今早為Asian Medical Students Association Hong Kong (AMSAHK)的新一屆執行委員會就職典禮作致詞分享嘉賓,題目為「疫情中的健康不公平」。
感謝他們的熱情款待以及為整段致詞拍了影片。以下我附上致詞的英文原稿:
It's been my honor to be invited to give the closing remarks for the Inauguration Ceremony for the incoming executive committee of the Asian Medical Students' Association Hong Kong (AMSAHK) this morning. A video has been taken for the remarks I made regarding health inequalities during the COVID-19 pandemic (big thanks to the student who withstood the soreness of her arm for holding the camera up for 15 minutes straight), and here's the transcript of the main body of the speech that goes with this video:
//The coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) pandemic, caused by the SARS-CoV-2 virus, continues to be rampant around the world since early 2020, resulting in more than 55 million cases and 1.3 million deaths worldwide as of today. (So no! It’s not a hoax for those conspiracy theorists out there!) A higher rate of incidence and deaths, as well as worse health-related quality of life have been widely observed in the socially disadvantaged groups, including people of lower socioeconomic position, older persons, migrants, ethnic minority and communities of color, etc. While epidemiologists and scientists around the world are dedicated in gathering scientific evidence on the specific causes and determinants of the health inequalities observed in different countries and regions, we can apply the Social Determinants of Health Conceptual Framework developed by the World Health Organization team led by the eminent Prof Sir Michael Marmot, world’s leading social epidemiologist, to understand and delineate these social determinants of health inequalities related to the COVID-19 pandemic.
According to this framework, social determinants of health can be largely categorized into two types – 1) the lower stream, intermediary determinants, and 2) the upper stream, structural and macro-environmental determinants. For the COVID-19 pandemic, we realized that the lower stream factors may include material circumstances, such as people’s living and working conditions. For instance, the nature of the occupations of these people of lower socioeconomic position tends to require them to travel outside to work, i.e., they cannot work from home, which is a luxury for people who can afford to do it. This lack of choice in the location of occupation may expose them to greater risk of infection through more transportation and interactions with strangers. We have also seen infection clusters among crowded places like elderly homes, public housing estates, and boarding houses for foreign domestic helpers. Moreover, these socially disadvantaged people tend to have lower financial and social capital – it can be observed that they were more likely to be deprived of personal protective equipment like face masks and hand sanitizers, especially during the earlier days of the pandemic. On the other hand, the upper stream, structural determinants of health may include policies related to public health, education, macroeconomics, social protection and welfare, as well as our governance… and last, but not least, our culture and values. If the socioeconomic and political contexts are not favorable to the socially disadvantaged, their health and well-being will be disproportionately affected by the pandemic. Therefore, if we, as a society, espouse to address and reduce the problem of health inequalities, social determinants of health cannot be overlooked in devising and designing any public health-related strategies, measures and policies.
Although a higher rate of incidence and deaths have been widely observed in the socially disadvantaged groups, especially in countries with severe COVID-19 outbreaks, this phenomenon seems to be less discussed and less covered by media in Hong Kong, where the disease incidence is relatively low when compared with other countries around the world. Before the resurgence of local cases in early July, local spread of COVID-19 was sporadic and most cases were imported. In the earlier days of the pandemic, most cases were primarily imported by travelers and return-students studying overseas, leading to a minor surge between mid-March and mid-April of 874 new cases. Most of these cases during Spring were people who could afford to travel and study abroad, and thus tended to be more well-off. Therefore, some would say the expected social gradient in health impact did not seem to exist in Hong Kong, but may I remind you that, it is only the case when we focus on COVID-19-specific incidence and mortality alone. But can we really deduce from this that COVID-19-related health inequality does not exist in Hong Kong? According to the Social Determinants of Health Framework mentioned earlier, the obvious answer is “No, of course not.” And here’s why…
In addition to the direct disease burden, the COVID-19 outbreak and its associated containment measures (such as economic lockdown, mandatory social distancing, and change of work arrangements) could have unequal wider socioeconomic impacts on the general population, especially in regions with pervasive existing social inequalities. Given the limited resources and capacity of the socioeconomically disadvantaged to respond to emergency and adverse events, their general health and well-being are likely to be unduly and inordinately affected by the abrupt changes in their daily economic and social conditions, like job loss and insecurity, brought about by the COVID-19 outbreak and the corresponding containment and mitigation measures of which the main purpose was supposedly disease prevention and health protection at the first place. As such, focusing only on COVID-19 incidence or mortality as the outcomes of concern to address health inequalities may leave out important aspects of life that contributes significantly to people’s health. Recently, my research team and I collaborated with Sir Michael Marmot in a Hong Kong study, and found that the poor people in Hong Kong fared worse in every aspects of life than their richer counterparts in terms of economic activity, personal protective equipment, personal hygiene practice, as well as well-being and health after the COVID-19 outbreak. We also found that part of the observed health inequality can be attributed to the pandemic and its related containment measures via people’s concerns over their own and their families’ livelihood and economic activity. In other words, health inequalities were contributed by the pandemic even in a city where incidence is relatively low through other social determinants of health that directly concerned the livelihood and economic activity of the people. So in this study, we confirmed that focusing only on the incident and death cases as the outcomes of concern to address health inequalities is like a story half-told, and would severely truncate and distort the reality.
