Hong Kong harbour protection collective dissolves
HONG KONG : A Hong Kong environmental group said it would disband today, ending decades-long activism to protect the city's Victoria Harbour from large reclamation projects.
Hong Kong was once home to a vibrant civil society, but scores of groups have closed since the national security law imposed by Beijing in 2020, with hundreds of pro-democracy activists arrested, jailed or in exile.
Harbour protection was one of the city's major activist causes in the decade following the former British colony's handover to China in 1997.
But the Society for Protection of the Harbour (SPH) said today it had ceased operations, citing a law passed this year that made it easier for the government to create new land through reclamation in Victoria Harbour.
SPH said in legal advice offered to government leaders that the amendments violate the fundamental principle of public law 'by placing the roles of proposer, evaluator and ultimate decision-maker all within the power of government decision-makers'.
It received no response and the bill was passed by Hong Kong's opposition-free legislature in May, it said.
Hong Kong's secretary for development Bernadette Linn told pro-Beijing newspaper Wen Wei Po in June the government had encountered 'soft resistance' – a vague term used by pro-Beijing politicians to crackdown on dissent – when amending the law.
Linn pointed to a social media post produced by SPH which implied that the government's reclamation posed danger to Victoria Harbour.
SPH said today it was thanks to the support of the public that Hong Kong 'still enjoys a wide, deep, and beautiful Victoria Harbour'.
'We sincerely hope that one day our Victoria Harbour will be declared a 'national treasure of China' and will be protected and preserved for the benefit of the present and future generations,' the group said.
Hashtags
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
Free Malaysia Today
27 minutes ago
- Free Malaysia Today
Race-based policies a thorn in both sides, says ex-Umno man
(From left) Shahril Hamdan, formerly of Umno, was at a panel discussion with Nik Nazmi Nik Ahmad of PKR and Wan Ahmad Fayhsal Wan Ahmad Kamal of Bersatu. KUALA LUMPUR : A former Umno leader has called for an honest national dialogue on how Bumiputera policies are implemented, as current approaches have bred resentment not just among non-Bumiputeras but also within the Bumiputera community itself. 'I think you need to make sure that whatever set of policies you have, reduce resentment,' former Umno Supreme Council member Shahril Hamdan said at the Malaysian student leaders summit held here today. 'There's too much resentment in this country,' he said. 'Clearly, the Bumiputera policy has been actioned in a way that has caused resentment among the non-Bumiputeras. And what's tragic is that you also have resentment from the Bumiputera community. 'Although they get Bumiputera privilege, they feel that they got a raw deal,' he said at a panel discussion on the mandate of the Madani government. Another speaker, former minister Nik Nazmi Nik Ahmad of PKR said Malaysia should gradually shift away from race-based affirmative action to a needs-based approach, which was also seen in the 13th Malaysia Plan. Wan Ahmad Fayhsal Wan Ahmad Kamal of Bersatu called for the social contract to be renegotiated, through a national dialogue. He agreed that some reforms were overdue, saying: 'It's high time in certain areas, race-based policies need to be forgone.' However, he said he would continue to uphold Bumiputera rights and privileges as part of his political struggle, but without sacrificing justice for other communities, because strategic intervention or affirmative action in certain areas was still needed on a race-based basis. Shahril said Singapore also provides for Malay rights in its constitution, but does so without stoking public frustration. 'Nobody talks about it, because the way it is expressed is probably a lot smaller than ours, and secondly, it's done in a way that does not cause resentment.' He said Malaysia's constitutional provisions for Bumiputera rights are difficult to amend, requiring not only a two-thirds majority in Parliament but also consent from the Conference of Rulers. 'So how do we then action (act) the policy in a particular way that reduces resentment? And that's a worthwhile national dialogue to have, but it has to be done honestly and sincerely,' he added. Wan Fayhsal, in calling for renegotiation of the social contract, said: 'How do we go about it? Through political discussion. And there has to be a lot of engagements done by political parties and governments. It's a national dialogue to begin with.' Any shift towards a more inclusive identity must be preceded by public engagement, 'unless you want a somewhat equal identity of Malaysian-based politics or economic policy'. Nik Nazmi said affirmative action must also consider other factors beyond race. 'We need to look at gender, look at communities, and race in terms of how you push people to participate in the country,' he said. He said this shift was discussed in Najib Razak's government and remains relevant today. Current policies place excessive focus on race alone, which undermines the broader goals of equitable development, he said. The three political leaders were responding to a question on what each panel member thought about Bumiputera quotas and the relationships between Bumiputeras and non-Bumiputeras.
