Which of these anti-pandemic measures are truly
anti-pandemic (as opposed to community controlling) measures?
Today was the first day that the barring of app-less Hong Kongers from entering government buildings went into effect. And despite pleas for leniency from such as the Hong Kong Council of Social Service with regards to those without smartphones and/or unfamiliar with using them and some assurances that "some flexibility" would be exercised at such as hospitals, things pretty much went as badly as many of us expected.
Early in the day came the shock news that the police had arrested five people at Immigration Tower in Wan Chai for allegedly flouting the new rule
that requires the mandatory use of the government's "LeaveHomeSafe" app when
entering government premises -- and that the five individuals concerned consisted of two immigration officers and one member of staff at the Audit Commission along with two contractors. Seriously now: when even government officers don't want to use the app, it says so much about the high degree and amount of mistrust there is for, at the very least, that tracking app and, probably, actually, for the government as a whole!
Then, over the course of the day, reports came of many people having difficulty using the app and the difficulties that using the app was causing people at such as government-run wet markets (where long lines formed at entry points), libraries (where some people, upon realizing that they needed to use the app to get in, opted to not enter the facilities) and post offices (where people without smart phones were turned away). In addition, there were reports about the new ruling having sparked a run on the cheaper smartphone models -- but I knew that already from personal experience: since when I went out looking for precisely that last week, pretty much every store I went to said they no longer had any smartphones that cost under HK$1,000 (~US$129) in stock; and the friend who has looked online to try to buy a "cheap" smartphone for me has met with no success after one week of searching!
Also, this afternoon, what a number of people feared would happen came true: a man who clearly was in need of medical care -- and had been transported over in an ambulance -- was denied entry to a hospital until he scanned the LeaveHomeSafe QR code (and yes, there are pictures to prove it!). This prompted one member of the Hong Kong Twitterverse to declare in big caps: "I'M CALLING IT THIS APP IS GOING TO BE THE DEATH OF SOMEONE LITERALLY BECAUSE SOMEONE CANNOT RECEIVE TIMELY CARE AND THE HK GOV IS EVERY BIT RESPONSIBLE FOR IT" A health professional, he then proceeded to explain the following: "Oh also [before] someone [is] dumb enough to say "he is conscious why are you mad"[:] Some conditions can literally present as "talk then die". See: epidural hematoma".
So yeah, I think it's safe (no pun intended!) to declare that many people are feeling very (especially?) upset in Hong Kong today. Yet, instead of reading the room and dialing things back, the powers that be have come with further suggestions with regards to this controversial government tracking app that gets the blood boiling even while sending chills down spines. I refer here to Dr Ho Pak-leung -- a highly respected health expert before he backed down after being among the scientists rebuked by Carrie Lam for being critical of government measures that ostensibly were intended to combat the coronavirus -- having suggested that supermarkets and malls will be the next venues to adopt mandatory LeaveHomeSafe rules and pro-Beijing politician Michael Tien stating that he expects diners will be forced to use this government app when they visit type B restaurants later this month (rather than have the option to not do so, as is currently the case).
Even before all this, many people here had were harboring suspicions "that the coronavirus is being used to keep the
population down after democracy protests two years ago and a subsequent
crackdown on dissent." (How can one not have them when there are gross inconsistencies in policy such that "At present, 240 people can attend an indoor wedding banquet but more
than four people eating sandwiches together in a park remains banned"?) But the latest actions and statements truly add fuel to them.
Speaking of latest actions and statements: the Beijing-backed Wen Wei Po has an editorial out today stating that the Hong Kong government should stop people buying phones as burner phones on which to install the LeaveHomeSafe app! As Ilaria Maria Sala was moved to comment, "the purpose of the app is to be on our phone? Not health? wenweipo you confuse us - or make things too clear"!
Incidentally, the Hong Kong-based Italian writer has a piece in the Hong Kong Free Press that addresses the question: "Are Hong Kong's ever-tightening Covid-19 rules keeping people safe or stressing them out?" No prizes for guessing what her answer is, especially after reading such as these two paragraphs from it:
It is not possible to learn much about the [government's] rationale for these decisions. Even if journalists ask questions the answers seem to be a reiteration of what is happening rather than an explanation. So we cannot know if the growing reliance on the app is the result of a clear request from mainland authorities to allow for the reopening of the border. We do know that the Hong Kong government is keen on reopening that particular border, while the other borders do not matter nearly as much to it – so once again we can only speculate.
The impact which the app has on people’s privacy, however, is troubling. Must the government know when anyone in the population has gone to the wet market or the pool? And why? Why can’t we share this information just with the facilities’ operators, if we so wish?
For the record: Today is the 24th day in a row that Hong Kong has not had a local transmission of the Wuhan coronavirus. You'd think this would be a time to loosen anti-pandemic measures rather than tighten them. But that's not how the Hong Kong government works, alas!
No comments:
Post a Comment