AsiaGlobal Voices

A while ago, the public was shocked by video of a regent from North Sulawesi stating that regulations from the central government regarding assistance for the public during the Covid-19 crisis were confusing and created problems for his region. The comment was understandable. As a local leader dealing directly with the public, people like this have to provide a sense of security at a time when the central government is seen as having taken too long to adopt policies.

At the central level, ministries and central government institutions have not developed the unity required to confront the crisis so it is hardly surprising that problems emerge when they should be developing synergies with local governments. Communication and coordination with local governments are critical. Indeed, leaders at the village level represent the front line in serving the public and must be involved.

The president should be the “supreme commander” in the war against the Covid-19 pandemic. The assumption is that if the president is the supreme commander, decisions can be made more rapidly, with better focus and integration.

This open letter asks you to reconsider the deployment ban of overseas healthcare workers. We feel grateful for your intent to protect Filipino nurses from the risk posed by Covid-19. However, I believe no one understands the danger better than healthcare workers.

In the past, we sent soldiers abroad to fight for our allies, despite the fact that we were under threat of war on our own soil. The difference is that soldiers are at the disposal of the government. Nurses are not. Nurses who want to lift their families out of poverty have been singled out. This pandemic will not be gone soon. How long will they have to wait? Three or four months? Maybe a year or so?

Desperate times call for desperate measures. But a pandemic, like a war, is a threat that is never gone. Military enlistment is not best done at the brink of a war, and neither is the massive employment of nurses during a pandemic. Prevention is better than cure, says the old adage. Before we reached this point, there were not enough efforts to attract nurses to work in our country because the popular belief was that the supply was great, that there was nothing to worry about.

Had it not been for the pandemic, our nurses here would not have been seen as more valuable. Data suggests that the Philippines has surpassed other countries in terms of death tolls among healthcare workers. It seems that neither the situation here or overseas can make us feel safe. But soldiers and nurses alike know what they signed up for. At least, once abroad, we can send our families financial support to help them get by during the pandemic.

An annual report released by the Stockholm International Peace Research Institute (SIPRI) shows that in 2019 the increase in global military expenditure was the biggest in 10 years. The total expenditure for all countries in the world now exceeds USD$1.9 trillion – a record post-Cold War high. The Covid-19 pandemic is having a profound impact on the world and human society. It is therefore important to consider whether this crisis will change the trend towards military readiness and the potential of an arms race.

Global military spending has increased for two reasons. First, competition between countries over resources and territory has intensified causing the international security situation to evolve and produce conflict hotspots. This has resulted in increased militarization in various countries. Second, economic growth in major countries has provided the financial support for military spending.

The impact of the Covid-19 crisis alter those two reasons. First, the crisis may intensify competition between countries and strengthen the need for various nations to be militarily prepared. The international community has not responded to this pandemic in a unified way. As such, intensified competition between countries could become a world trend after 2020. Second, the economic depression caused by the crisis may greatly restrict military spending in many countries. The pandemic may help countries re-evaluate the cost-effectiveness of military expenditure and force countries to shift their focus away from focusing on defense.

Further increases in security requirements, along with the tremendous weakening of financial support, will mean that policymakers around the world face new challenges. In recent years, China has put forward the diplomatic concept of a "community of shared future for mankind". The enlightened nature of such Chinese concepts is increasingly important and should be used to help addresses issues of military readiness and their negative effects.

The Covid-19 pandemic has subsided and the mood has become cautiously optimistic. But Hong Kong people have not been able to relax. Even after the pandemic, tears in society remain.

Over the years, politicians have often talked about "democracy", "freedom" and "justice". There are many who remain dissatisfied with the government and stand on the side of the protesters. They may believe they are fighting for democracy, freedom and justice. Whether their actions truly reflect this is a different question.

It may be more appropriate to understand these actions through the concept of “brotherhood”, which is deeply rooted in Hong Kong culture. It is an emotional rather than rational idea. Legal procedures are too complicated and civilized negotiations are perceived to be useless, making it is easy for society to resort to violence. Meanwhile, protestors insist on their five demands more for the sake of winning and refusing to compromise with the government.

Brotherhood values loyalty over justice. The act of choosing to support a certain party requires never turning your back on them. Today, some are even claiming to be "real Hong Kongers" to separate themselves from anyone that disagrees with them. This cognitive shift from the pursuit of justice to a self-proclaimed "justice" is dangerous. We should define good and bad through one’s nature not by ideology. Those who truly respect justice will know that they are not above the law and will not claim to be the executors of justice.

Hong Kong people can be seen as children of the brotherhood. While a brotherhood society can be both humane and united, we should not confuse it with justice. In view of Hong Kong’s current situation with the upcoming Legislative Council elections, will we simply choose to fight – or instead strive together for Hong Kong's interests?

