988FM 《时事100度》點評（5月15日）

第一题： 马哈迪安华联合声明再合作

1） 为什么又再次合作？目的是什么？
答： 他们两老再次攜手合作，我相信这绝对不是因为爱情。
先看联合声明的日期，5月9号，理应是希盟成功改朝换代，执政的两周年纪念日。
再看内容。重点大致上是，他们俩不承认现在的政府，说这些人违背了人民的委托、辜负了选民要求改变的声音。制度改革、法治和经济发展进程也随着政变中断了。
就白一点就是，对方不仁不义，而我们俩代表民主、改革、公正、自由，把执政权交还给我们希盟！
这样的剧本，希盟支持者肯定感动鼓掌欢呼，‘两老为了人民又和解了’，是这样吗？
安华和马哈迪联手对抗国盟政府是真的，但是看在共同利益上。
肯定安华和马哈迪各怀鬼胎。马哈迪号召土团党回归希盟，难道真的为了改革和民主？还不是想要继续做大哥，眷恋希盟各党对他俯首称臣让他继续呼风唤雨。安华好不容易终于被拥护成希盟的新共主，如果成功倒慕，这次要他让出相位？
2）联合声明透露了什么讯息？有办法解决希盟各党之间、甚至这两人之间的纠纷矛盾吗？
答：昨天马来邮报报导，安华承认他备受批评指责为何还要与马哈迪保持合作关系。他解释说那份联合声明他是以反对党领袖签署的，代表的是整个反对阵线包括马哈迪在内的少数土团党议员和民兴党议员，不止是现在的希盟3党而已。那么，既然如此，为何就只有他和马哈迪签署声明而已呢？为何不要像5月4日的5党党魁一起签署的联合声明要求延长国会？

再来，这封信也没有透露两人的未来动向。无论是他们的联手出击成功或失败，过后他们到底要做些什么？

假设真的成功了，谁会是首相？这次可以是希盟共主安华了吗？如果最后首相会是安华，马哈迪当初因不要传位给安华而拉倒希盟政府，不是看起来很傻很儿戏，绕了一个大圈回到原点？

他们俩互相厌恶撕破脸皮的戏码记忆还犹新，特别是在（3月1日慕尤丁宣誓就任第8位首相）马哈迪重返相位的计划确定被打败了后，他就毒舌起来。记得他说什么吗？他怪安华gila-gila nak jadi PM, （发狂就是为了当首相），还说安华不行因为没多少人支持他。两周后他又在媒体怪罪安华一直策划要他早日下台。安华过后接受采访时也说他不再相信马哈迪。上个月他回敬老马问说到底是谁疯狂恋权要在90多岁继续当首相。

你们当中会有人真的相信现在他们和好了？哇塞，果然童话故事里幸福和快乐结局最叫座。

喂，他们俩已不是小孩子，玩‘friend你不friend你’的游戏了。你们要会看戏啦——戏的意思就是演给你看的，当然不是真的啦！

3）他们会成功吗？能合作多久？短期未来面对的矛盾和挑战是什么？

答：他们能合作多久？记得英国19世纪首相帕麦斯顿的这句话：“没有永远的朋友，也没有永远的敌人，只有永远的利益”。

所以很现实的，当对方不再有什么‘利用价值’帮助自己得到想要的‘东西’如权力，那么他们就分道扬镳！预料一旦他们不能在5月和7月的国会里成功倒慕拔丁，大势已去了后就各走各路。

未来还能不能合作，还就要再看马哈迪派系的土团党领袖的能耐和造化，能不能撑过今年党选，再看未来他们的残余势力和‘选票’号召力。事实上，过了喜来登政变后，马哈迪的M字招牌价值已猛挫。
但如果真能意外地成功以不信任动议扳倒慕尤丁国盟政府，那么谁来当新的首相肯定是首先最棘手的问题和矛盾。本人实在不太看好这个可能性。

第二题： 对首相投不信任动议的角力。

1）不信任动议有办法在下周一登上殿堂吗？马哈迪的动议被接纳了，有办法被安排宣读？

答：根据前天的议长通告声明，下周的国会就只开会一天，议程是最高元首开幕发表施政御词而已，没有其他环节了。早前的通告确实表示慕尤丁政府将提呈和辩论4个动议和两个法案，现在没有了，大概下午之前就休会散会直到7月再见。所以，不信任动议预料不能见光。

