News Stories:

Click-on these handy "jump links" to quickly access the news item
you're looking for.

1. Forewarned is forearmed

2. A hi-tech seduction

3. Open tender best option for bridge project

1. Forewarned is forearmed
MARGARET CHENG, SCMP 3 February 2005

With meningitis outbreaks in Anhui, Jiangsu and other parts of the mainland, 98 cases of meningococcaemia in the Philippines, avian influenza in Vietnam and 67 cases of dengue haemorrhagic fever in East Timor, people can be forgiven for fearing that the region is being hit by a series of plagues.

Although it is disturbing to read of a new threat every day, it is probably good news. It means that new infections able to spread rapidly are being identified early. Not only that, but early public notification is happening. This is the most crucial step needed in heading off a plague, and is often left out by authorities afraid of starting a public panic.

It may not be happening as quickly as we would all like, but it is happening. And, as Secretary for Health, Welfare and Food York Chow Yat-ngok pointed out, you cannot responsibly notify the public of an infectious outbreak until properly identifying the organism causing it, or have at least made certain that it really is a particular infectious agent causing the cluster of illnesses.

So what are all these plagues, and how serious are they? Right now, there are four different outbreaks, caused by four different organisms. Two of them, the ones causing forms of meningococcaemia, are similar. The other two - avian influenza and dengue fever - are very different. Starting with the one closest to us - meningococcal meningitis, the good news is that this is an organism we know a lot about. We have antibiotics able to cure the illness, if they are given early enough. And we have an effective vaccine against types A and C - those affecting the mainland.

Meningococcal meningitis is a well-known cause of outbreaks of meningitis, usually in places where people live in crowded conditions. It has caused massive outbreaks in China in the past, when there was no vaccine or adequate treatment available. In the mid-1960s, during the Cultural Revolution, a massive outbreak caused at least 3 million cases, with 160,000 deaths.

Nationwide epidemics are expected every eight to 10 years, with major outbreaks recorded in 1959, 1967, 1977 and 1984. During 1984-85, meningococcal meningitis swept through much of Asia, with India recording 6,133 cases in 1985, The next peak happened in Mongolia, in 1994-95. So, looking at those patterns, this latest outbreak is bang on time.

The organism causing this outbreak, Neisseria meningitidis, comes in a number of strains. In China, Type A causes 95 per cent of cases. This type caused the cases in Guangzhou , but the much larger outbreak in Anhui province was caused by Type C. Vaccination against both A and C is the best choice for people travelling to high-risk parts of China. Children and adolescents are more susceptible to meningococcal infection, so mass vaccination campaigns usually start with those under 12.

But what of the outbreak of meningococcaemia in Baguio and neighbouring cities in the Philippines? This has the World Health Organisation more worried, because it is "atypical". It causes a blood infection - not the headache, stiff neck and drowsiness of meningitis - and can kill in hours.

The Baguio outbreak has killed one-third of the people infected. In most outbreaks, the death rate is 5 per cent. While it has not behaved very "normally", laboratory studies of the bug have found nothing unusual, according to Gerald Dziekan, head of the Asian Development Bank/WHO regional outbreak response team.

The dengue haemorrhagic fever outbreak in East Timor is worrying because this type has a high death rate. And outbreaks of dengue fever are expected in tsunami-hit regions. It is a warning that mosquito-control measures need to be stepped up everywhere.

Last, but certainly not least, avian influenza is still claiming victims every day or so. It is still "smouldering". Should it catch alight, we will have a firestorm to battle. The mengingococcal outbreak should be used as a dress rehearsal for this main event.

Margaret Cheng is a Hong Kong-based medical writer.

2. A hi-tech seduction
Tony Latter, SCMP 3 February 2005

The row about whether PCCW received a sweetheart deal over Cyberport would never have arisen if the government had not first been seduced by the vision of an IT hub and then been tempted to subsidise it.

Secretary for Commerce, Industry and Technology John Tsang Chun-wah gave the impression last week that the decision to create a cyberport rested significantly on a study commissioned from Andersen Business Consulting. They found, he says, that Cyberport "would be an important element in Hong Kong's economic infrastructure" and "could give Hong Kong an international marketing advantage in enhancing its image and competitiveness as an international information services centre".

