Meet Jia Jia and De De – HK's very own panda twins
More than 35,000 submissions were received after the public was invited to submit suggestions for names for the panda cubs. Photo: Courtesy of Ocean Park
The names of the giant panda twin cubs that were born in Hong Kong have been revealed on Tuesday.
In a ceremony, the judges announced that "big sister" will take the name of Jia Jia while "little brother" will be named De De.
The name "Jia Jia" represents the Cantonese saying of cheer up. It also embodies the meaning of family.
Meanwhile, "De De" expresses a hope that Hong Kong can do well in everything and also represents virtue in Chinese.
More than 35,000 submissions were received after the Culture, Sports and Tourism Bureau and Ocean Park called for the public to submit ideas for the names of the panda cubs in February.
In yesterday's ceremony, Director of Immigration Benson Kwok presented a "birth certificate" to the cubs.
"The pair of giant pandas are actually not qualified to get a birth certificate, but we will present them with a birth memorial certificate to them," he said.
"The certificate will have their photos printed and some basic information, along with their [official] names."
The twin pandas will move with their mother Ying Ying to Alpine Zone at the Giant Panda Adventure, where the public will be able to see the pandas without a glass barrier.
Speaking after the ceremony, Ocean Park chairman Paulo Pong explained why "Jia Jia" and "De De" was chosen as the names.
"First of all, it is a very positive pair of names," he said.
"Jia Jia is the mandarin version, it means home, and sounds like home.
"In terms of De De, some people may pronounce as Di Di, which is younger brother in Cantonese.
"We have to be a bit creative here with the names, the sounds like, and there are also different meanings."
Hashtags
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
AllAfrica
a day ago
- AllAfrica
Pandas as China's most valuable and vulnerable diplomats
Anthony Albanese's recent visit to Chengdu's panda breeding base showed the enduring power of China's panda diplomacy. China has been sending pandas to other countries, sometimes for obviously political reasons, since the 1940s. The term 'panda diplomacy' became widespread when China gifted two pandas to the United States on Richard Nixon's 1972 visit. In a new paper published in The Pacific Review, we explain the importance of panda diplomacy for the Chinese state. This importance persists during times of high political tension between China and other countries that host pandas, such as the United States. And it persists despite growing concerns about it in China. No other animal can match the giant panda's combination of universal appeal and national distinctiveness. The global popularity of pandas is a rare source of soft power for China, inspiring warm feelings and cultural acceptance. But the flipside of cuteness is vulnerability. Pandas are seen as 'national treasures' in China, and nationalist netizens are becoming upset about the practice of entrusting them to foreign powers. This is not the only case where Chinese popular nationalism has been at odds with the official nationalism of Chinese foreign policy. In our article, we explore these issues by looking at the Chinese government's response to the death of a panda in an American zoo. And we examine how the panda came to be such an emotionally charged and politically powerful symbol in the first place. In February 2023, the 25-year-old giant panda Lele died of heart disease in Memphis Zoo, shortly before he was due to return to China at the end of his 20-year loan. His female companion, Yaya, went back to China soon after. Yaya had suffered from a skin condition for many years, and in 2020 American animal rights groups In Defense of Animals and Panda Voices began posting photos of the pandas appearing dirty and emaciated, with missing fur. These photos generated rumors on Chinese social media that the pandas were being fed substandard bamboo and contaminated water. Much of the outrage and concern, expressed across millions of social media posts, was couched in nationalist terms. One Weibo user commented: our national treasure panda begging for food while kneeling is the same as us 1.4 billion Chinese people begging for food while kneeling! Another complained: pandas are claimed to be national treasures, but they are more like princesses in diplomatic marriages. In the face of national interests, whether a panda is doing well or dying is fundamentally unimportant. Many called for the abolition of panda diplomacy. The Memphis Zoo controversy happened at one of the lowest points in the recent history of relations between the US and China. Former President Joe Biden had just ordered the destruction of a Chinese surveillance balloon that had spent weeks in American airspace. Planned diplomatic talks had been cancelled, and both sides were accusing each other of infringing their sovereignty. Under these circumstances, we might expect the Chinese government to exploit popular nationalist outrage directed at the United States. Instead, its response to the death and illness of the Memphis pandas was measured and conciliatory. Following Lele's death and just before Yaya's return, Chinese Foreign Ministry spokesperson Mao Ning told reporters the pandas had received good care from the zoo and great affection