There is seldom a pilot scheme which receives so much attention and invokes so much discussion.
On 7 July 2009, Chief Executive
Donald TSANG announced at his Legislative Council Question and Answer Session
that “Secondary schools in Tai Po will
be invited to join the pilot scheme for school-based voluntary drug testing. Voluntary drug testing services at community
level will be launched as soon as possible and the Government will study the
introduction of hair-testing facilities.” (from news.gov.hk)
This was followed by various consultation meetings and many opinions had
either been expressed at meetings or voiced openly. The debate was heated up rapidly after an
interview of Bishop John TONG Hon appeared in TVB News on July 31.
“Catholic Bishop spoke out against
voluntary drug-testing scheme” was the title found in news archive of the
TVB website. In the Cantonese interview,
John TONG said that he would not “提倡” drug testing at schools. In TVB
Pearl, the English narrative quoted that “John
TONG believed that drug testing is not the answer”.
In a press
statement on August 3, the Hong Kong Catholic Social Communications Office
denied media reports saying that Bishop John TONG Hon did not support the drug
testing scheme. Mary MA of The Standard wrote on August 6: “Severe tropical storm Goni left Hong Kong pretty well
unscathed. However, the drug-test row
between Catholic Church Bishop John TONG Hon and TVB journalist LEE Ka-man has
become a storm in a teacup on the media front…. It
all began when Bishop TONG made an apparent U-turn on his earlier remark that
the church would not support the government's voluntary drug-testing scheme at
schools…. In a press statement, the church accused TVB of having
distorted TONG's original remarks through editing… So when the bishop's statement landed in the
TVB newsroom, LEE, the assistant news editor who interviewed TONG, hit back
with a public response - a move that was out of character and certainly
unprecedented…. In her public statement, LEE
highlighted the conversation she had on Monday with Dominic YUNG Yuk-yu,
director of the local diocese's social communications office. She said YUNG had told her he did not spot
anything wrong with the news broadcast, adding that Bishop TONG also praised
it.”
Principal Teresa CHAN Kam Tim of
Valtorta College in Tai Po accused TVB of inaccuracy in reporting that she “originally agreed to join the drug scheme,”
but now needed to reconsider. (from The
Standard, 6 August, 2009)
Vicar-General
Father Michael YEUNG Ming Cheung said "If
a student in a school is found to be on drugs, does it mean the other 1,000
students have to be tested? It is impossible, as it will take lots
of time. But then, when you take 10 to
20 students for testing, the question will be 'why are these students picked?'
It will stigmatize these students." (from The
Standard, 3 August, 2009)
On 10 August 2009, Privacy Commissioner for
Personal Data, Roderick WOO Bun cast doubt in his letter to Secretary for
Education, Michael SUEN Ming Yeung, and aired openly that: "While it is doubtful whether all students
have the requisite capacity to give genuine consent, the Personal Data
(Privacy) Ordinance does not give parents or guardians the authority to give
consent on behalf of a minor." He
added that the situation had to be resolved by new legislation. (from The
Standard, 11 August 2009)
Discussion turned into pointless argument when the
Catholic diocese’s Social Communications Office director Dominic YUNG Yuk Yu
suggested school principals, teachers, celebrities and government officials to
take drug tests with students. Nevertheless,
Undersecretary for Education Kenneth CHEN Wei On said he would take a voluntary
drug test if students thought that it was important to them. (from The Standard, 11 August, 2009)
The following are some of my observations and
opinions on this matter:
- There seem not enough consultations. There also seem not enough channels for people and stake-holders to air their concerns.
- Opinions could be grouped into 5 categories:
- Emotional expressions and temptations to say something just for the sake of having a say in the subject matter
- That school drug tests won’t work
- That there are other better methods
- Logistic concerns
- Infringement of rights and privacy of students
- For category 1, they cannot be rationally discussed.
- For category 2, it is difficult to tell for sure that the scheme won’t work. There are experiences from abroad, but both the culture and school environment are very different from the situation in Hong Kong. At least theoretically, random drug test can serve deterrent effects on students. It can provide a chance for parents to openly discuss drug abuse with students when they need to return the consent forms. The scheme can also provide a good “excuse” for students to refuse offers from student dealers at schools. And, after all it is only a pilot test to study whether voluntary drug testing at school will work or not.
- For category 3, surely school drug testing is not THE method to solve youth drug abuse. But there exists no single method which can solve the problem alone. Young people abuse drugs for different reasons. It is rational to tackle this problem by adopting different approaches and different methods.
- For logistic concerns, there is always room for improvement. Some of the fears arise from misunderstanding of the scheme, and some arise out of ignorance of the scheme. Pilot testing is a good start to smooth out logistic hiccups.
- They final concern is the real concern, which governs the existence of the scheme. There needs to be thorough consideration on whether there is infringement on students’ rights and privacy. If there is, whether what the scheme can achieve warrants the infringement. If it warrants, how to minimize the harm done? After all, school is a special environment where a group of minors gather with the objective of learning. High risk behaviours like drug abuse can be contagious. Discipline is very important.
(Source: HKMA News August 2009)