首相是国会领袖和议会主席，以新冠肺炎疫情为理由，他决定了开会的天数和主导议会议程。

这样一来，既使是一天的国会，国盟政府已可符合宪法要求——（距上次的开会日期）国会至少要在六个月内召开一次。

马哈迪现在是反对党议员，他提呈的动议属于私人议员动议，不算是政府事务。首相署部长达基尤丁说得没错，既使是下午环节有开放，既使议长依然亲希盟，但他必须优先安排处理政府事务。因此对于私人议员动议，一般上除非政府让路不然很难见光。

所以议长接纳动议是一回事，安排议案呈堂宣读的次序他还是得专业地遵循程序去执行。

2）不信任动议应该在疫情仍蔓延的此时此刻提呈吗？

答：我的看法是，这项动议应趁早在国会提呈和表决，这有助于首相慕尤丁确立自己执政的合法正当性，检验他拥有大多数信任支持组成政府，顺便止住那些频频说他的国盟政府‘走后门’的嘴巴。在任何时刻这个动作皆可稳住政局，提高人民对现任政府的信心，更何况现在国家面对新冠肺炎疫情，人民需要有正当性的政权给予指挥协调，心服口服才会遵守新政策指令。

所以，慕尤丁应该放行让这个不信任动议提呈上来，最好就解决掉它。当然，条件是他确实真的能掌握多数议员的支持。现在他好像心虚，因为各党利益分配不均的问题而暗流汹涌，这个显然是他的担忧。

3）假设成功提呈该动议，慕尤丁有足够议席数目、能撑得过吗？盟党们是否已表态？

答：纸面上，慕尤丁的国盟政府理应有114席对垒安华领导的在野阵线的108席，那么说他就掌握简单多数可否决不信任动议，确立了他政府的正当性。虽说如此，风险是只要他阵线里有至少3议员跑票，他就丧失了简单多数的优势。这个有可能吗？很难说。

上个月首相署部长达基尤丁就表示，所有政府后座议员将可获官联公司的董事一职。在很多人的眼里，这是用公职来诱惑后座议员的伎俩，保住他们对政府的支持，排排坐有果果吃。这个游戏的玩法早在国阵时代就有了，希盟也有类似的权宜安排既使不是所有后座议员获得如此的待遇。目前国盟政府已确定安顿了8个后座议员这些机构职位，还有另外盛传7个正安排当中。

如果后者面对不信任动议的挑战，3天前国阵通过主席扎希表态将无条件支持首相慕尤丁，这无疑增强了慕尤丁的信心，但这或许仍不足于保证他可轻骑过关。

4）若不小心输掉了不信任动议，意味着什么？慕尤丁有什么王牌仍握在手上保住他政权？

答：如果慕尤丁真的遇到跑票，不小心输掉了不信任动议，那么他和内阁全体成员就必须总辞。他可以向最高元首要求解散国会重新选举，但最高元首有权不答应，然后由最高元首来鉴定和挑选下一位最有可能获得国会大多数支持的领袖为首相并组新内阁。

所以，我相当肯定慕尤丁不敢太贸然行事，因为输掉了不信任动议就意味着他丢官了。他需要时间整顿公家资源分发出去给支持者。这就是所谓的‘政治绑桩’。这对国家人民不是什么好事，毕竟法定机构和官联公司高职应由最适合的相关专业人士来担任执行任务，由国会议员政治人物来担当除了要‘养’他们之外，没增加政府效率，说白了是浪费纳税人钱或公司资源。

第三题：CMCO再延长四星期的考量。

1）延长合理吗？政府考量的因素是什么，与开斋回乡浪潮有关吗？

答：首先，有条件行管令会继续下去并延长至6月9日。看回月历，就可发现这段期间涵盖了开斋节、东马的两大节日（达雅丰收节和沙巴丰收节）。这些节日一般会看到回乡的浪潮。

再看看近期的每日新增病例的数字。虽说已降至50以下，但在一些红色疫区还是常有新病例。通常这些红色疫区都在城市，相对于很多县市郊区特别是北马和东海岸州属很多已多日甚至是好几个星期没新增病例。

