香港久困疫城，何时与内地通关仍是未知数，市民心中焦急自不待言。有人等不及了，建议特区政府考虑先与国际通关。该建议的实质是效法欧美等地“与疫共存”，既与香港主流民意相悖，也不切实际，是一场必输的赌局。香港社会应打消有关念想，全力争取早日与内地通关。

　　首先从民意上看，大部分香港人希望先与内地通关。香港虽然是国际大都会，但绝大多数香港人是中国籍，内地是他们的故乡，探亲的需求强烈；内地也是港商主要投资地，需要通关打理生意；香港与内地人员交流最密切，单是广东省就有超过50万香港永久居民。结束两地分居的痛苦是港人最大的心愿。而从大湾区建设、融入国家发展大局的角度看，与内地通关最符合香港利益。

　　其次，香港目前并不具备与国际通关的条件。且不论“与疫共存”的科学与道德风险因素，那些决定“与疫共存”的欧美国家，共同点是疫苗接种率较高，达七成至八成以上，但即便如此，放松抗疫措施后仍导致疫情大幅反弹，死亡人数也掉头回升。香港接种率至今未到七成，如果冒然决定与国际通关，结果必然是确诊及死亡人数急增，医疗资源被挤兑，也会带来巨大经济损失，这是香港社会希望看到的吗？

　　新加坡是最好的例子。该国曾严格实施“清零”政策，确诊和死亡率都很低，因此被视为“抗疫模范生”。该国接种率达83%，也令其政府认为有足够“本钱”与疫共存。不料实际情况十分吓人，自八月份实施与疫共存后，单日确诊人数屡创新高，前日更接近4000人。两个月内，确诊人数逾9万，超过过去一年确诊的总和；平均每日因疫死亡7人，最多的一天死亡14人，而过去一年总死亡人数仅20多人。当局只好再次收紧防疫政策，尽管如此，美国还是将新加坡归入疫情风险最高国家之列。

　　香港与新加坡都是城市经济体，具有一定可比性，在抗疫策略方面各走各路，引起不少人关注。近日有台湾舆论比较香港模式的“一条命都不能少”以及新加坡模式的“不计代价”，认为更应学习香港。可见香港抗疫虽然也有不少漏洞，有待进一步完善，但做得比不少地方都好，被视为相对成功模式，香港没有理由放弃对“清零”的追求，改而效法风险极高的对外国“关门”大开。

　　还须指出的是，如果香港放弃“清零”先与国际通关，那就意味着风险提升、与内地通关的日子将更加遥远，这是香港市民愿意接受的吗？

　　说到底，选择何种抗疫模式与国情、民意有关，都有不同程度的代价，关键是着眼长远还是只顾眼前利益，是以少数人的利益为重还是以香港整体利益为依归。全社会需要看清目标，认准方向，心无旁骛，真正将与内地通关当成头等大事来做，只要满足通关的条件，让内地社会放心，通关将水到渠成。

　　2021-10-21

　　The idea of "opening doors to foreign countries first" must be given up without hesitation

　　Hong Kong is isolated in quarantine for a long period of time, and it remains unknown when its border with the Mainland can be reopened. It goes without saying that Hong Kong residents feel very anxious. Unable to wait any longer, some individuals suggest that the SAR Government consider opening doors to foreign countries first. Such a proposal in essence is equivalent to ask us to follow the example of Europe, the United States and some other places and resort to "coexisting with the epidemic", which not only goes against the main-stream public opinion in the SAR but also is infeasible. Thus it is a wager that is bound to lose. Hong Kong society must give up such thinking and make an all-out effort to strive for re-opening the border with the Mainland as early as possible.　　 　　First of all, in view of the popular will, the majority of Hong Kong residents hope to reopen the border with the Mainland first. Although Hong Kong is an international metropolitan, the overwhelming majority of Hong Kong people are Chinese in nationality. Their hometowns or home-villages are in the Mainland and their aspiration to go back visiting relatives is very strong. The Mainland is also a major investment destination for Hong Kong business people, who need to travel there to take care of their businesses. Personnel exchange between Hong Kong and the Mainland is the most frequent. There are now more than half a million permanent Hong Kong residents living in Guangdong province alone. Hong Kong people's greatest wish is to end the pain of living separately in two places. From the perspective of the Greater Bay Area construction and Hong Kong's integration into the overall situation of national development, reopening the border with the Mainland is in Hong Kong's best interest.

　　Secondly, Hong Kong at present has yet to satisfy the requirements for reopening its doors to foreign countries. Putting aside the scientific and moral risk factors in "coexistence with the epidemic", those European countries and the U.S. which have adopted the policy of "coexistence with the epidemic" have one thing in common, which is that each of them has a high vaccination rate – up to 70-80 per cent. Even so, they still all suffer sharp rebounds of the epidemic situation with death cases increasing again. The vaccination rate in Hong Kong has yet to reach 70 per cent. If we now recklessly decide on opening doors to foreign countries, it will surely result in sharp increase in both confirmed cases of infection and deaths. Then medical resources will be squeezed and the economy suffer huge losses. Is this what Hong Kong society want to see?

　　Singapore provides the best example in this regard. It used to strictly enforce a "zero infection" policy, with both the numbers of confirmed cases and deaths remaining quite low. Because of this the country had been once praised as an "anti-epidemic model". With vaccination rate reaching 83 per cent, Singaporean government then thought it had enough "capital" to coexist with the virus. The reality however turned out to be vary scaring. Since it adopted the policy to coexist with the epidemic in August, the daily number of confirmed cases kept setting new record high, which went up to nearly 4,000 the day before yesterday. And in two months, the accumulated number of confirmed cases already exceeded 90,000, more than the total sum of confirmed cases in the past year. On average, there were seven deaths each day, and in the worst case there were 14 deaths in a single day. By comparison, total deaths in the past year were just a little bit more than 20. Singaporean government now has no choice but to tighten anti-epidemic policy again. In spite of all this, the U.S. still categorises Singapore as one of the highest risk countries.　　

　　Both Hong Kong and Singapore are urban economies, hence they have certain comparability. Yet they take different approaches towards fighting the virus, which attracts much attention. Recently, public opinion in Taiwan has made a comparison of Hong Kong's "every-life-counts" mode with Singapore's "at-all-cost" mode, and concluded that Hong Kong was a better example to follow. From this, it can be said that Hong Kong performs better than many other places in fighting the virus and is seen as relatively successful, despite there are still quite a few loopholes to be plugged. There is no reason for Hong Kong to give up its pursuit of "zero infection" and follow the extremely high-risk example to reopen its "closed doors" to foreign countries.

　　It must also be pointed out that, if Hong Kong gives up the "zero infection" policy and opens doors to foreign countries first, it is meant the day to reopen the border with the Mainland will become even farther away as risks will grow. Will Hong Kong people be willing to accept this?

　　In the final analysis, whichever anti-epidemic strategy to be adopted is dependent on the national circumstances and popular will in a place, and either way there is a price to pay to a certain degree. The crux of the matter lies in whether the focus is on long-term interests or imminent interests, whether the policy is in the interests of a minority of people or in Hong Kong's overall interests. Whole society must see clearly the target and set the right direction to single-mindedly put reopening the border with the Mainland on top priority. As long as requirements for reopening the border with the Mainland are satisfied to let the Mainland society rest assured, the border reopening will happen without extra effort.

　　21 October 2021