Truth be told, health inequality does not only appear after the pandemic outbreak of COVID-19, it is a pre-existing condition in countries and regions around the world, including Hong Kong. My research over the years have consistently shown that people in lower socioeconomic position tend to have worse physical and mental health status. Nevertheless, precisely because health inequality is nothing new, there are always voices in our society trying to dismiss the problem, arguing that it is only natural to have wealth inequality in any capitalistic society. However, in reckoning with health inequalities, we need to go beyond just figuring out the disparities or differences in health status between the poor and the rich, and we need to raise an ethically relevant question: are these inequalities, disparities and differences remediable? Can they be fixed? Can we do something about them? If they are remediable, and we can do something about them but we haven’t, then we’d say these inequalities are ultimately unjust and unfair. In other words, a society that prides itself in pursuing justice must, and I say must, strive to address and reduce these unfair health inequalities. Borrowing the words from famed sociologist Judith Butler, “the virus alone does not discriminate,” but “social and economic inequality will make sure that it does.” With COVID-19, we learn that it is not only the individuals who are sick, but our society. And it’s time we do something about it.
Thank you very much!//
Please join me in congratulating the incoming executive committee of AMSAHK and giving them the best wishes for their future endeavor!
Roger Chung, PhD
Assistant Professor, CUHK JC School of Public Health and Primary Care, @CUHK Medicine, The Chinese University of Hong Kong 香港中文大學 - CUHK
Associate Director, CUHK Institute of Health Equity
can be attributed to 中文 在 黃傑龍 Simon - 窮富翁 好人好事 Facebook 的精選貼文
以下係我已經喺WhatsApp收咗三次嘅前高等法院英女王御用大律師,Henry Litton (列顕倫)* QC ;給香港市民的一封信:~ (裏便了無新意, 不過有兩個好處. 1) 洋人寫係唔同啲, 仲要係有名望嘅大法官, 特別有說服力 2)啲英文寫得好靚, 仲有中文翻譯可以學習英文。
Henry Litton (列顕倫)* QC was the Judge of the highest Court in Hong Kong. He retired in 2015.
英女皇御用大律師列顕倫(亨利·利頓)QC,是香港最高法院的法官。他於2015年退休。
The following is what he’s written...
以下是他寫的。
There are few certainties in life. One of them is this: The common law system underpinning Hong Kong’s “core values” is destined to expire in 27 years’ time. The One Country Two Systems formula was designed to last for 50 years and no more. Hence Article 5 of the Basic Law. There is no mechanism in the Basic Law for the system to continue beyond 30 June 2047.
生活中很少有確定性。其中之一是:支撐香港“核心價值”的普通法制度將在27年後失效。一國兩制方案的設計時限是50年,之後,再也沒有了。因此,“基本法”第五條清楚指出。2047年6月30日以後,“基本法”中沒有任何機制讓這制度繼續下去。
All the calls for Freedom, Democracy etc have no meaning if the common law crumbles.
如果普通法崩潰,所有要求“自由、民主”等的呼籲都是沒有意義。
If the protesters truly value their professed aims, *their focus should be on demonstrating to Beijing and to the rest of the world that the One Country Two Systems formula works, and to promote an atmosphere in which Beijing feels comfortable with the system – and when the time comes, to extend the Basic Law for another 50 years, 100 years*. Then liberal democratic norms and values might have a chance to flourish.
