Sports body to probe Doha table tennis AGM racket
Petra Sorling left the International Table Tennis Federation AGM in Doha, Qatar, as she did not feel safe. File photo: NurPhoto/AFP
The International Table Tennis Federation (ITTF) said it will investigate the disruption that forced the suspension of its annual general meeting in Doha this week after the re-election of Petra Sorling as president.
The disruption started when Sorling, the ITTF's first female president, was re-elected until 2029 with 104 votes to the 102 received by her Qatari opponent, Khalil Al-Mohannadi.
"After the presidential election had already concluded, the AGM had to be suspended following the disruption initiated by individuals who were neither delegates from member associations, nor members of the executive board, council, committees, or invited guests," the ITTF said.
"The ITTF regrets and strongly condemns the disruption.
"It will conduct an investigation to determine the various responsibilities and take measures, in particular, to avoid a similar disruption from happening in the future."
The Qatar Table Tennis Association released a statement claiming there had been discrepancies in the online voting and calling for an independent and transparent review of the election.
"We are prepared to cooperate with any independent investigation or tribunal, including before the Court of Arbitration for Sport," it said.
The ITTF defended the legitimacy of the election process and said it was prepared to address any formal complaints in "the appropriate forum".
Sorling decided to leave the meeting because she did not feel safe, as did the Swedish delegation, the Swedish Table Tennis Association said.
The ITTF said it would reconvene the AGM before November to address agenda items that could not be completed in Doha. (Reuters)
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
RTHK
7 days ago
- RTHK
Israel condemned over killing of Gaza journalists
Israel condemned over killing of Gaza journalists Mourners attend the funeral in Gaza City of the five Al Jazeera journalists killed in an Israeli strike. Photo: Reuters The UN human rights agency on Monday condemned Israel's targeted killing of six journalists in Gaza as a "grave breach of international humanitarian law". The office of UN High Commissioner for Human Rights Volker Turk said on X that the Israeli military had targeted a tent housing five staff from Qatari broadcaster Al Jazeera. A freelance journalist was also killed in Sunday's strike, which Israel has acknowledged was a planned operation. "Israel must respect and protect all civilians, including journalists," Turk's office added, noting that at least 242 Palestinian journalists have been killed in Gaza since the Hamas attacks on Israel set off war in the Palestinian territory in October 2023. "We call for immediate, safe and unhindered access to Gaza for all journalists," it said. The Israeli military confirmed it had targeted prominent reporter Anas al-Sharif, whom it has repeatedly labelled a "terrorist" affiliated with Hamas, saying he "posed as a journalist". Reporters Without Borders, a media freedom group, said it "strongly and angrily condemns the acknowledged murder by the Israeli army" of al-Sharif and the other journalists. The press freedom campaign group said he was "one of the most famous journalists from the Gaza Strip [and] the voice of the suffering Israel has imposed on Palestinians in Gaza". Al-Sharif, 28, was one of Al Jazeera's most recognisable faces working on the ground in Gaza, providing daily reports in regular coverage. He was killed alongside fellow correspondent Mohammed Qreiqeh and camera operators Ibrahim Zaher, Mohammed Noufal and Moamen Aliwa, Al Jazeera said. The Israeli military said it had targeted al-Sharif, saying he "posed as a journalist" but was in fact "the head of a terrorist cell... responsible for advancing rocket attacks against Israeli civilians and IDF troops." Reporters Without Borders called the Israeli allegations "baseless". (AFP)
AllAfrica
01-08-2025
- AllAfrica
Trump's new trade order is here. Will it work?
