In many parts of the world, some of the most fundamental concepts in law seem suddenly to be forgotten by many. While people can enjoy certain rights granted to them by law, these rights are not absolute; there are always limitations to these rights, also defined by law.
These limitations can be permanent, or temporary such as in times of crisis or war, for example. Most people do not live on an island by themselves, so for society to function in a harmonious manner, rights can only be exercised within certain defined parameters. The common good prevails over individual rights. For example, while most people accept that they enjoy the right of free movement, they do not always realize that they are perfectly fine with the free movement of criminals being suspended when they are sentenced to prison. It is generally accepted that society is safer when violent criminals are locked behind bars, unable to perpetuate more crimes, and hopefully learn from their mistakes.
That the limitations of defined rights are continuously being tested, challenged in court is evident in the United States, where the “right to bear arms” is enshrined in the Constitution, but the efforts to build sensible parameters around this are extremely challenging. Despite 239 mass shootings this year to date, resulting in more than 18,120 deaths from gun-related violence, according to the nonprofit Gun Violence Archive, which tracks shootings in the US, there is significant movement against trying to limit or control the “right to bear arms”. For many non-American observers, it is difficult to fathom that a right resulting in so many tragedies should remain limitless, that the rights of a murderer prevail over the common good.
The government also needs a more efficient information campaign to tackle persistent rumors about the dangers of the vaccinations, and the ongoing rumors of deaths being incorrectly linked to vaccinations
Without a doubt, the COVID-19 pandemic can be defined as a once-in-a-lifetime global crisis. To date, more than 3.5 million people have died as a result of this virus. Surely everyone can understand that governments need to take extraordinary measures to protect their populations against this ravaging viral attack. Apart from the lost lives and the millions who have taken ill, the economic toll is extremely high, not to mention the mental suffering of many who have lost loved ones or been separated from family and friends for long periods.
And yet in the Netherlands, on the annual World War II Liberation Day celebrations on May 5, one of the smaller opposition parties had the temerity to release a poster scandalously suggesting that the liberation from German occupation from 1945 had ended in 2020. Not because Germany had once more occupied the country, but rather because in 2020, the government had come up with regulations regarding the mandatory wearing of face masks in public transport, and had imposed a partial lockdown. According to the supporters of this political party, and others, this was the beginning of the end: an erosion of personal freedoms. The whole idea of the common good and the obvious objective of getting the pandemic under control was completely ignored. Being selfless to protect the tireless front-line medical staff, or those who are the most vulnerable due to age or sickness, is a concept that is obviously challenging for these people to comprehend. The correct word to describe this is “egocentrism”.
Of course, everyone in the world wants the pandemic to end and for life to return to normal. Sadly, not everyone can agree or understand that for this to happen, people need to be self-disciplined, strong, and accept that the tripartite solution of vaccination, wearing masks when with other people, and social distancing is the only way to achieve this. Communicating with colleagues and friends in Beijing and Shanghai shows me what is possible: Life in these cities has pretty much returned to normal. Ignoring the obvious solution results in tragedy, as the horrific and very sad situation in India demonstrates.
Hong Kong is also on the right track, were it not that our vaccination rate is outrageously low. And this, even though the government and medical infrastructure have done a fantastic job. We are among the few places in the world where the process of registering for the shots is incredibly efficient and free, where one has a choice of two different vaccines, and where there is always a vaccination location nearby. The government has acquired enough vaccines for all adults, and yet due to the expiry dates, some of these might go to waste. This is unacceptable and must be prevented at all costs.
The earlier proposal to make vaccination mandatory for domestic helpers starting new contracts was the right one. Our essential and beloved domestic helpers are the oil that makes our society function smoothly, and they take care of our most vulnerable: children and the elderly. It is an obvious place to start, and the faux cries of this being discriminatory come from those who once again do not look at the overall common good. That the government subsequently backed down is unfortunate. Hong Kong has navigated the pandemic very well, but the fight is not over yet. We need to finish the job and accept that the common good must prevail.
Vaccinations should be made mandatory not only for domestic helpers but for medical staff, airport staff, civil servants and public transport operators; in other words, all those who perform invaluable services to keep our society running smoothly. And with the completed vaccinations should come rewards: Not only making it easier to travel by ensuring foreign governments recognize our vaccination proof, but the government could use out-of-the-box thinking and, for example, offer a one-off tax deduction to all who have been fully vaccinated. The government also needs a more efficient information campaign to tackle persistent rumors about the dangers of the vaccinations, and the ongoing rumors of deaths being incorrectly linked to vaccinations.
We have come so far; we can see the light at the end of the tunnel. Let’s finish the task at hand.
The author is a specialist in international public law, and an adviser on China-related matters to the private and public sectors. He has lived in Hong Kong for over 18 years.
The views do not necessarily reflect those of China Daily.