Get Up
I apologise in advance if my question offends anyone but I feel obliged to ask whether Hong Kong has become a city of wusses. Or, to put it another way, whether we really have to close down most of the town every time there’s a drop or two of rain.
The graduated system we have for rainstorm warnings (amber, red, black) is useful for alerting the community to the likely intensity of rainfall but I really have to query if it is still suitable for purpose as a guide as to whether individuals should go to work, or be expected to do so. Hong Kong has just experienced its fourth black rainstorm in eight days, which is a record, and has resulted in a historic amount of rainfall for the month of August. The question is whether that should be sufficient reason to bring much of normal life to a standstill.
The actual experience of recent days suggests we could be a lot more pragmatic in our approach. Take last week for example. On both Monday and Tuesday I had to travel from Hong Kong Island to the RTHK studio in Broadcast Drive to take part in a radio show. On Monday with a red alert the trip was smooth as traffic was fairly light though there was a bit of a build up in the opposite direction. When the show finished at 10 there was a cloudburst in Kowloon Tong but a taxi soon showed up and conveyed us to the MTR station nearby. The train service to Admiralty was operating normally.
On Tuesday there was a black signal and almost no road traffic in either direction. Another cloudburst at the end of the show, but the minibus and train soon did the trick. So on both days I got a bit wet, but surely that is to be expected when it rains.
Putting personal experience aside there were a number of common features on both days which raise wider questions. Public transport – trains, buses, minibuses, taxis -- continued to operate smoothly. The emergency services – police, fire, ambulance -- were much in evidence. Doctors and nurses continued to minister to the sick, the standby gangs to clear blocked drainage channels or rope off blocked roads and footpaths until full clearance could be arranged, were also on the alert.
All this was to be expected but it was by no means a complete picture: convenience stores were open, as were various food outlets, newspapers were being delivered normally, some fitness studios were open, other aspects of daily life ticked along.
So as I sat alone in the office reading the newspapers and eating my McDonald’s hamburger I asked myself who was missing. The answer was clear: it was mainly office workers. If it was safe for the men and women who drive our buses to show up for work, why were all the people who would normally occupy the seats on those buses not there.
If it is OK for the Seven Eleven and Circle K to be open, why not the government offices or the banks? I feel bound to ask whether there is some kind of differentiation on class lines which makes it acceptable for some people to get rained on while other precious types must at all costs be kept dry.
Nobody is suggesting that large swathes of the population should be putting themselves in harm’s way. Some areas get flooded during heavy rains and everyone should avoid them. But just because Hill Road has turned into a waterfall is not sufficient reason to close down the whole of Hong Kong Island. Moreover with all the advances in Artificial Intelligence, the question is bound to be asked whether we can differentiate better between different geographic areas. It might be safe to go to Shaukiwan when Taipo is out of the question.
Similar considerations also apply to our system of typhoon signals. What is applicable to ships at sea or those working in construction or agriculture will not always be appropriate for those working inside robust buildings in sheltered areas.
It would be easy, and tempting, to shrug off recent events and just go back to business as usual. But climate change is only in its early stages and much greater impacts are on the way. Whether rainstorms and typhoons will become more severe, or more frequent, or both will become clear with the passage of time and we will have to cope. An important priority will be to minimise adverse effects on the economy. How much loss of working time per year are we prepared to tolerate. Two weeks? Three? A month?
In the process we must look into whether it is necessary, or desirable, to treat people differently other than for compelling practical reasons. We are in the process of eliminating the difference between white collar and blue collar work in the context of eligibility to enjoy public holidays. This is a sensible social objective. It would be foolish, and against the spirit of the times, to pursue the opposite policy with respect to the need to report for duty during inclement weather.
There may be legal consequences if staff have the right, by statute or contract, to decline to work in some circumstances. There may be consequences for third party insurance. These will need to be dealt with. In practice most people will look to the example set by the government.
Since a significant number of the workforce must turn out regardless, the interests of equality require that we take a hard look at those who up to now have enjoyed exemption. They may have to get their feet wet.