The media coverage of the 66th Covid-19 infection case in Yongjin (in the Seoul Capital Area) is causing a national outrage. The confirmed patient visited a number of bars and clubs before testing positive for the virus. His itinerary was disclosed in accordance with the epidemic control policy. What made the media coverage outrageous was the unnecessary reporting that one of the places he visited was a gay club.

Adding this irrelevant detail was grossly problematic for a number of reasons. First, it is morally flawed. Revealing or speculating on a person’s sexual orientation without consent is a gross violation of the victim’s privacy, especially given the conservative South Korean context.

Second, what the media implies may not even be accurate. Yet the mere implication suffices in framing the victim as being part of a sexual minority. Since the initial media coverage, there has been an influx of malicious bashing of sexual minority groups, which is wrong by itself but was not unforeseeable. Knowing this, the media should have been extra careful but instead utterly failed.

Third, such coverage impedes to control the outbreak. With the public now assuming that all those associated with the confirmed patient are also members of a sexual minority, those who were in close contact with him have good reason to hide and deny any association with the incident.

In short, reporting the connection to the gay club was not only immoral but also counterproductive for society. From a public-health perspective, there was no reason for the nature of the club to have been disclosed. Irresponsible reporting turned out to be just as detrimental to society as citizens not abiding by the social-distancing rules.

During a press conference on April 8, Tedros Adhanom Ghebreyesus, Director-General of the World Health Organization (WHO), accused Taiwan’s government of spearheading personal and racist attacks against him over the past three months. This accusation triggered a war of words between the WHO and Taipei.

There indeed is evidence of some Taiwan netizens criticizing Tedros for what they view is his "pro-China" stance, while using indecent and racist language. Attributing the actions of certain individuals online to the entire population of Taiwan or to the government is unreasonable. It is therefore extreme to assert that Taiwan is "racist". As an immigrant society, Taiwan is known for preserving the warm, harmonious and inclusive aspects of Chinese culture. Taiwan is also renowned for its welcoming people.

Dr Tedros may be unaware of Taiwan ’s historical relations with African nations. As early as the 1960s, Taiwan provided aid to Africa, sending to the continent a large number of medical, farming and engineering teams. Yet many African nations subsequently recognized mainland China, forcing Taiwan off the United Nations.

The Chinese government claims that Taiwan is exploiting the Covid-19 pandemic to accelerate independence. These assertions are nothing more than further moves to oppose Taiwan ’s participation in the WHO. Taiwan is currently battling against the epidemic while simultaneously facing a political war of words. The coronavirus jeopardizes individuals, while political viruses endanger national security.

Prime Minister Muhyiddin Yassin announced that most economic activities would resume on May 4. The government must closely monitor the situation and take relevant measures to prevent future outbreaks and support Malaysia’s economic recovery. The Gerakan party supports the government ’s decision, as it strikes a balance between the fight against the epidemic and the need to revive the economy.

The government cannot keep people at home and stop all economic activities indefinitely. This decision is undoubtedly important for businesses and citizens. SMEs account for 70 percent of domestic enterprises, contributing more than two thirds of employment opportunities and accounting for nearly 40 percent of GDP. Only by keeping the enterprises active can we avoid growth in unemployment.

The resumption of some economic activities and employment, however, does not mean that the control order has been lifted. On the contrary, this is only a slight loosening of measures. People can still not hold large-scale group activities. The public must strictly abide by the guidelines set by the government to avoid future outbreaks of the virus. This will hopefully strike a balance between virus control and protecting the economy.

Health experts have warned that the Covid-19 virus could continue to circulate for the next two years. The government and the people should not become complacent. Actions such as wearing masks, maintaining personal hygiene and keeping safe social distance are all necessary. Law enforcement agencies should also enforce the law strictly and penalize those who violate orders.

The Gerakan Party emphasizes its support of the government ’s recent decision as the longer strict controls are in place, the greater the impact on the national economy.

Singapore’s fight against the Covid-19 virus has been remarkable for three key reasons: First, Singapore responded quickly. In addition to the monitoring and management mechanisms already in place, authorities made continual judgments based on the situation. Second, the integrity of the medical system has been maintained and well coordinated. Third, government communication has been consistently transparent. From the prime minister to the ministers, all have ensured the population were informed about the situation.

Now, the battle against the virus is focused on community transmission among migrant workers. It is therefore increasingly necessary to have clearer and more targeted strategies, while also considering associated issues including mental wellbeing.  

After nearly two months of gradual strengthening of virus control measures, the number of people calling for psychological counselling and assistance has increased significantly. At the same time, there have been reports that some people have rebelled against the circuit-breaker measures. We should expect such incidents to increase in the community due to the extension of control measures.

