With the relaxation of the "quarantine order" and Hong Kong entering the "post-epidemic period", Yuan Guoyong, a government expert consultant and chair professor of the Department of Microbiology at the University of Hong Kong, suggested to follow the example after the end of the "SARS" epidemic in 2003 and establish an independent The investigation committee will conduct a comprehensive review of the Hong Kong government's anti-epidemic performance.
However, after three members of the Executive Council expressed their opposition, yesterday (January 31) Chief Executive Lee Ka-chao also made it clear that he did not agree to the establishment of an independent investigation.
In fact, the previous government was clearly open to the investigation of the epidemic, but the current government neither intends to find out the deficiencies, nor does it intend to hold officials responsible for dereliction of duty.
However, the fifth wave of the epidemic has claimed 15,000 lives, can it really just let it go?
The new crown epidemic has been raging for three years, and the dawn is finally here.
As of January 30 this year, Hong Kong has experienced five waves of COVID-19 infections, causing a total of 2.87 million infections and killing 13,300 people.
(Photo by Liao Yanxiong)
Government rejects independent inquiry, claims
problem solved
The new crown epidemic has been raging for three years, and the dawn is finally here.
As of January 30, the five waves of the epidemic have caused a total of 2.87 million infections and 13,000 deaths. The SAR government, which has been repeatedly criticized for improper epidemic prevention, is duty-bound.
On a radio program last Thursday (January 26), Yuan Guoyong, a government expert consultant, suggested that the government follow the practice of setting up an independent investigation committee during SARS to comprehensively review various policies on case tracking, isolation facilities, virus testing, and epidemic prevention in institutions , "Preparing for the next pandemic can be done better." The proposal was supported by many industry insiders, including Xu Shuchang and Liu Yulong, who are also government expert consultants, and the Center for Bioethics of CUHK, who was once the quality and safety director of the Hospital Authority. Most of them emphasized that the focus of the "committee's" review is not to pursue responsibility, but to review the epidemic prevention policy, medical system and related systems in an all-round way.
It is only natural to sum up experience from the painful epidemic prevention.
However, the convener of the Executive Council, Ye Liu Shuyi, members Chen Qingxia and Lin Jianfeng, turned out to oppose it one after another, saying that now is not the time for review, "will disperse and weaken the overall force of prevention and control", "review alone cannot do a good job of prevention and control", and the practice "was a waste of people and money" ".
Ye Liushuyi even mentioned the "committee" that investigated the MTR Shatin to Central Line project that lasted three years. Disagree with the establishment of an "investigation committee": firstly, the epidemic has entered a new stage of normalization, and secondly, the current government has continuously summed up experience and changed the way of command and coordination. In the principle of "decision-making must be quick, execution must be accurate, and implementation must be results-oriented" It is more effective than the "committee" to improve the resilience and increase the safety factor.
Obviously, Li Jiachao and others regard the "committee" as useless and ineffective, and believe that the current government already knows the problem and has made improvements.
However, as many experts have said, the role of the "committee" is not limited to summing up experience, but also to comprehensively examine different policies and systems, and to investigate who is responsible for serious mistakes, and to give justice to the deceased.
Chief Executive Lee Ka-chao met with reporters before the Executive Council meeting on January 31, and made it clear that he disagreed with the establishment of a "committee".
(Photo by Zhang Haowei)
Comprehensive review to improve
, hold accountable and return justice
Take SARS in 2003 as an example. At that time, before the World Health Organization announced the end of the pandemic in July, the SAR government took the lead in setting up the "Expert Committee on Severe Acute Respiratory Syndrome" in May. In addition to reviewing the action mechanism and contingency plan, it also evaluates the anti-epidemic work of the government, health agencies and hospital management from multiple levels of public health, disease control, control mechanism, and system design.
The committee finally recommended 46 important measures such as establishing a health protection center, strengthening epidemic surveillance and training of medical staff, and working closely with the mainland and the international community, all of which were accepted and implemented by the Hong Kong government, enabling Hong Kong to effectively fight against other epidemics besides the new crown.
Reviewing the details of the fight against the epidemic is one of the functions of the "committee".
In the face of the COVID-19 epidemic, the SAR government’s ability to adapt and mobilize is worrying, and the current government has indeed made efforts to improve it since it took office.
However, is this improvement really comprehensive?
Is it enough to deal with the urgent public crisis in the future?
Take the elderly care homes that have unfortunately become the "hardest-hit areas" of infection and death as an example. Isn't there a need for a comprehensive review of the epidemic prevention measures, the living environment of the care homes and the epidemic arrangement?