分析所谓的每日新增病例，除了国外引入和群聚追踪病例，目前政府顾虑的是还未被发现的社区感染病例，要根除不易、能压多久就多久。

有条件行管令主要是为了要控制跨州人流，并设定下防疫SOP给各行各业去遵守，以让人调适未来的解封状态。坦白说，现在的有条件行管令已让人相对宽松舒服了，很多人都可以透一透气不用一直待在家里，照理来说延长多几周应该改变不大。

2） 那些所谓放宽的开业和社交条件能够有效执法监督吗？

答：最新的宣布针对几个方面：

1）跨州分隔两地的伴侣亲人，2）困在大学院校宿舍的学生，3）要在宗教场所礼拜的人，4）大节日时期州内拜访的人数限制。

对于跨州的人流，除了人民需要通过Gerak Malaysia app或在警察局申请，警察大可在主要的州边境设障碍监督人民。至于宗教场所的SOP，管理员与信徒之间的自律管理很重要。正如近来越来越多的餐厅开业允许人们堂食，大家要小心遵守SOP。

现在最多人关心的是，到底有没有可能执法监督大节日期间拜访人数的顶限20人啊？

警察有可能去社区巡逻计算屋内的访客人数吗？毕竟当局不可能要求这些居家像店面那样登记访客或要测量体温才可允许访客进入。屋子里面的社交距离或许也只能要求主人家和访客自律，不能硬性规定。

大家都知道新年期间燃放烟火爆竹是非法、不被允许的，很多人还不是照放？如果政府连那个明目张胆的非法活动都无法有效执法，我相信20人访客的限制差不多如同虚设。所以卫生总监诺希山在日前说，人数不是重点，而是大家拜访的时候有没有注重个人卫生和做足防疫措施？

3）韩国近来面对新一波的疫情袭击，我国在放宽各行业后会步上后尘吗？

答：早期面对瘟疫到后来有效地控制疫情的韩国，他们没落实类似我国的行管令或封城令。这整体表现要归功韩国民族自律的精神。但无论怎样自律也好，一旦有一人或几人不小心成为那些‘坏苹果’，就点燃星星之火可以燎原。最近韩国的新增病例其中是由于有一患者一晚流连好几个酒吧，就传染了好几十位。在疫情最受控制的期间，韩国每日新增病例只不过是单位数而已，现在又回到双位数。

所以，你问我到底我国会不会面对新一波疫情袭击？我相信这个可能性存在。

在疫苗还未被研发前，绝大部分的国人面对病毒皆有被感染的风险。一日全球大流行疫情没停止散播病毒，我国随时要面对新一波疫情考验。专家预料这个情况会延续两年。

看来我们要习惯不同程度的行管令，工作单位如公司和政府亦需如此。只要人民配合卫生部，遵守防疫措施和SOP，大家应该可以共同把疫情控制下来，把伤害和损失减至最低。

Civil society need not bow to politicians

Debut article under the newly established Agora Society TMI column, published on The Malaysian Insight, 11 May 2020

Original title: The need to maintain an independent and principled civil society movement

***

MAY 9 was supposed to be a day for Pakatan Harapan MPs, workers and supporters to celebrate the pact’s 2018 election victory.

However, the dramatic political conspiracy and scheming widely known now as the “Sheraton Move” took place at the end of February, to the bewilderment and disgust of the entire nation.

While the drama was orchestrated by the political elite, have civil society organisations and individuals reviewed their strategies and approaches with regard to what they achieved – or didn’t – during PH rule?

It is an understatement, to say the least, that the PH government disappointed many reform-minded supporters, with few achievements to show for, let alone the promised paradigm shift in policies, in its nearly two years in Putrajaya. Even the “good and widely praised” persons appointed to certain public offices face removal given the change of government. Institutional reform should be entrenched and permanent, unlike mere mortals in the hot seats.

What lessons can be learnt? Before the 14th general election, there were some civil society leaders who tactically threw their support behind PH and its choice of prime minister, whose track record is tainted with autocracy, cronyism, racism, abuse of state institutions and crackdowns on democratic demands for reform. And yet, some still harboured hope that he would change his spots under the PH banner. Overthrowing the Barisan Nasional government, and especially Najib Razak, became PH’s primary, if not sole, agenda.

