Hong Kongers, not Chinese
Hong Kong is mainlandizing. My city is increasingly politically influenced by, and economically dependent on, the mainland. From the disappearance of book publishers to the proposed Hong Kong extradition bill, I once believed Hong Kong would be doomed to lose its autonomy completely.
Yet, I was wrong. In the most recent month, especially after witnessing a record “2 million” people march for civil rights, I have learnt that our city should not, and will not, stop at defense to defer or prevent Beijing’s political, social and legal intervention in local affairs.
Endeavors, and willingness, to collectively defend our civil liberties prompt the reinforcement of a unique identity — an identity that is exclusively owned by Hong Kong citizens — known as Hong Kongers. Proudly speaking, resisting the erosion of our civil liberties sets our city apart from the mainland.
These weeks, in response to social movements against the extradition bill, newspapers worldwide have divorced the term “Hong Kongers” from “Chinese” or “China.” These newspapers include US News in the US, the Guardian in the UK, the Vancouver Sun in Canada, the Economic Times in India and the Bangkok Post in Thailand.
These publications have lauded Hong Kongers’ defiant fight for civil rights and identity, while denouncing the Beijing and Hong Kong governments’ disrespect for the “one country, two systems” principles.
Despite the city mainlandizing, our organized, peaceful and desperate demonstrations against the extradition bill have strengthened our sense of belonging to Hong Kong, but not the mainland.
A University of Hong Kong survey released on Thursday last week showed that the percentage of local citizens identifying as Chinese fell to a record low since the handover in 1997.
In contrast, the percentage of local citizens identifying as Hong Kongers hit a record high from 1997 onward.
Yes, a vast majority of the Hong Kong population are Han Chinese. However, when Beijing speeds up the interference in local affairs, Hong Kongers must stay united and rant: “This is Hong Kong, not China! At least not yet!”
Jason Hung
Bangkok, Thailand
IHME and its mysterious data
On Monday last week, The Lancet, the leading medical journal, published an article titled “Mortality, Morbidity, and Risk Factors in China and Its Provinces, 1990–2017: a Systematic Analysis for the Global Burden of Disease Study 2017.”
The study, led by coauthors from the University of Washington’s Institute for Health Metrics and Evaluation (IHME) presented a lot of epidemic data, highlighting the public health efforts made by the Chinese government.
Healthcare data from Taiwan, listed as one of the Chinese provinces, were also presented in the study.
Taiwan has never been governed by the People’s Republic of China. Taiwan has made its stride in public health as Taiwanese healthcare workers and academics over the years have dedicated themselves in this area.
One example is the area of alcoholism. Taiwan became the leading country in the study of alcoholism, as many of the Taiwanese studies have been published in international peer-reviewed journals.
For the past 70 years, Taiwan has established its own healthcare governance, medical care network and international scholarship, with no participation from the Chinese government.
Sadly, despite the success, Taiwan has been denied membership in the WHO, because the global body recognizes it as part of China.
The study published by The Lancet relies heavily on data, which the authors claimed to have gathered from the Global Health Data Exchange. However, these data are public records of the Ministry of Health and Welfare. The authors should have applied for their academic use.
Moreover, as Taiwan is not a member of the WHO, the nation’s official health data would not have been shared internationally. Since the publication of the article, Taiwanese health officials have been baffled by how these researchers obtained the data.
The study can be found here: www.thelancet.com/journals/lancet/article/PIIS0140-6736(19)30427-1/fulltext.
It should also be noted that this IHME study was supported by the Bill & Melinda Gates Foundation.
Chen Chiao-chicy
Psychiatrist, Mackay Memorial Hospital and Mackay Medical College
A white elephant?
I read with complete amazement last week more information about the Taipei Dome (“Farglory needs to submit design on new capacity,” June 25, page 3).
I have been in Taipei for the past 15 months. A 55,000-seat stadium to play baseball softball and soccer at a cost of hundreds of billions of New Taiwan dollars.
Average baseball attendance in Taipei is 5,000 to 6,000 people. Average soccer game attendance I estimate would be 500 to 1,000 people.
When, if ever, is Taipei Dome going to be filled?
The only time baseball would get 55,000 people would be for a special game against the US. The only time soccer would get 55,000 people to a game is if Barcelona and Liverpool were to play.
How is the Taipei Dome not going to be a “white elephant?” Billions of taxpayer dollars to be filled maybe once every 10 years.
How does this get approval to be built?
Michael Lanyon
Taipei
Recently, China launched another diplomatic offensive against Taiwan, improperly linking its “one China principle” with UN General Assembly Resolution 2758 to constrain Taiwan’s diplomatic space. After Taiwan’s presidential election on Jan. 13, China persuaded Nauru to sever diplomatic ties with Taiwan. Nauru cited Resolution 2758 in its declaration of the diplomatic break. Subsequently, during the WHO Executive Board meeting that month, Beijing rallied countries including Venezuela, Zimbabwe, Belarus, Egypt, Nicaragua, Sri Lanka, Laos, Russia, Syria and Pakistan to reiterate the “one China principle” in their statements, and assert that “Resolution 2758 has settled the status of Taiwan” to hinder Taiwan’s
Can US dialogue and cooperation with the communist dictatorship in Beijing help avert a Taiwan Strait crisis? Or is US President Joe Biden playing into Chinese President Xi Jinping’s (習近平) hands? With America preoccupied with the wars in Europe and the Middle East, Biden is seeking better relations with Xi’s regime. The goal is to responsibly manage US-China competition and prevent unintended conflict, thereby hoping to create greater space for the two countries to work together in areas where their interests align. The existing wars have already stretched US military resources thin, and the last thing Biden wants is yet another war.
As Maldivian President Mohamed Muizzu’s party won by a landslide in Sunday’s parliamentary election, it is a good time to take another look at recent developments in the Maldivian foreign policy. While Muizzu has been promoting his “Maldives First” policy, the agenda seems to have lost sight of a number of factors. Contemporary Maldivian policy serves as a stark illustration of how a blend of missteps in public posturing, populist agendas and inattentive leadership can lead to diplomatic setbacks and damage a country’s long-term foreign policy priorities. Over the past few months, Maldivian foreign policy has entangled itself in playing
A group of Chinese Nationalist Party (KMT) lawmakers led by the party’s legislative caucus whip Fu Kun-chi (?) are to visit Beijing for four days this week, but some have questioned the timing and purpose of the visit, which demonstrates the KMT caucus’ increasing arrogance. Fu on Wednesday last week confirmed that following an invitation by Beijing, he would lead a group of lawmakers to China from Thursday to Sunday to discuss tourism and agricultural exports, but he refused to say whether they would meet with Chinese officials. That the visit is taking place during the legislative session and in the aftermath