Problems such as water draining in some buildings and the risk of transmission in the exhaust structure, don’t they impair the city’s ability to fight the epidemic in a chain?
Another important function of the "committee" is to find out who is responsible for serious policy mistakes.
As we all know, compared with other developed economies of the same level, the death rate in Hong Kong is relatively high. Apart from Xu Yingwei, the former director of the Civil Affairs Bureau who resigned due to political turmoil, the anti-epidemic officials who have performed quite poorly so far have not yet taken the initiative to take responsibility.
In contrast to the situation of accountability in the Mainland, according to the statistics of the "Health Times" under the "People's Daily", during the period from February to March last year, the epidemic situation in some places exposed the shortcomings of the normalized epidemic prevention and control work. , dereliction of duty and other issues, as many as 60 people were held accountable and punished, 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, Gao Yutang, Director of the Changchun Health and Health Commission, etc. Wait.
During the epidemic in the Mainland from February to March last year, 60 officials were held accountable, and officials from many places were dismissed.
The picture shows Huang Shouying, a member of the Party Committee and Deputy Director of the Guangdong Provincial Public Security Department, was dismissed.
(Duanzhou District Government website)
Independence can't go through the
motions
In order to effectively implement the accountability and accountability mechanism, after experiencing the "SARS" epidemic in 2003, the mainland has passed the "Regulations on Emergency Response to Public Health Emergencies", which stipulates that in the investigation, control, and medical treatment of emergencies, negligence of duty, Officials responsible for dereliction of duty or dereliction of duty will be demoted, dismissed, fired, or even held criminally accountable.
Chapter V "Legal Responsibilities" stipulates that those who cause the spread and prevalence of infectious diseases or cause other serious harm to public health shall be given an administrative sanction of expulsion according to law; if a crime is constituted, criminal responsibility shall be investigated according to law.
Article 24 "Reporting System" empowers any unit or individual to report to the higher-level people's government and its relevant departments that the local people's government and its relevant departments fail to perform their emergency response duties, or fail to perform their duties in accordance with regulations; will be rewarded.
In contrast to Hong Kong, the accountability system is useless, and the "independent investigation" is just a formality. No wonder the citizens forget it.
In 2018, there were serious construction quality problems such as shortened steel bars, excessive settlement of adjacent buildings, and errors in the construction structure of the "Sand to Central Line". Although the authorities set up a "committee" to investigate the incident, they also asked 5 MTR managers to resign. Among them, Leung Kwok-kuen, the CEO Early resignation, engineering director Huang Weiming resigned, as for the three general manager-level employees in charge of related projects of the SCL, they were "fired"; but until now, no one has been charged for this, and the general contractor Leighton has also been Reinstate bid eligibility.
In 2015, some public housing estates, HOS flats, private housing estates, hospitals and educational institutions were found to contain excessive heavy metals in drinking water (lead water incident). The system is like talking on paper, and the vigilance of the various costumes is insufficient for risk management, but there is no official who needs to take personal responsibility - then Chief Secretary for Administration Carrie Lam Cheng Yuet-ngor also stated that the Hong Kong government has actively reviewed the system, which can be said to reflect the spirit of accountability ——No wonder some people questioned that the government has taken the "establishment of a committee" as a ploy to deal with calls for "accountability".
Former Chief Executive Carrie Lam Cheng Yuet-ngor said in March last year that it was worth setting up a review committee for the epidemic, and if the next government sets up a committee to consult her experience as the person in charge of the fight against the epidemic, she would be willing to cooperate.
The then Secretary of the Labor and Welfare Bureau, Law Chi-kwong, also admitted that the Bureau of Labor and Welfare was responsible for the outbreak in institutions, such as failing to solve the problems of ventilation, air exchange and manpower shortage in a timely manner; he also revealed at the time that an interdepartmental working group would be set up in the future. Review and strengthen the anti-epidemic capabilities of institutions.
Perhaps, the government has changed and the officials involved have left their posts, but this is not a "gold medal of immunity", and misbehavior during the reign should be punished.
Regarding the epidemic involving 2.87 million people infected and causing 13,000 deaths, is there really no need for investigation and accountability?
The former MTR chief executive Leung Kwok-kuen (middle) involved is now an independent non-executive director of Link. Huang Weiming, the former engineering director of MTR, later served as a non-executive director (now resigned) of Asia United Infrastructure under the Junhe Department.
(File photo/photo by Luo Junhao)