For the organisations that had worked hard to realise their causes over the past 20 years, there was great temptation to see their reform efforts finally bear fruit. Instead of maintaining an independent stance, however, some decided to take the partisan line and campaigned for one side’s candidates. The sloganeering reached nauseating levels and the patriotism card was frequently flashed with claims to “save Malaysia” or “prevent the country from going bankrupt”. Some went as far as to reassure the people that PH was “not the same” as BN, and would “share power equally”. Most of all, it would “keep in check” the person at the helm.

Some civil society figures, among them former Bersih 2.0 chairman Maria Chin Abdullah, joined PH, and contested and won the elections. Others were happily “co-opted” into the system later. Hopes and expectations were high then.

Two years later, we know how the story goes. Those who might have misled the people during the GE14 campaign now have many excuses, but not a single apology. No promise or manifesto has been outlined by the Perikatan Nasional government, which has said its focus is fighting Covid-19. The hope for reform appears to have diminished, and we are back to square one.

Where should progressive, reform-minded civil groups go next? Should they still pin their hopes on one coalition, rising and falling with it?

It is activism gone wrong when such groups identify themselves more with those who hold power than the grassroots movements from which they derived their legitimacy. This happens when civil society leaders see themselves as the elite and believe that societal change can happen with back-room power brokering – the friendlier the party they get accustomed to, the higher the chance of success, or so they think.

I hope the bitter experience of the past two years will change their perspective, and for social movements to return to the basics: alerting, educating, inspiring and empowering the public as part of a participatory democracy built on universal values and principles.

Perhaps, there’s no better time than now to study social activism theorist Bill Moyer’s work on the Movement Action Plan, which clarifies the nature and dynamics of social movements, and provides a framework for organising and building them. He reminds us that a social activist has four roles, namely citizen, rebel, change agent and reformer, which varies according to a movement’s stages.

There are effective and ineffective ways to carry each role. For example, the ineffective “naive citizen” tends to have too much faith in power-holders and institutions serving the public’s interests over those of the elite. The “super-patriot”, meanwhile, is automatically obedient to power-holders in the name of the country. “Any means necessary”, as opposed to “means equal ends”, is a grave mistake that demands a heavy price. Giving tacit support to a suspicious leader is a good example; that’s a big gamble indeed.

Also, the self-identified leaders of certain issues may be too elitist, impeding the growth of social movements. Those who promote minor reform as a compromise, or allow for “co-optation”, are also ineffectively playing the role of change agent and/or reformer.

Maintaining the independence and integrity of civil groups is as crucial as keeping their core principles. Being part of social movements doesn’t mean one must always rebel. Equally, effective advocacy and lobbying doesn’t suggest a need to lean over and take a partisan line, or be co-opted. Regardless of how desperate or hopeless a situation seems, social movements should not take shortcuts.

I believe that a healthy and vibrant participatory democracy should reflect the “people power” structure: a strong, independent and principled civil society with an active citizenry that embraces universal values. This should serve as the backbone of our democracy.

Power-holders, even if derived from an electoral democracy, do not own absolute truth, and they are not our bosses. There’s no reason for civil society to bow to them. – May 11, 2020.

* Dr Lim Chee Han is a founding member of Agora Society and senior researcher at Third World Network. He holds a PhD in infection biology from Hannover Medical School, Germany, and an MSc in immunology and BSc in biotechnology from Imperial College London. Health and socioeconomic policies are his concerns. He believes a nation can advance significantly if policymaking and research are taken seriously.

The need to maintain an independent and principled civil society movement

Submitted manuscript.

The need to maintain an independent and principled civil society movement

9^th May is supposed to be a day for the Pakatan Harapan members of parliament, party workers and supporters to celebrate their anniversary of success, but this year is different. The dramatic political conspiracy and betrayal scheme were timely and swiftly played out by the end of February (famously known as the ‘Sheraton Move’ today) as the naked power struggle and horse-trading exercise bewildered and disgusted the whole nation. While the drama was exclusively played by the political elites, have the civil society organisations and individuals reflected and reviewed their strategies and approaches with what they had achieved (or not) during the PH government rule? It is an understatement to say the least that the PH government has disappointed many reform-minded supporters because of the little achievements to show in nearly 2 years of rule. There have been too little reform, let alone a paradigm shift in policies and institutional reform which the PH has promised. Even the ‘good and widely praised’ persons appointed to certain public offices, would face the consequence of removal given the change of government. Institutional reform should be more entrenched and permanent than just some mortals in the hot seats.

