THE E-MAIL FORUM Q Is an infectious disease hospital a good idea? Many fear that, considering its vast number of Sars patients, the mainland may soon export Sars carriers. So running an infectious disease hospital here may not seem such a good idea, as non-residents may rely on our advanced medical services. Yet we have no right to reject incoming patients from the mainland or other countries. Our government has to be moral and humane. China is our motherland. How can we abandon our countrymen just for the sake of prosperity in Hong Kong? If the mainland cannot recover from the outbreak, it will not be to Hong Kong's advantage either. I sincerely hope that the infectious disease hospital will not only save our citizens, but also care for patients from all over the world. This may be another way to promote Hong Kong as a sympathetic and capable city. Emily Lam, Tsing Yi As dark clouds continue to hang over Hong Kong's economy, it is definitely not sensible for the government to put extra expenditure into building an infectious disease hospital. What the government should do at this stage is to encourage the growth of different industries, especially tourism. With the construction of an infectious disease hospital, its advanced equipment and expertise will attract non-resident patients. It is simply like attaching a 'disease bomb' to Hong Kong. Will tourists come to a city that carries diverse and highly contagious diseases? Some may argue that patients can be sent directly to the hospital for a quick and efficient treatment. In my opinion, the demand is so slight that it is unnecessary to have such a hospital in Hong Kong. With the outbreak of Sars, social and personal hygiene has become a main concern of all people. It is also the chief reason why the government has the idea of building an infectious disease hospital. Yet, throughout the past few centuries, how many calamitous diseases have broken out in Hong Kong? I suppose there were only a few cases. So is it a must to have an infectious disease hospital? Take Japan and South Korea. During the football World Cup last year, these two countries jointly met the needs of this festival, having constructed many major stadiums. However, after that, the soccer pitches were just left vacant due to the lack of other major matches. The same disaster can happen in Hong Kong now. I hope the government can learn to do things according to the right priorities. Janice Chan Ling, Tsuen Wan To have better control of the spread of infectious diseases, it is a good idea to build a specialist hospital. In the long term, we can develop better medical equipment and staff for fighting Sars or any other infectious illnesses. Besides, the new hospital needs medics, so it can also ease the unemployment problem. However, building the hospital might attract patients from others Asian countries, putting Hong Kong citizens at risk. Infected people may flood into Hong Kong because of this advanced facility. It is no use building this hospital if there are no suitable measures taken to avoid the spread of disease. For example, there should be enough measures to protect the medics. The government should consider the budget for building the hospital and discuss this issue with the mainland and other Asian countries so as to reach an agreement with them over the import of patients. I hope the government can take action as soon as possible. We can't wait any longer. April Chu Ka-ching, Tsuen Wan Q Should Hei Ling Chau be developed as a tourist attraction rather than a prison? I am very sick of hearing that Hei Ling Chau has tourism potential. First, Hei Ling Chau is too far away from Hong Kong Island. Secondly, Hei Ling Chau was once used as a leper colony. It functioned more or less in a similar fashion to a jail. I am puzzled as to why people keep saying that the island would lose its tourism potential if it was developed as a jail. Instead, I believe developing a prison is a more practical and suitable use for the island. Yu Koon Kong, Mongkok In developing Hei Ling Chau as a superjail, it could act as both a prison and a tourist attraction. In San Francisco Bay, San Quentin prison is a major landmark and has featured in numerous movies. When Hei Ling Chau eventually closes, it too can host tours like those for Alcatraz Island, also in San Francisco. How's that for sustainable development? Sonja Welker, Sai Kung Q Has the government done enough to help Yu Man-hon's parents? Not at all. When the boy's parents first sought help from the Hong Kong government, its response was lukewarm. Even when the chief executive met the parents, he seemed half-hearted. There was no sympathy on his face and I wondered whether the parents left with any hope of getting help. This was in contrast to the understanding with which a Guangdong government official met Yu Man-hon's mother. The Hong Kong immigration officers who were on duty at the border that day must bear the entire responsibility for Yu Man-hon's loss. Of course, one officer has left the department and three others have been cleared of any blame in the case. Surely, more than one officer must have been involved, when the boy was sent back and forth two or three times. Where are these officers? Are they still in the department? And why can't the government initiate an inquiry to find out whether they have neglected their duty? I personally believe that had a thorough search been made by Hong Kong and Guangdong authorities at the beginning, there would have been a fair chance of finding him. What was the reason for the uninterested attitude of the Hong Kong government? Was it because Yu Man-hon didn't belong to a 'big' family? Was it because the tears and the wailing of Mrs Yu were those of a nobody? Some may say it is now too late to look for a boy with a mental age of two. But maybe it is not too late to organise a joint search for him by both Hong Kong and Guangdong authorities. He could still be somewhere wandering the streets. D. Manuweera, Yau Ma Tei Q Were the employers of Indonesian maid Sara justified in sacking her because she had the Sars virus? My husband and I both work full-time and we have a toddler who is cared for by our helper. Our helper does everything for our child while we're not at home - cooking, feeding, bathing, changing, playing, teaching, the list goes on. I encourage a lot of interaction between them, including a lot of cuddles and pats. On top of taking care of our child, our helper also cooks for us most days, does our laundry, ironing, cleaning and has access to all parts of our flat. Basically, there's nothing in our flat she doesn't touch. While I sympathise with Sara's plight, I think her employers have been condemned unjustly. Which other employers have to live with their employees, eat food prepared by them, share a bathroom with them, have their laundry right next to theirs, have more physical contact with their children than they do themselves and basically have free run of their own homes? Please don't give me the naive explanation that Sara has recovered and has been discharged from hospital. Have you not heard of discharged patients who have had relapses? And how many others have had permanent damage to some organ or other? Do we know for sure that the virus is eliminated? Or is it just lying dormant, waiting to strike another victim? Nobody knows anything for certain because this is a new disease. Lisa Lee, Tuen Mun
