Fish Eyes Passing as Pearls: Who Is Misguilding the Public?
#OpinionArticles by scholar Simon Shen
The screenshot below showed a “strike back” of the government’s official Facebook page. The statistics being accused as “passing off the fish eyes as pearls” by the government officials came from a friend of mine, Dr. Leung Kai Chi. He has responded to the accusation; I would like to add a few more points hereby. How should we interpret the message written by this Facebook page, which played as a governmental declaration, on how they have played a game on shifting of meaning.
1. The graphs and tables surrounded on the internet earlier, which contains mainly two focus, came from the statistics opened to the public:
a. The statistics talked about the percentage of people entering Hong Kong through different immigration control points. The number of mainlanders coming to Hong Kong through the immigration control points closed recently ( West Kowloon, Hunghom, China Ferry Terminal, Tuen Mun Ferry Terminal, Sha Tau Kok CP and MannKam CP) by the government is less than 10%. This is an objective fact.
b. The statistics also showed that 35% of mainlanders held business visit endorsements and visa for visiting family and relatives as reasons to enter Hong Kong. This is another objective fact.
2. According to the government official webpage, “there will be a drastic decrease of 80% of mainland tourists” (after the partial close down of immigration control points). However, there should be a base of comparison when saying “a drastic decrease of 80%”. In the past 7 months, due to the anti-extradition law movement, the number of tourists from the mainland has decreased drastically. This is a fact which everybody knows. Although the declined number is unknown as there are no official statistics announced, we could still notice the difference on the street - there should be an astonishing fall on the number of mainlanders entering Hong Kong. If “the drastic decline” of mainland tourists is compared with the numbers before the anti-extradition bill movement and before the numbers announced in the press conference of Carrie Lam, there might already have reached “80%”. However, the government owes nothing but the people. The government shall have no chance to take any credit on this.
3. If “the drastic decline” is compared with the number after the press conference of Carrie Lam, then it should be a comparison on the number after the new implementation started since 30 January, as well as the number of a period in the future, say, in the coming three months. (The effects of the past seven months and the daily updated statistics on special occasions like the Lunar New Year holiday should be eliminated.) The comparison would be analysed in the future and the result would be known by then. If the government are so impatient to prove “a drastic decline of 80%”, it should at least compare the numbers of 29 January and 30 January. This is the basic rule of Social Sciences.
4. We could imagine that the total number of mainlanders coming to Hong Kong, after comparative analysis, would not be like what the government said - a drastic decrease of 80%. It is not a simple question of addition and subtraction. The government stated that there would be “a decrease of 50% by stopping Individual Visit Scheme”, “a decrease of 20% by stopping tours from mainland China to Hong Kong”, “a decrease of 10% by reducing cross-boundary transport services” (but in the passage, the government officials wrote 75% for the first two new policies). However, the number of entry could not be simply judged by the above three policies, not to mention that these numbers are not opened to public, because of the following:
a. It is easy for mainlanders to get the “Endorsement for Business Visit” and “Entry for visiting relatives”. People in China could come to Hong Kong by existing methods. They do not need to come through the Individual Visit Scheme or tours.
b. Carried Lam has admitted that when someone in the mainland would like to come to Hong Kong, s/he does not need to pass through the closed immigration control points but through other paths.
c. The Individual Visit Scheme is valid for one year. What the Hong Kong government does for now is to request the Beijing government to cease the endorsement of Individual Visit Scheme, but not to exercise the immigration authority of ourselves to stop all the visiting by the Scheme. Therefore, for those mainlanders who got the endorsement, they could still come to Hong Kong within the validity period. It is not just a simple calculation of “a decrease of 50% by stopping the Individual Visit Scheme”.
Anyways, the final result of the numbers of decrease is just a mathematical game. The most important thing for now, is how many mainlanders would come to Hong Kong every day via different reasons in the coming period. The official number of people entering Hong Kong announced yesterday was 24,000. There are a proportional amount of mainlanders who carried health problem. The key is whether Hong Kong’s medical system could bear such a burden. There is always a fair judgment to decide who is the one to “pass off the fish eyes as pearls”.
This kind of expression of numbers by the government official would not be passed in university nor in liberal studies of secondary schools (the subject seems to be ceased soon). If there is not “a drastic decrease of 80%” after three months according to the basic rule of Social Sciences, would the government’s official Facebook page admits the spreading of fake news and delete the post? All the genius civil servant, could you really tolerate that?
P.S. In the introduction to methodology, there’s instruction on how to draw a proper pie chart. The admins of the Facebook page could conduct inquiries through liberal studies department of secondary schools.
Source: Simon Shen (29-Jan)
https://m.facebook.com/story.php?story_fbid=3008735919160538&id=223783954322429
#CoronavirusOutbreak #GovernmentLies