What’s free is the most expensive | Lee Yee
Last week, Carrie Lam announced that the Central government will support Hong Kong’s fight against the epidemic in several large initiatives, including universal screening, earmarking AsiaWorld Expo as a holding treatment facility, and the construction of the makeshift hospitals, all cost to be borne by the Central government.
Such “good deeds”, shouldn’t society respond with great enthusiasm? But according to Carrie Lam, there are voices in society trying to divide the public and the government, “Every time (the government) does something, it will be discredited by some people with conspiracy theories,” and asked the media to “join (the government) in the call on citizens to participate in testing.”
Distorting facts is what discrediting means, but some facts cannot be denied, for example:
● Nationally-approved testing personnel have been exempted by the government from the requirement to register for medical laboratory work in Hong Kong. China’s BGI (formerly Beijing Genomics Institute) will process the samples from the citywide screening. Its chemists are not registered in Hong Kong.
● BGI is a listed company in Shenzhen responsible for collecting and analyzing the “national gene bank”.
● In July 2020, two companies under BGI Group were included in the sanctions list by the U.S. Department of Commerce for “suspicion of forced collection of DNA of Uyghurs and other Muslim minorities for research in order to suppress Uyghurs.”
● On Aug. 14, a multinational biotechnology company filed a lawsuit with the High Court against BGI, accusing it of infringing upon a gene sequencing kit patent. GBI’s trustworthiness is in line with the level of many other Chinese companies.
● Some medical professionals believe that under the current condition of border and market non-closure, doing universal screening alone is not helpful. The public’s acceptance of testing increases the risks.
Faced with these facts, it’s evident to the public how many will be tested voluntarily. Moreover, the effectiveness of screening has been questioned by regions who’ve successfully stopped the spread of the virus, including Taiwan.
Because of China’s support, Hong Kong is not paying. As such, Carrie Lam and her cabinet have relentlessly professed their gratitude towards the Central government.
Japanese writer Isaka Kotaro said, “Nothing is more expensive than free.” A few years ago, Chinese entrepreneur Jack Ma also repeated the same thing, “free is the most expensive.” Why the most expensive? Because the price you pay is time, privacy, health, freedom, these seemingly intangible things, our most precious wealth. From the collected samples, a chemist can obtain one’s DNA, some very sensitive and personal privacy information.
We would rather pay for what we need, rather than the free things given. If the three anti-epidemic initiatives were paid for by the government, it will be necessary to get LegCo to approve the funds. In the process, at least the government and BGI or other institutions must go through negotiations that must be disclosed, rather than operating within a black box. If the three initiatives were to invite bids from Western countries, there will not be viral conspiracy theories or “smearing” remarks on social media.
The Carrie Lam regime has been accusing the United States and other Western countries of adopting “double standards” for Hong Kong in recent years. For example, the US police force also used violence against the protesters, many countries have national security laws, and other countries have postponed elections, etc., why only criticize and sanction Hong Kong?
Regarding the behaviors of people, society, and countries, we should adopt the same standards for judging and commenting, but the premise is that the other party is a person, society, and country with certain standards. We respect people from anywhere, but that does not equate respecting people who have no standards in words or deeds, and do not respect themselves. Many countries have national security laws, but behind which most countries have legislative procedures that are fully authorized by public opinion, and are restricted by the judiciary and independent media and public opinions. How is a national security law with absolute powers without checks and balance comparable to those in these other countries? Many countries allow a certain degree of police violence on protesters, but there are other mechanisms to restrict them, such that improper police violence will be followed by legal consequences.
Under autocracy, power is the single most almighty thing, accompanied by no “standards” whatsoever, whether professionally, or behaviorally of those in power and their people. Autocracy does not comply with universal standards. The standards used on those people and regimes with standards cannot be adopted on those people and regimes that do not. Facing those without standards, the natural human instinct is distrust.
