Covid-19 Inquiry Welcome, but with Caveats

Many agree to an inquiry, but after the pandemic is over

After infectious diseases expert Yuen Kwok-yung pitched the idea of an independent inquiry into the Hong Kong government's handling of the Covid-19 pandemic, others are putting in their two bits as well.

Fellow experts David Hui Shu-cheong and Leung Chi-chiu agreed, but said the inquiry should start later.

Meanwhile professor Lau Yu-lung in the University of Hong Kong Paediatrics agrees in principle, and adds the inquiry should be headed by a judge and that it should start after the World Health Organisation declares the pandemic over.

Hui says inquiry should start later, not now

However, Executive Council convenor and chairperson of the New People's Party Regina Ip Lau Suk-yee threw in her opinion and as expected, she had many caveats. 

She did not like the idea of independent judges heading the inquiry because they are not policy experts, but isn't that the point?

Ip also said the inquiry should be held after the WHO declares the pandemic over, as there are still new variants. But as they are not as life-threatening as the original Covid-19, there is an argument to have it sooner rather than later.

Nevertheless, she did acknowledge there was a lack of support for infected patients at the peak of the crisis last year, saying the review should look into how to better mobilise social resources and how to maintain medical services when handling a large number of infected residents.

In addition Ip suggested looking into ways to make good use of technology and mobilise civil servants in handling major crises -- isn't that what they did in the latter half, when there was not enough manpower for essential services? 

Ip says officials should not be targeted

But perhaps most importantly, she stressed the inquiry should not target government officials who she says worked hard over the past three years.

"Everyone was handling it hand learning along the way, as well as optimising measures. We should not hold anyone accountable for everything, but should instead look for shortcomings and optimise procedures," she said.

While a blame game is not productive, an inquiry needs to uncover what happened and why, and how to make things better in the future.

But in some cases, there were things the health experts suggested and the government did not take the advice, or processes were completely mismanaged or incompetent. The design of the LeaveHomeSafe app comes to mind... 

Most would agree the community vaccination clinics were well organised, but did the government do enough to encourage people, particularly the elderly to get jabbed? Why did the authorities not clamp down on mis- and disinformation on vaccines and how many vials of vaccines were wasted? 

Taxpayers deserve to know what happened, and an inquiry -- if it ever happens -- is a good place to start. But caveats aren't very helpful when the government lacks integrity and transparency...