Malay Mail
6 hours ago
- Malay Mail
Biofuel battle: Why India is shielding its farmers in the face of US trade pressure
MUMBAI, Aug 3 — US President Donald Trump on Thursday slapped a 25 per cent tariff on Indian goods after prolonged talks that got bogged down over access to India's labour-intensive agricultural sector, which New Delhi has pledged to protect. Why is India opposing the products the US is lobbying for? The United States is pressing India to open its markets to a wide range of American products, including dairy, poultry, corn, soybeans, rice, wheat, ethanol, fruits and nuts. While India is willing to provide greater access for US dry fruits and apples, it is holding back on corn, soybeans, wheat, and dairy products. A key reason for this resistance is that most US corn and soybeans are genetically modified (GM), and India does not permit the import of GM food crops. GM crops are widely perceived in India as harmful to human health and the environment, and several groups affiliated with Prime Minister Narendra Modi's ruling Bharatiya Janata Party (BJP) are opposing their introduction. The commercial cultivation of a high-yielding GM mustard variety that India developed itself is currently not allowed due to an ongoing legal battle. Like GM crops, dairy is also a highly sensitive issue, as it provides a livelihood for millions of farmers, including many who are landless or smallholders. The dairy industry helps sustain farmers even during erratic monsoon seasons, which can cause significant fluctuations in crop production. In India, where a large proportion of the population is vegetarian, food choices are strongly influenced by cultural and dietary preferences. Indian consumers are particularly concerned that cattle in the US are often fed animal by-products — a practice that conflicts with Indian food habits. A farmer sprinkles fertiliser in a paddy field on the outskirts of Amritsar on July 5, 2025. — AFP pic Why are agricultural imports politically charged? India is self-sufficient in most farm goods, with the exception of vegetable oils. After liberalising cooking oil imports over three decades ago, the country now has to import nearly two-thirds of its supply to meet demand. India does not want to repeat this mistake with other basic foods, which account for nearly half of its consumer price index. Though agriculture makes up just 16 per cent of India's nearly US$3.9 trillion economy, it is the lifeblood for nearly half the country's 1.4 billion people. Four years ago, this powerful voting bloc forced Modi's government into a rare retreat on a set of controversial farm laws. Some in power fear a flood of cheaper US imports would bring down local prices and hand opposition parties an opportunity to sharpen its attack on the government. New Delhi is also worried that a trade deal with the US could also force it to open its agricultural sector to other countries. Farmers work in an onion farm near power-generating windmill turbines of Adani Green Energy at Ahmedabad-Narayan Sarovar state highway near Nakhatrana village in the western state of Gujarat November 29, 2024. — Reuters pic How does farming in India and the US differ? The vast disparity in the scale of farming makes it difficult for Indian farmers to compete with their US counterparts. The average Indian farm is 1.08 hectares, compared to 187 hectares in the US For dairy farmers, the difference is even more dramatic — a small herd of two or three animals versus hundreds or more in the US Many Indian farmers also rely on traditional, unmechanised techniques, while American agriculture has developed into a highly efficient, tech-driven industry. Why is India hesitant to use US ethanol in its biofuel programme? One of India's key goals with its Ethanol Blended Petrol (EBP) programme is to reduce energy imports and support domestic farmers by using sugarcane and corn for biofuel production. Indian companies have invested heavily in new distilleries, and farmers have expanded corn cultivation to meet the rising demand. India recently achieved its ambitious target of a 20 per cent ethanol blend in petrol. With state assembly elections approaching in Bihar — a major corn-producing state in the east — allowing US ethanol imports would lower local corn prices. This would probably anger farmers and turn them against the BJP ahead of the election and also undermine the growing distillery sector. — Reuters
The Star
7 hours ago
- The Star
Nvidia denies back-door features in its H20 chips after Beijing raises security concerns
Nvidia said its chips had no 'back doors' after China's cyberspace regulator interviewed company representatives over alleged security risks associated with its H20 chips, which were tailor-made for Chinese customers, although it remains unclear what impact Beijing's mistrust of the US firm will have over time. 'Cybersecurity is critically important to us,' an Nvidia representative said in an email to the South China Morning Post on Thursday night. 'Nvidia does not have 'back doors' in our chips that would give anyone a remote way to access or control them.' The statement was in response to a regulatory move by the Cyberspace Administration of China (CAC), the agency responsible for the country's cybersecurity. The Chinese regulator said on Thursday that it had summoned and interviewed Nvidia regarding the potential tracking and remote control functions of its H20 chips, a surprise move as Nvidia had just received the green light from Washington to export the chips to clients in China. Nvidia's shares were down 0.8 per cent on Thursday in New York. The latest development highlights the challenges faced by Nvidia, the world's most valuable company in terms of market capitalisation, in trying to please both Washington and Beijing amid intensifying US-China rivalry in artificial intelligence and hi-tech. While China needs Nvidia chips to build out its computing infrastructure, Beijing remains committed to the long-term goal of tech self-sufficiency by reducing its reliance on imported American equipment and technologies. In the latest example of that, a group of Chinese semiconductor and AI companies – including Huawei Technologies, Cambricon Technologies and Moore Threads – formed an alliance to push for the adoption of locally developed processors for AI projects. China's cyberspace administration did not specify the source or evidence for its concerns about back-door security threats associated with Nvidia chips. In May, a bipartisan group of US lawmakers introduced a bill that would require makers of AI processors to incorporate tracking technology in their chips before export. The proposal aimed to address reports of US export-controlled AI chips being smuggled into China via third countries. But Nvidia has never said that its H20 chips have such tracking functions. The summoning of Nvidia was the latest example of the long-lasting mistrust between Beijing and Washington over the other's tech hardware. The US has banned the use of Huawei gear in the American telecommunications network, while new guidelines from the administration of US President Donald Trump implied that the use of Huawei's Ascend AI chips 'anywhere in the world' could be a violation of US export controls. For its part, China accelerated the process of replacing imported technologies in its key infrastructure facilities about a decade ago, after former US National Security Agency contract employee Edward Snowden exposed the global spying practices of the US. In May 2023, the CAC said products from another US chip giant, Micron Technology, failed a national security review, resulting in a sales ban of its products to key infrastructure operators in China. - SOUTH CHINA MORNING POST