如果抗議者真的誠心誠意的重視他們宣稱的目標,*他們的重點、重心,應該是向北京和世界其他地方展示“一國兩制”的方案是有效的,並推展“一國兩制”的成功實施。令北京對這一制度感到寛心舒泰的環境下 - 當時機成熟時,說服北京將“基本法”再延長50年,100年*。那麼,自由、民主的模式、準則和價值觀還可能有延續蓬勃、活躍的機會。
Crunch time is not 27 years away. It is just round the corner. For Hong Kong to continue as one of the world’s greatest financial and trading centres, planning for the future must necessarily look 20 -30 years ahead. So the hard question will soon be asked: is the common law system to continue beyond June 2047 ? The answer lies in Beijing and nowhere else.
擔心不安的時刻不是27年後的事。就在拐角處。要使香港繼續成為世界上最大的金融和貿易中心之一,對未來的規劃必須著眼於未來20-30年。因此,我們很快便會提出一個棘手的問題:普通法制度是否會延續至2047年6月以後?答案就在北京,而不是其他任何地方。
The last time this issue arose – back in 1982 – Hong Kong had the backing of Great Britain. This time Hong Kong stands alone. And, up to this point, Hong Kong has demonstrated for all the world to see that the One Country Two Systems formula is extremely fragile: and, if the unrest continues, it would surely fracture beyond any hope of recall.
回顧1982年,上一次被問到這個問題的時候,當時香港是得到了大英帝國的支持。而這一次,香港只能孤掌難鳴。到目前為止,香港已經向全世界展示了“一國兩制”這方案是極其脆弱的:如果動亂繼續下去,它肯定會褫奪,無望地被撤銷。
It is beyond the power of the Hong Kong SAR government to devise the governing model for the future. Pressing the Hong Kong government to promote greater democracy is futile. Rightly or wrongly, that power lies in Beijing. Nowhere else. Hong Kong enjoys freedoms found nowhere else in China. To think that unlawful assemblies and demonstrations, and violence in the streets, would soften Beijing’s attitude towards Hong Kong is absurd. Common sense suggests it would have the opposite effect.
為未來設計治理模式,是超出了香港特別行政區政府的權力範圍。要迫使香港政府促進更大的民主是徒勞的。不管是你喜歡也好。不喜歡也好。權力就是在北京。沒有別的地方了。香港現在享有中國其他地方沒有的自由。認為非法集會示威和街頭暴力會軟化北京的對香港的態度是荒謬的。常識表明,它只會產生相反的效果。
But there are deep social issues which the SAR government can redress, having regard in particular to the huge foreign currency reserves it holds:USD425 billion – by far the largest in the world, enough to guarantee public servants’ pensions hundreds of times over. And yet Hong Kong’s social services are crumbling, hospitals are understaffed, public education is poor, teachers are ill-paid, young people cannot afford to rent even the most substandard apartment, the gap between rich and poor is ever-widening.
但是,有一些深層次的社會問題是特區政府可以解決的,特別是考慮到特區政府擁有世界上最龐大的外匯儲備:4,250億美元 - 是政府公務員的長俸所需要的保證金額的數以百倍。然而,香港的社會服務卻每況愈下,醫院人手不足,全民所需的教育不論在質素及資源都極差,教師薪酬偏低。年輕人怎都難以負擔租用即使是最不合標準的居所,社會上,貧富差距在不斷拉大。
The laissez-faire policy of the colonial government has been carried to extremes by the SAR government in the past 20-odd years. The rich have prospered in the meanwhile whilst the bulk of the people suffered. The influx of Mainlanders under the One-Way Permit system has caused great strain on all services. The people’s needs have been neglected. The young see little prospect of a fulfilling future and even university graduates find difficulty in meaningful employment.
大英帝國殖民地政府的自由放任政策在過去二十多年來一直被特區政府極端化。與此同時,大多數富人們卻在此期間更加繁榮昌盛、更加富裕起來,而相反普通市民却受苦了。在單程證制度下,內地人士大量湧入,對所有服務造成更大壓力。市民的需求、需要被忽視。年輕人看不出有向上游、向上流的任何富圖的希望。甚至大學畢業生也很難找到有合識、合意的工作。
These, I suggest, are the deep-seated ills which sustain the fire of discontent in the wider community, and bring hundreds of thousands to march in the streets. These are not matters which a commission of inquiry can resolve.
