
Law Chi-kwong, Secretary for Labour and Welfare, pointed out that at the press conference on March 26, he admitted that the responsibility for handling residential care homes for the elderly must lie with the Labour and Welfare Bureau. Insufficient, there is still not enough manpower and time to solve it.
(file picture)
Hong Kong lacks effective accountability tools
The "Misconduct in Public Officials" under the Criminal Procedure Ordinance is an offence against all public officials' misconduct, such as willful neglect of duty, abuse of public power or failure to perform their duties. Upon conviction, the offence is punishable by a fine and imprisonment of up to seven years year.
However, the threshold for criminalization is too high. The premise is that officials deliberately violate the law and have no reasonable explanation. Therefore, there have only been 3 successful convictions in the past, which shows that this is not an effective tool to hold key officials accountable.
The Code for Officials of the Political Appointment System is used to regulate the basic principles (table) that key officials must abide by when performing their duties, such as being responsible for the success or failure of policies, but it stipulates that any officials suspected of violating their duties or the provisions of the Code shall be It is up to the chief executive to decide whether to initiate the investigation process, and whether punishments including warnings, reprimands, suspensions or dismissals will be taken - in other words, as long as the relevant officials are unwilling to take the initiative to be held accountable and the chief executive does not hold them accountable, the accountability will be over. .
In fact, in the nearly 25 years since the return, only five officials have taken the initiative to be held accountable and resigned.
The Legislative Council (Powers and Privileges) Ordinance and the Board of Inquiry Ordinance are two other statutes that may hold officials accountable, both of which empower members of the Legislative Council and Board of Inquiry to call witnesses, issue search warrants, etc. Substantive investigative powers.
However, even if the report points to officials failing their duties, accountability still depends on the wishes of the officials and the chief executive.
(Hong Kong 01 cartography)
Don't Let "Committee Formation" Become a Trick
Take the report of the Legislative Council's 2003 committee investigating the handling of SARS by the Government and the Hospital Authority as an example. The report pointed out that the then Secretary for Health, Welfare and Food, Yang Wing-keung, "wasn't vigilant" and "did not show that he met the expectations of the public as the Secretary for Policy." All due communication skills", as the official in charge of health affairs needs to take responsibility, and finally Yang Yongqiang resigned on his own.
However, not all officials have this kind of commitment. For example, in 2015, some public housing estates, HOS housing, private housing estates, hospitals and educational institutions were found to have excessive heavy metals in drinking water (lead water incident), and the lead in drinking water exceeded the standard in the following year. The Commission of Inquiry issued a report reflecting major problems such as the failure of the law to keep pace with the times, the serious gap in implementation, the oversight of the regulatory system, and the lack of vigilance of risk management by the bearers, but no official should be held personally responsible. The Chief Secretary for Administration, Carrie Lam Cheng Yuet-ngor, further stated that the Hong Kong government has been actively reviewing the system, which can be said to reflect the spirit of the problem. No wonder some people doubt that the SAR government has long regarded the "establishment of committees" as a trick to deal with the call for "accountability".
It is necessary for the SAR government to strengthen the responsibility and commitment of officials in governance, and comprehensively review who is responsible for the epidemic prevention measures and serious policy mistakes. It is undoubtedly necessary to improve the entire accountability mechanism for the above-mentioned loopholes.
Of course, when the government reshapes the culture of accountability, it must understand that the essence of accountability is to find out the reasons for mistakes, learn from them, and make improvements. Therefore, stepping down is only a form of accountability, and it should be realistic and give different degrees of punishment, but for the sake of Calm down public opinion and step down.
Otherwise, this will only make the society's perception of accountability superficial, or even make officials bound by "accountability" and continue to be mediocre officials who do less and make fewer mistakes.
