The ongoing fight against the novel coronavirus (COVID-19) has shown the vital (quite literally) importance of collective human rights when regions and countries are facing emergency situations, public health crises in particular.
Ideally, individual and collective human rights complement each other harmoniously. Realistically, there is a certain tension between both – especially when disasters strike such as the current COVID-19 epidemic. Ultimately, it always depends on the conditions on the ground and the need to get down to the truth to tackle the task at hand, a situation so well described as “verità effettuale della cosa” (“the actual truth of the things”) by Niccolò Machiavelli, arguably the first modern political scientist.
I am quite sure that the ultrarealistic philosopher from Florence would fully agree with the Italian government’s drastic move at the weekend to put much of the Mediterranean nation’s north on lockdown to get a grip on the highly infectious and potentially deadly virus. Finally, the West is learning from China – better late than never.
Locking down a whole region such as large swathes of Italy’s north or Hubei province (interestingly enough, both Italy and Hubei have a population of about 60 million each) shows that when a public health emergency is threatening not just a number of individuals but whole communities or even entire countries, collective human rights are brought into play to cope with the crisis.
In Macau this was the case when the local government took the unprecedented decision to close not only all local casinos but also all other kinds of entertainment businesses for a period of time in its effort to stem the virus from spreading. It was the right move at the right time. Macau’s last two COVID-19 cases were confirmed over a month ago and all its 10 novel coronavirus patients have meanwhile been discharged from hospital. In the fight against the virus, Macau has become a shining example – globally!
Hong Kong should have followed Macau’s example. Unfortunately, it chose not to. The result: 114 confirmed cases with three fatalities – and an embarrassing dearth of facemasks.
For instance, cinemas, bars and other entertainment venues have stayed open through the viral menace in Hong Kong, apparently because of some people’s rather warped view that the leisure businesses’ government-ordered temporary shutdown would have violated individuals’ human right to relax. Well, what about the collective human right to be protected by the state against an epidemic first and the individual human right to wind down safely thereafter? In an emergency like the current COVID-19 epidemic, it’s a simple matter of priority, isn’t it? Of course, I don’t mean to disparage individuals’ right to rest and leisure recognised in Article 24 of the Universal Declaration of Human Rights, but it always depends on the specific circumstances.
In Macau, I have been told that some members of the legal fraternity wonder whether subjecting travellers to a medical examination of up to eight hours without a court order could be a violation of individual human rights. Well, as far as I know, travellers are anyhow given the choice to refuse the examination and, consequently, choose to not enter Macau. It’s up to them. The crux of the problem is that there are travellers who try to outsmart the authorities by popping antipyretic pills before arriving here, which explains the relatively long examination schedule. That’s why I agree with the measure, even though it’s certainly a time-consuming process for travellers and medical workers alike.
Incidentally, I don’t understand why some of my media colleagues are so keen for the government to reveal in detail how much it spent on the evacuation flight from Hubei and the hospital stays of Macau’s seven COVID-19 patients from Wuhan. Is this really important at this particular juncture? I don’t think so. What’s important right now is that all the non-local patients have been discharged from hospital after successful treatment and also that 57 Macau residents have been brought back safely to Macau (safely for them and, touch wood, for all of us).
After all, local residents’ infectious disease treatments are free of charge, a fact that Macau can take great pride in. There are many other jurisdictions where this is not the case – such as in the US. And as for the Macau government paying the hospital fees of most of the seven patients from Wuhan, well, it should be seen as our city’s way of showing solidarity with novel coronavirus sufferers on a national level.