The various challenges that each person experiences – unemployment or loneliness, for example – will influence their reactions. The circuit-breaking measures have already been extended to June 1. If the epidemic continues and they must be extended further, it will bring greater uncertainty and place society under increasing psychological pressure. Simply providing more information cannot bring relief.

While the epidemic will eventually pass, another challenge lies ahead in the form of economic reconstruction. Maintaining mental wellbeing will be essential in promoting national social solidarity and cohesiveness while supporting future economic revitalization and harmonious social development.

Along with virtually all parents at this time, my wife and I have to accept responsibility for helping our child study at home. Like others, we have to admit that explaining various lessons and assisting our children in their schoolwork is not as easy as we thought. And it now appears that the face of education in Indonesia is going to be changed enormously because of the pandemic. 

Online education is not simple. It requires personal discipline and certain facilities. I am grateful that I am able to assist our child. But I am also aware of the complaints of many other parents and people working in the education system about the availability of smartphones or laptops and an internet connection. In simple terms, online learning has the potential to expand socioeconomic inequity. Some are facing the very difficult choice of spending on food for their families or paying for their children’s education.

The potential for students dropping out of school is high. There are already indications of higher drop-out rates in Papua, North Maluku and Jakarta, all areas badly affected by the pandemic.

The spread of Covid-19 across Africa has coincided with some negative comments against China in African media and on local social media platforms. These include conspiracy theories about the origin of the virus and claims that China is using aid to further control Africa.

The West, meanwhile, is waging a smear campaign against China by bandying terms such as “neo-colonialism” and “resource plundering”. These slurs have intensified during the Covid-19 crisis, influencing public opinion, particularly in the countries of Sub-Saharan Africa. Mainstream media in the West inevitably drown out Chinese voices. To counter this, China needs to consider the following:

First, the attitudes and policies of African governments towards China evolve with the external situation. As governments again look to maximize their own interests, the re-emergence of business pragmatism will prompt governments to repair their relationship with China.

Second, even with provocation from the West, there is no real anti-China wave in Africa. Rather, any acrimony is a result of emotions stemming from mounting economic pressure. This issue will eventually fade.

Third, some African politicians have the politicized the epidemic. Yet the African people remain kind hearted, even though public opinion may have been swayed by simplistic messages from external forces.

Fourth, the epidemic has made China-Africa bilateral research institutes, think tanks, non-governmental organizations and institutions realize that exchanges cannot rely on seminars and workshops. Instead, Chinese actors should come to Africa with clear goals, better planning and long-term strategies.

Finally, the importance of youth should not be overlooked. Chinese youth can show the next generation of young Africans that China is not just powerful and wealthy but can still relate to Africa on many levels and issues such as poverty alleviation, employment and development. China and Africa can therefore face common challenges and solve problems together.

A number of centrists have emerged through Hong Kong’s recent district council elections. They argue that Hong Kong is too polarized and needs to find a new “middle way”. But can Hong Kong still accommodate centrists today?

Many individuals certainly have a centrist approach to politics. From "left or right of center" to "pro-integration” to “status-quo” to “pro-independence", Hong Kong society has varying levels of degrees of agreement or disagreement on different issues. Even though an individual may hold economic interests in the mainland, they could still have reservations about the Chinese government and yet be neither “pro China” nor “anti China”.

Inside the Legislative Council, this is not the case. Yet Hong Kong was not always so polarized. Even though politicians may hold different voting priorities on a range of issues from economics to LGBT rights, today, following the anti-extradition-bill protest movement, Hong Kong is now polarized – pro or anti China. In this atmosphere, all other important issues that our society faces are overshadowed.

Nevertheless, some still believe that centrists can survive in today’s political climate. This is naïve. You need only ask a so-called centrist a number of revealing questions – for example, whether they would support the immediate passing of Article 23 (internal security) legislation. If they were opposed, then the pro-China faction would view them as anti China rather than as centrist, and vice-versa.

As the Hong Kong Legislative Council election approaches, centrist candidates must think carefully about how they will respond to such questions. It is necessary to understand that the issues facing Hong Kong today are inherently political. And in this political struggle, centrists simply have no room for survival.

The Covid-19 epidemic is almost over in Taiwan. Providing the Central Epidemic Command Centre (CECC) does not make any major mistakes, people should be able to resume normal work and activities within the month. Even after the epidemic, however, a new way of life must be developed to eliminate the threat of the virus returning entirely.

The successful defeat of the Covid-19 virus in Taiwan is a direct result of society’s efforts rather than the policies of the CECC. By adhering to the hygiene and symptom-management etiquette outlined by the World Health Organization (WHO), the public health was maintained.

This should continue. Masks should be placed at the center of daily life while the rest of the world battles the virus. Whether you have any symptoms or are simply visiting crowded areas or confined spaces such as public transport or elevators, everyone must take the initiative to wear masks.

