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
The conflict in the Middle East has been disrupting financial markets, raising concerns about rising inflationary pressures and global economic growth. One market that some investors are particularly worried about has not been heavily covered in the news: the private credit market. Even before the joint US-Israeli attacks on Iran on Feb. 28, global capital markets had faced growing structural pressure — the deteriorating funding conditions in the private credit market. The private credit market is where companies borrow funds directly from nonbank financial institutions such as asset management companies, insurance companies and private lending platforms. Its popularity has risen since
The Donald Trump administration’s approach to China broadly, and to cross-Strait relations in particular, remains a conundrum. The 2025 US National Security Strategy prioritized the defense of Taiwan in a way that surprised some observers of the Trump administration: “Deterring a conflict over Taiwan, ideally by preserving military overmatch, is a priority.” Two months later, Taiwan went entirely unmentioned in the US National Defense Strategy, as did military overmatch vis-a-vis China, giving renewed cause for concern. How to interpret these varying statements remains an open question. In both documents, the Indo-Pacific is listed as a second priority behind homeland defense and
Every analyst watching Iran’s succession crisis is asking who would replace supreme leader Ayatollah Ali Khamenei. Yet, the real question is whether China has learned enough from the Persian Gulf to survive a war over Taiwan. Beijing purchases roughly 90 percent of Iran’s exported crude — some 1.61 million barrels per day last year — and holds a US$400 billion, 25-year cooperation agreement binding it to Tehran’s stability. However, this is not simply the story of a patron protecting an investment. China has spent years engineering a sanctions-evasion architecture that was never really about Iran — it was about Taiwan. The
In an op-ed published in Foreign Affairs on Tuesday, Chinese Nationalist Party (KMT) Chairwoman Cheng Li-wun (鄭麗文) said that Taiwan should not have to choose between aligning with Beijing or Washington, and advocated for cooperation with Beijing under the so-called “1992 consensus” as a form of “strategic ambiguity.” However, Cheng has either misunderstood the geopolitical reality and chosen appeasement, or is trying to fool an international audience with her doublespeak; nonetheless, it risks sending the wrong message to Taiwan’s democratic allies and partners. Cheng stressed that “Taiwan does not have to choose,” as while Beijing and Washington compete, Taiwan is strongest when
RSS