我認為,這些水深火熱的社會問題及弊病,這些憤懣之火已經廣泛地蔓延在整個社會,並促使數以十萬人走上街頭。這些都不是一個所謂諮詢委員會可以解決。
The media here is full of Hong Kong stories, and of course footage of the riotous behaviour on the streets: what empty slogans, meaningless rhetoric the protesters display ……….In watching these events I am reminded of the prayer attributed to Saint Francis:
今天的媒體充斥著不同形式的香港事件,當然有街頭暴力行為的鏡頭:抗議者們展示的空洞口號和毫無意義的粗言穢語。…當我在觀看這些事件時,‘我想起聖弗朗西斯的禱告:
Pray God give me the courage to change the things I can change, the fortitude to bear the things I cannot change, and the wisdom to know the difference.
願上帝賜給我勇氣去改變我能改變的事情,給我勇氣去承受那些我無法改變的事情,給我智慧去分辨其中的黑白。
I arrive in Hong Kong Thursday 24 October, staying for one month.
我在今年的10月24日星期四抵達香港,逗留一個月。
As ever
如常,祝願香港
H
列顕倫
PS Please feel free to convey these observations to anyone you chose ………….They are *not confidential*.
歡迎隨時將我這些意見傳達給你所選擇的任何人.此文是*不保密的*。
can be attributed to 中文 在 國立臺灣大學 National Taiwan University Facebook 的最佳貼文
🎶2018「提升生活品質」系列演講-人文素養系列🎶
~NTU Alumni Association Lecture Series: Humanities~
Lan-Ping Chou and Popular Huangmei Films
如何黃梅?怎樣歌曲?周藍萍黃梅調電影考論
1963年4月24日,香港邵氏公司黃梅調電影《梁山伯與祝英台》在臺北上演,連映62天,欲罷不能,掀起黃梅調戲曲電影的流行狂潮,導引這股風潮的,是出身臺灣的作曲家周藍萍(1926-1971)。周藍萍被視為臺灣國語流行歌曲的開創者,作品包括膾炙人口的〈綠島小夜曲〉、〈回想曲〉,又因《梁祝》拿下第十屆亞洲影展以及第二屆金馬獎最佳音樂。本次演講配合大量珍貴歷史錄音及影片,除了介紹周藍萍的音樂成就、分析周藍萍的電影音樂手法,並對照比較黃梅戲與周藍萍的黃梅調電影音樂,以呈現他對戲曲電影的思考及實踐。
時 間:2018年5月5日(六) 上午10~12時
地 點:臺大校友會館四樓演講廳 (臺北市濟南路一段2-1號)
(聯絡電話:02-2321-8415*9)
活動詳情:http://www.ntuaa.ntu.edu.tw/talk1070505.htm
--
臺灣大學藝文中心—沈 冬 主任
學歷:臺灣大學中國文學研究所博士
美國馬里蘭大學民族音樂學研究所博士候選人
現職:臺灣大學藝文中心主任
臺灣大學音樂學研究所教授
經歷:臺大國際事務長
臺灣大學音樂學研究所所長、臺灣大學中文系教授
專長:音樂學
著作:《寶島回想曲──周藍萍與四海唱片》、《唐代樂舞新論》、《不能遺忘的杜鵑花——黃友棣》等多部專書
研究領域:中國音樂史、華語流行歌曲
===
“The Butterfly Lovers,” a film released by the Shaw Brothers based in Hong Kong and shown in Taipei starting from April 24, 1963 for 62 days, generated island-wide enthusiasm for films sung in Huangmei tone. The enthusiasm for this film and music genre can be attributed to the Taiwanese musician, Lan-Ping Chou, who had been responsible for the film’s music and had received the 10th Asian Film Festival Award and the 2nd Golden Horse Film Festival Award for best music.
In this lecture, Director of the NTU Center for the Arts Tung Shen will introduce audiences to this film and music genre in Taiwan during the 1970s and 1980s. In addition to playing rare audio recordings and video clips to familiarize audiences with this genre, Director Shen will also discuss the musical achievements of Ping-Chou Lan and his rendition of Huangmei tone in the films.
Time: 10:00-12:00, Sat., May 5, 2018
Venue: Lecture Hall, 4F, NTU Alumni Association
More info (in Chinese): http://www.ntuaa.ntu.edu.tw/talk1070505.htm