The beginning of August marks the latest deadline for US President Donald Trump's 'Liberation Day' tariff policy. This era of chaos and uncertainty began on April 2, and the situation remains fluid. With the deadline for partners to secure a deal with Washington now passed, it's a good time to take a broader view and consider if Trump's trade gamble is paying off. The objectives of the tariff policy include raising tax revenues, delivering lower prices for American consumers, and boosting American industry while creating manufacturing jobs. The president has also vowed to get better trade deals for the US to reduce its trade deficit and to face down China's growing influence on the world stage. But recently the US Federal Reserve voted to keep interest rates unchanged at 4.25% to 4.5%, despite pressure from Trump to lower them. In his monthly press briefing, Federal Reserve chair, Jerome Powell, said they were still in the early stages of understanding how the tariff policy would affect inflation, jobs and economic growth. On tariffs, Powell did say that revenues had increased substantially to US$30 billion a month. However, only a small portion of the tariffs are being absorbed by overseas exporters, with most of the cost being borne by US import companies. In comments that will concern the Trump administration, the Fed said the cost of the tariffs was beginning to show up in consumer prices. The Fed expects inflation to increase to 3% by the end of the year, above its 2% target. US unemployment remains low, with Powell saying the economy is at or very close to full employment. While Powell's decision to hold interest rates probably irritated Trump, economic theory suggests that lowering them with the US economic cycle at full employment would be likely to increase inflation and the cost of living for US consumers. A survey by Bloomberg economists suggests that US GDP growth forecasts are lower since April 2025, specifically because of its tariff policy. In terms of boosting US employment, the US administration can point to significant wins in the pharmaceutical sector. In July, British-Swedish drugmaker AstraZeneca announced plans to spend $50 billion expanding its US research and manufacturing facilities by 2030. The announcement follows a similar pledge from Swiss pharmaceuticals firm Roche in April to invest $50 billion in the US over the next five years. The impact of tariffs on traditional US manufacturing industries is less positive. The Ford Motor Company has warned that its profits will see a sharp drop. This is largely down to a net tariff impact that the firm says will cost it $2 billion this financial year. This is despite the company making nearly all of its vehicles in the US. Firms such as Ford are seeing an increase in tariff-related costs for imports. This dents their profits as well as dividends to shareholders. In recent weeks and months, the US has announced major new trade agreements, including with the UK, Japan, South Korea and the EU. Talks on a trade deal with China continue. But rather than trade deals, these announcements should be thought of as frameworks for trade deals. No legally binding documents have been signed to date. It will take many months before a clear picture emerges of how these bilateral deals will affect the US trade deficit overall. Meanwhile, in Washington, a federal appeals court will hear a case from two companies that are suing Trump over the use of his International Emergency Economic Powers Act (IEEPA) of 1977. VOS Selections Inc, a wine and spirits importer, and Plastic Services and Products, a pipe and fittings company, are arguing that the president has 'no authority to issue across-the-board worldwide tariffs without congressional approval.' With so much in play, it is difficult to judge whether Trump's tariff policy can be viewed as a success. Higher tariff revenues from imports, as well as significant investments from the pharmaceutical industry, can be seen as clear wins. But increasing consumer costs through rising inflation, as well as tariff costs hurting US manufacturers, are clear negatives. While several framework trade deals have been announced, the real devil will, of course, be in the details. Perhaps the greatest impact of the tariff policy has been the uncertainty of this new approach to trade and diplomacy. The Trump administration views trade as a zero-sum game. If one side is winning, the other side must be losing. This view of international trade harks back to mercantilism, an economic system that predates capitalism. Adam Smith and David Riccardo, the founders of capitalist theory, advocated for free trade. They argued that if countries focused on what they were good at making, then both sides could benefit – a so-called positive-sum game. This approach has dominated global trade since the post-war period. Since then, the US has become the largest and wealthiest economy in the world. By creating the institutions of global trade (the IMF, World Bank and World Trade Organization), the US has advanced its interests – and American-based multinationals dominate, especially in areas such as technology. But China and others now threaten this US domination, and Trump is tearing up the economic rulebook. But economic theory clearly positions tariffs as the wrong policy path for the US to assert and further its economic interests in the medium to long term. That's why Trump's course of action remains such a gamble. Conor O'Kane is senior lecturer in economics, Bournemouth University This article is republished from The Conversation under a Creative Commons license. Read the original article.