Masks are also important because they are an alternative means to maintaining social-distancing practices. Keeping physically apart is just one aspect of a robust public-health policy, which includes vaccinations and wearing masks. As people resume normal interaction, it will be difficult to maintain social distance, so other ways to protect each other and ourselves such as wearing masks will be important.

Emerging infectious diseases can arise come from cross-animal transmission without mutations, as in the cases of AIDS and Ebola. It is, therefore, important to maintain our distance from wild animals including rodents and bats. Besides avoiding slaughtering wild animals, the development and construction of urban areas must take into account the habitats of wild animals so as not to avoid the transmission of infectious diseases to humans.

Only by continuing to wear masks and social distancing with wild animals can Taiwan become a leading example in the field of public health.

Following its recent sweeping re-election, the government has been accelerating its efforts to boost the North-South relations. On April 27, the second anniversary of the historic meeting between the two Korean leaders, President Moon Jae-in unilaterally announced four inter-Korean initiatives, including medical cooperation, a cross-border railway project, demilitarized zone (DMZ) peacekeeping, and reunification of separated family members. The government identified the restoration of the Gangneung-Jejin section of the Donghae Bukbu railway line as a priority among the four, launching it at Jejin Station.

The North, meanwhile, gave no official comment on any of the South’s initiatives. Recent speculation about the health of the North Korean leader would seem to render any possibility of significant cooperation unlikely. For any of the cooperative measures to result in major progress, the North would need to give a more concrete positive official response, with any steps taken in coordination with the international community.

Amidst the global pandemic, all talk of denuclearization is currently on hold and the North is still subject to various UN sanctions. The US has been consistent that any further economic cooperation with the North can only be taken in lockstep with measures for denuclearization.

The denuclearization of the Korean Peninsula has long past being just a Korean issue. For lasting peace and security, all cooperative steps must be coordinated among the four parties: the North, the South, the US and the international community. Despite its recent political success, the South Korean government must not rely on groundless hope that pursuing bilateral cooperation and providing material aid would somehow improve the relations and prompt the North to denuclearize.

India has extended the national lockdown with some relaxation. The government should have been more liberal in opening up. Other than districts in severely hit red zones, the rest of the country needed to be given space to breathe again. A greater calamity than Covid-19 – humanitarian, social and economic – is imminent if a uniform lockdown is continued.

This is not to argue that the clampdown and enforced physical distancing did not serve their purpose. The number of infections would have been substantially higher had the decision not been taken to shut down the nation.

But India is a global outlier in the number of fatalities from the pandemic. Whatever the reasons, the death rate is not higher than that of other diseases that claim Indian lives every day.

In the meantime, there are other grave crises emerging. Among them is the lack of access to health care for poor citizens.

The biggest gear shift needed is in that of attitude. While aggressive contact tracing and quarantine are essential, we cannot treat testing positive as a doomsday scenario. We have been shutting down housing societies, hospitals, factories and workplaces if even one person tests positive. If every case triggers panic, we shall never be able to rebuild our lives.

How to kickstart the economy should have all our attention. The biggest flaw in a lockdown is that it quarantines healthy people. What’s needed is not a sledgehammer that clamps down, but a sieve that sifts those who really need medical help from those who can just stay at home.

The lockdown has served its purpose. More of this will be a cure worse than the disease.

Taiwan first started to call for it to participate in World Health Organization (WHO) activities in 1995. This year, there appears to be great deal of optimism that this goal might be achieved. At the end of December 2019, Taiwan appealed to the WHO secretariat to pay attention to cases of unknown pneumonia in China. Subsequently, Taiwan demonstrated an outstanding ability to tackle the Covid-19 pandemic. This has helped boost Taiwan’s reputation, with the United States and Japan strongly supporting Taiwan’s participation as an observer in the WHO.

Despite the optimism, the public should manage their expectations. First, the epidemic in Europe has not been completely controlled. As a result, the World Health Assembly (WHA), the governing forum of the WHO, will be held online this year, with the pandemic the focus of discussions. The possibility that Taiwan’s role will be discussed is unlikely. As such, Taiwan’s participation is by no means guaranteed.

Second, the countries that support Taiwan’s participation in WHO activities only express their support for Taiwan as an observer. Previously, such participation has been based on the "1992 Consensus” and as such, would ultimately be determined by China. It is also important to note that there are many types of observers. As Taiwan experienced by having an observer seat from 2009 to 2016, this approach can actually be harmful to Taiwan ’s international status.

If possible, it is necessary to seek further joint proposals from the United States and Japan to allow Taiwan to participate in the voting on resolutions in the Assembly. The benefit of a democratic society is that it is possible to congregate and gather ideas. People seem to be too optimistic about participation in this year’s WHA. For now, it is best to remain both cautious and patient.