What lessons can be learned? Before GE14 there were some CSO leaders who tactically threw in vehement support for the PH coalition and rallied behind their prime minister candidate whose past records had been tainted with autocracy, cronyism, racism, abusing state institutions and cracking down on democratic demands for reform. Yet some still harboured the hope that the candidate would change his spots under the PH banner. Overthrowing the longstanding BN government and especially Najib Razak as the sitting prime minister had become their primary objective, if not the only agenda.

For the organizations or movements who had been working so hard to realize their causes in the past 20 years, that was a great temptation – whether one calls it a desperate or opportunistic move, to see their reform efforts finally bear fruits in the end. However, instead of maintaining their independent and principled stance, some organisations and individuals decided to take the partisan line, and heavily campaigned for the candidates from one side. The campaign sloganeering reached a nauseating level, flashing out the patriotic card such as claiming to ‘Save Malaysia’ or ‘prevent the country from going bankrupt’.  Some would even go as far as  ‘reassuring’’ the people that the PH coalition is ‘not the same’ (as BN), as they would ‘share power equally’, and most of all they could ‘keep in check’ the person at helm.

Some members from the CSO joined PH, contested and won in the last GE (eg. Bersih 2.0 ex-chairperson Maria Chin Abdullah), and some others from CSO within were happily being ‘co-opted’ into the system later. Hopes and expectations were indeed high at that moment. We know how the story went about 2 years later, yet those who may have misled the people during the GE14 campaign, now seem to have other words of excuse, anything but apology. No promises or manifesto have been outlined by the current Perikatan Nasional (PN) government who claim their focus now is on fighting over the COVID-19, the hope of reform seems diminished and back to square one.

Where should the progressive and reform-minded CSOs and individuals go next? Should they still hinge their hope on one political coalition, rising and falling with the latter? Here I would argue that such model of activism or social movement has gone wrong, due to the CSOs’ personnel identifying themselves more with the powerholders than the movement grassroots which the social activists should have derived their legitimacy from. This may happen when the social movement leaders see themselves as the elites and believe that societal change could happen due to power brokerage in the backroom – the more friendly the party they get accustomed with, the higher the chance of success, or so they think. I hope the bitter experience of the past two years would change their perspective, and the social movement needs to go back to the basic: alerting, educating, inspiring and empowering the general public, as part of participatory democracy, and must be built on universal values and principles.

Perhaps there is no better time than now to devote some time to the social activism theorist Bill Moyer’s work (2001) on Movement Action Plan (MAP) which clarifies the nature and dynamics of social movements and provides a framework for organising and building them. Bill reminds us that a social activist has four roles to play: citizen, rebel, change agent and reformer (see Figure 1 below), varies according to the stages of social movement. However, there are effective and ineffective ways (or pitfalls) to carry each role. For example, the ineffective role of citizen would be ‘naïve citizen’ who tend to have too much faith in the powerholders (ie. right people in the hot seat) and institutions to serve their interest instead of special elite interests; or ‘super-patriot’ who gives automatic obedience to powerholders in the name of country. ‘Any means necessary’ is a grave tactical mistake with a heavy price to pay later (as opposed to ‘means equal ends’)-- giving tacit support for a highly suspicious political leader the rein in governance is indeed a big gamble and one good example of ‘any means necessary’. Those self-identified leaders of certain issues/agendas could be too elitist, impeding the growth of movement (certain environmental movement in Kuantan was once plagued with the issue); those who promote minor reform as compromise or allow ‘co-optation’, these are identified as ineffective way of playing the role of change agent or reformer.

 Figure 1: The four roles of social activism

Source: Bill Moyer (1990). Adapted from URL: https://commonslibrary.org/the-four-roles-of-social-activism/

Maintaining the independence and integrity of a CSO or movement is as crucial as keeping the core principles. Being in the social movement does not mean that one must always rebel. Equally, effective advocacy and lobbying do not suggest that there is a need to lean over to take a partisan line or to be co-opted. Regardless of how desperate or hopeless the situation seems, the social movement should take no shortcut but have its foundation built from the ground up.

I believe a vibrant and healthy participatory democracy should reflect the ‘People Power’ structure: a strong, independent and principled civil society with active citizenry embracing universal values. This should serve the backbone of our democracy. Powerholders, even if derived from electorate democracy, do not own absolute truth and they are not our boss, a reason why civil society does not need to bow to them.

