145
a file-brand, his actions were dictated by his intense interest in his native town and its welfare.' A final judgment: “No matter how bitterly he might differ with any of his colleagues, and in his early years in the Council particularly he figured in many a heated scene, he left all rancour behind at the Council table. Next day he would greet his opponents as cheerfully as though nothing had happened to ruffle them and be good friends." We know that in Hong Kong, Lockhart and Francis had not responded to him,
In the end, how should we appraise Lowson and his diary? You will agree with me that he would appear to have been a rather difficult man; otherwise, he would not have clashed with authorities wherever he worked, in Hong Kong, India, and Forfar. You will recall that at the early stage of the Epidemic, he, a relatively junior doctor, offered to take sole charge but was turned down. This shows that he was probably the type who would prefer to give rather than take orders. But he was undoubtedly a forthright and strict character, uncompromising in disputes when he thought he was right and entirely honest in his intentions. I am sure all of us have come across such traits among our friends and colleagues. But neither Lowson nor history should accuse any of the people he criticised of mishandling the situation in any way. There was nothing else they could have done without the means that we now have at our disposal and the knowledge of the disease we now possess. Lowson's diary, though covering only the first phase, is undoubtedly a valuable addition to the literature on the Hong Kong Plague Epidemic now that it has become available.
In recent years, there has been much talk about Hong Kong's resilience, its capacity to recover quickly from one financial crisis after another, becoming even more prosperous each time. We seem to have forgotten Hong Kong's resilience in having survived the devastations of diseases, such as malarial fever in its infancy, bubonic plague in its adolescence, and occasional outbreaks of cholera, typhoid fever, dysentery, and others all through the years. There was a time when living in Hong Kong was a hazard, for one never knew when life or health would be threatened. The Plague Epidemic of 1894 was a real calamity for Hong Kong, as Sir William Robinson had said. But it can be regarded as a watershed for, after it, Hong Kong became a healthier and cleaner place. To mark its centenary, let us pay tribute to all those who contributed in the long fight against the Epidemic in their various capacities, as administrators, legislators, and medical and health officers, among them our unsung hero, Dr. J. A. Lowson.