Such conclusions are much as one might expect from consultants focusing on a single project without much regard to the wider world - high-sounding, but in essence rather shallow, and certainly not sufficient to justify the venture. If subsidised enough, almost any activity can gleam and be competitive. But government spending should be justified in terms not of scale or visibility, but of effectiveness and whether the resources are being employed to maximum effect.

Mr Tsang offers the further thought that Cyberport was "in line with the global trend of creating IT clusters", but that of itself is hardly a reason to proceed. He caps that with the reassurance that "there was across-the-board support from the local IT sector" - what a surprise!

Far from being persuaded by all those arguments, one is left doubting whether there was, even at that time, any strict economic justification for the project.

Mr Tsang provides figures predicting that the government will, in due course, get a decent return on its investment. But that is not enough. One must ask whether the money could have been better spent, either to achieve a better monetary return or a greater social benefit to the community as a whole. One might argue, for example, that it would have been better to forget about the cyber aspect, and instead develop the entire site, with or without subsidy, for residential and ancillary usage. After all, when it comes to matching its "world city" aspirations, Hong Kong has a much greater shortage of decent living space than of IT know-how.

This episode, and the evidently weak performance, thus far, of the cyber component, illustrate well the dangers of the government "picking winners" or trying to micromanage the economy. In Hong Kong, the justification for intervention of this sort has typically been that it cushions the effect of high land prices. On that pretext, free or cut-price land has been a feature not only of Cyberport but also of the industrial estates, the Hong Kong Science and Technology Park, and the possible logistics park now under discussion, not to mention some housing schemes. But if the market price for land is judged too high for all these, this surely indicates that it may be too high overall. If so, the government should take more steps to increase land supply, and to reduce its revenue dependency on land sales.

The "collusion" squabble will doubtless rumble on, and we must wait to see whether Cyberport's cyber activities blossom. In telling us that "it took Silicon Valley two decades to create a sustainable cluster", Mr Tsang may be trying to manage down our expectations. In fact, although the name was first coined in 1971, the origins of Silicon Valley date even further back, to the days of two Stanford graduates, William Hewlett and David Packard, in the 1930s. Their credentials were, arguably, a bit stronger than Richard Li Tzar-kai's. And, if comparisons are to be made with Silicon Valley, perhaps the most pertinent one is that, as far as I can ascertain, there were no government subsidies or single-developer deals in Silicon Valley.

Tony Latter is a visiting professor at the University of Hong Kong.

3. Open tender best option for bridge project
CHLOE LAI and QUINTON CHAN, SCMP 3 February 2005

An open tender would be the best and fairest way to determine the most qualified contractor for the proposed bridge linking Hong Kong, Zhuhai and Macau, according to Hopewell chairman Sir Gordon Wu Ying-sheung, one of the project's foremost advocates.

He said the tender process would be fair as it involves three governments.

"It will be difficult for anyone to manipulate a process which involves three governments. If I lose, it must be because they get someone smarter than me. If that is the case, I have no hard feelings," he said.

Sir Gordon has been advocating the bridge since the late 1990s. He believes he will win the contract because of his knowledge of highway bridge construction and operation.

He said that some engineers from the National Development and Reform Commission visited him last week to seek his views on the bridge and he told them that an open tender had to be conducted.

He is in favour of a single Y-shaped bridge built between Hong Kong, Zhuhai and Macau.

He said the bridge's Hong Kong entrance would be at San Shek Wan on Lantau and its Zhuhai entrance would be near the Gongbei checkpoint. Its Macau entrance would be at Perola on the northeast side of the Macau peninsula.

In July 2003, Premier Wen Jiabao gave his backing to a bridge between Hong Kong and the west side of the Pearl River Delta.

Sir Gordon estimates the State Council will approve the project to start in six months, with completion in 2009 to mark Macau's 10th handover anniversary.

Under his proposal, only one checkpoint would be needed for cross-border drivers. All immigration officers would be based there together.

He also proposes to turn part of the bridge into a tunnel so it will be safe from typhoons and terrorist attacks.

"With the bridge and the existing roads in Guangxi , it will take just eight hours for Hong Kong people to reach Vietnam by car," Sir Gordon said.