AiFM《名師早點》- 有條件行管令

今早在AiFM《名師早點》時段點評上週五首相慕尤丁宣佈的有條件行管令。

以下是原版加長版講詞：

***

名师早点，多知一点，我是志翰，群议社社员及政策研究员。大家好！

今天是5月4号，是有条件行管令的开始，你们早上在做什么呢？

有人五四要运动，今天要出来跑跑步透透气。有人想念最爱的早餐店美食，要堂食用餐。或可能今天你们要上班，现在还在路上？我希望你们的公司已根据卫生部和贸工部的SOP、做好完整的防疫措施准备，才让你们安心上班。

接着要看你身在哪里？一些州属，目前主要是联邦在野党的执政州（槟城、吉打、雪州、森美兰和沙巴）都展延落实有条件行管令，再加上霹靂、馬六甲、彭亨和砂拉越。

上周五首相慕尤丁在劳动节献词里的宣布，我原以为只会有更多的行动松绑和经济小开放而已，怎知原来是大解放！

这么说，行管令结束了吗？还没、还没，只是现在‘变种’了。

前后分别是什么？之前的行管令，政府宣布的是正面清单(positive list)，意思是除了清单里肯定的行业（一般是基本供应和服务），其他的一概不可营业，全部人没事都应该待在家里。

上周五首相宣布的有条件行管令呈现的则是负面清单(negative list)，意思是所有行业可以复工，除了清单里否定的23个经济领域相关活动。那些无法遵循SOP因为该服务难以保持社交距离或需要人与人之间近距离接触、或有可能形成大群聚，这些所谓‘高风险’的经济活动还不能办。学校也还不能重开。

虽说这个负面清单里牵涉不少行业，但基本上已允许相当多的经济活动，让原本待在家里的大部分人有理由或有需要出门。 至于这解封的宣布是不是来得太早或太快？政府曾说行管解禁要软着陆，现在到底是硬还是软？

世界卫生组织早前已列明6个条件衡量是否该国已作好准备解除封城令(或限行令)。英国牛津大学的一项持续性研究就针对这6条件监控全球各国的抗疫状况，其中两项他们认为我国仍有不足的地方是：第一、我国疫情仍未完全受控制，每日新增病例平均仍高于50宗。第二、我国没有能力侦查、检测、隔离和治疗每个病例，并追踪每一个接触者。我本身不太认同他们的第二点，以我对卫生部的观察，其实目前我国应有能力做到追踪、隔离和治疗病例，虽然有争议的是我国检测到底充足与否。

针对最新的松绑政策，站在抗疫的公共卫生角度来看，越多的人与人之间的来往接触，会增加社区传染的风险，特别是正当许多社区传染病例还未接近根除的时候。无可否认，近两周的疫情趋势有比较明显地好转，虽然昨天前天的新增病例又回弹到三位数。但由于社会和经济已差不多被封锁接近两个月，首相慕尤丁也说行管令期间每天要面对接近24亿的经济损失，很多人民没有收入坐吃山空陷困境，所以这已不纯粹是公共卫生的问题。

一般人常误解，行管令的主要目的和作用其实不是为了完全消灭病毒传染，而是“压平曲线”避免医疗资源透支超负荷。这一点政府目前已做到了。可预见的是，这个全球大流行的传染病并不会在短期内消失，我国的疫情病例也几乎不可能在短期内转零，大家也不能一直呆坐在家里。所以政府应该按部就班地让国家经济重新运作，来日方长好让各方有资源、士气和更有准备共同打长远抗疫战。

事实上，很多民众批评政府操之过急、不负责任地让国人暴露在病毒感染风险当中，或许他们误读了政府强调各行各业要做到SOP要求的每一项防疫措施，方才可开门让人上班，并不是要雇主没做好准备就一定要在今天开业复工。若没必要，员工应该留在家工作，政府没鼓吹全部人非得要回到办公室。所以，照顾员工的健康和顾虑他们的感染风险，雇主也得负上一定的责任。

工作归工作， 要记得，自己不被感染就不会传染别人，希望大家能适应这个‘’新常态‘’，自己的健康自己照顾，要常常注重个人的卫生，包括勤洗手、保持社交距离和在适当时候戴上口罩。抗疫防疫是共同的努力和责任，不只是政府，还包括社区和个人。大家发挥守望相助精神总有一天可战胜新冠病毒