HKFP
01-08-2025
- HKFP
Gov't-supported youth climate scheme accepting funds from ExxonMobil, world's 5th largest historic polluter
A government-supported youth climate ambassadorship programme is accepting funding from a fossil fuel giant, a move one environmental scholar has called 'hypocritical.' Civic Exchange's annual Young Environment Ambassador (YEA) Programme – launched in 2021 to 'empower the next generation of environmental leaders' – counts ExxonMobil among its three funding organisations. The petrochemical company told HKFP that the funding spans the programme's entire duration. The other two funding organisations listed on the YEA webpage include Swire Properties and the Robert H. N. Ho Family Foundation HK. Several government departments and the Martine Museum are listed as supporters. The US-headquartered oil and gas firm is rated the fifth top historic polluter by emissions, according to an Influence Map report based on 2023 data. It has been responsible for 2.76 per cent of all global carbon dioxide emissions, behind the former Soviet Union, China between 1945 and 2004, and fellow oil firms Saudi Aramco and Chevon. When approached by HKFP, Civic Exchange did not respond as to how much ExxonMobil contributed, what proportion of funds were involved or why they were accepted as a programme sponsor. However, Executive Director Lawrence Iu said on Tuesday that the think tank aimed to 'engage stakeholders' in the city's most pressing environmental challenges: 'We maintain full editorial and programme independence, and all funders—regardless of sector—play no role in shaping our priorities or directing our work.' Though the YEA website hails Swedish environmentalist Greta Thunberg, the activist has repeatedly criticised the involvement of oil giants at climate talks. 'Hypocritical in the extreme' On July 19, the YEA programme onboarded 30 Form 3 to Form 5 students at a ceremony attended by Under Secretary for Environment and Ecology Diane Wong. In response to HKFP on Tuesday, ExxonMobil Hong Kong said it invests in the communities where they operate, though it also dodged questions over the proportion and amount of funds involved in the YEA sponsorship. 'We engage with key stakeholders, including governments and NGOs, to identify the best way to support each community's unique development goals. We often participate in public-private partnerships to create long-term, positive economic and social development… We do not interfere in how the funding is utilized within the programme or the programme's operation,' ExxonMobil Hong Kong said. Paul G. Harris, professor of global and environmental studies at the Education University of Hong Kong, told HKFP on Thursday that – even if not intended – Civic Exchange may have helped the oil firm greenwash their practices. '[F]or any organisation that claims to care about the environment, and the climate crisis in particular, to accept funding from Exxon seems hypocritical in the extreme,' Harris said. 'It's hard to identify any corporation — or indeed any entity — anywhere in the world that has done more to both cause the climate crisis and, very importantly, to sow doubt about the need for urgent action to curtail the use of fossil fuels.' 'Civic Exchange should know better, at least if it wants to be trusted on any environmental credentials, than to join the list of organizations that have accepted funding from Exxon. Civic Exchange may enjoy a financial windfall from Exxon's support, but the result is moral bankruptcy. Alas, in a world — and a city — addicted to fossil fuels, this may not harm Civic Exchange's bottom line. Money talks,' he added. In response to HKFP on Wednesday, local environmentalist Paule De La Poype questioned whether it is 'better for ExxonMobil to be supporting this kind of youth program, or to continue funding climate change denying scientific reports, given its historic record in that regard.' She said securing funds can be difficult, though it would be preferable if oil firms were not involved. She added that it would be essential to ensure ExxonMobil does not interfere in the programme: 'Perhaps having an external observer supervising the preparation and delivery would be a way for Civic Exchange to reassure the public.' 5th top historic polluter, 15th in 2023 In 2023, ExxonMobil was 15th top polluting entity of that year, according to the Influence Map report. The company was also a driving force of climate change denialism until the mid-2000s. Though it has since acknowledged that burning fossil fuels adds to global warming, a 2023 Wall Street Journal report said that a culture of denialism continued internally for years afterwards. When HKFP cited the report – which was based on the company's own internal documents – ExxonMobil said that 'debating the past may generate interesting headlines but as we have said, time and time again, climate change is real, and we have an entire business dedicated to reducing emissions.' 'We are pursuing up to US$30 billion in lower emission investments between 2025 and 2030, which include carbon capture and storage (CCS), hydrogen, lithium, and lower emission fuels (LEF), among others,' the firm added, saying it was the first supplier of renewable diesel for public road use. On Tuesday, the Independent reported that the oil giant is one of several facing a lawsuit in Honolulu, Hawaii over their historic greenhouse gas emissions. Last year, 50 leading scientists warned that global warming has accelerated at an 'unprecedented' pace, saying the window to limit rising temperatures within internationally-set targets was closing.