from the American people […]. China stands ready to continue to work with cooperation partners including the US to play our part in protecting endangered species. Chinese zoological authorities confirmed Lele and Yaya's conditions were normal for pandas 'in the geriatric phase of their lives.' They declared that the Memphis Zoo's care of the pandas was 'excellent.' The hawkish state-owned newspaper Global Times ran editorials exonerating the Americans, even while acknowledging nationalist concerns. It would also exonerate a zoo in Thailand where a panda died a few months later. Other newspapers ran stories about the broader benefits to China of panda diplomacy. Both the online nationalist outrage and the calming state response to the Memphis controversy show the emotional weight and political importance of pandas in China. How did they get to be so important? Historians have documented that pandas were virtually absent from Chinese art, literature and culture until the 20th century. In historical terms, the panda is an unusual political symbol. Many national animal symbols are chosen for their ferocity, such as lions, eagles, and the dragons that long symbolised Imperial China. Pandas, on the other hand, are loved for their roundness, innocence and clumsiness. If a dragon can be seen as a nation's protective parent, a panda is more like its vulnerable child. The fact that wild pandas are only found in China deepens this attachment, much as it does for Australians with koalas or New Zealanders with kiwis. Our search for mentions of xiongmao (panda) in China's People's Daily newspaper shows a developing consciousness of pandas as a rare national animal from the 1950s onwards. This was accelerated in the 1970s by the popularity of pandas gifted to other countries, and the widespread commercialization of panda images. In 1983, the wild panda population in Sichuan was brought to the brink of starvation by the flowering and death of bamboo plants. This led to the mass mobilisation of the population to save the precious bears through donations and volunteering. This incident enshrined the language of pandas as 'national treasures.' It also elevated the panda as a global icon of wildlife conservation. Today, conservation research is China's main public reason for sending pandas abroad. The 21st-century panda has many layers of accumulated symbolism. It is a symbol of China, a symbol of international friendship, a symbol of global environmental consciousness and a symbol of the universal power of cute. These symbolic layers have generated complex and contradictory political emotions around pandas in China. In 2023, there was widespread speculation that pandas would not be returning to the United States and Australia because of their poor relationships with China. That speculation turned out to be premature. But the question of whether 'national treasure' pandas should be diplomats will remain a difficult one in a world defined by both environmental and human vulnerability. David Smith is associate professor in American politics and foreign policy, US Studies Centre, University of Sydney and Minglu Chen is senior lecturer in government and international relations, University of Sydney This article is republished from The Conversation under a Creative Commons license. Read the original article.
South China Morning Post
4 days ago
- South China Morning Post
Year of the Snake seventh month predictions for all Chinese zodiac signs. Is your luck in?
The seventh month of the lunar year in 2025 – August 23 to September 21 – is set to be a good one for many people's careers, with progress at work and potential windfalls on the cards. Some may find love at large gatherings or in unconventional settings. Either way, this is a great month for self-improvement for many of the zodiac signs and a good time for new beginnings. Read on to see what feng shui master Andrew Kwan has to say about what is in store for your Chinese zodiac sign. Rat (1936, 1948, 1960, 1972, 1984, 1996, 2008, 2020) Photo: China Daily via Reuters Rats may face unexpected career shifts this month, with challenges that may require backup plans. Attention to detail is crucial as minor oversights could lead to big setbacks. On the love front, singles might meet someone new in social settings, though connections may develop more slowly than hoped. Those in relationships should prioritise communication to avoid misunderstandings and emotional distance. Health-wise, Rats may face digestive issues, so should opt for lighter meals and avoid raw or cold foods to stay balanced. Ox (1937, 1949, 1961, 1973, 1985, 1997, 2009, 2021)
South China Morning Post
26-07-2025
- South China Morning Post
Why are urban Chinese like my friend falling for guoxue scams?
It all began with a WeChat message from my friend. We hadn't seen each other in a while. She had left Beijing for a quieter, more remote town and her social media updates suggested she was diving deeper into guoxue – 'national studies', or the study of traditional Chinese culture – Buddhist philosophy and other spiritual pursuits. Her text read: 'You should join our reading group. We're studying classical Chinese texts. You will definitely love it.' She had been going through a rough patch: burnout at work, a deep sense of disorientation. I admired her for trying to connect with something deeper. Out of curiosity and genuine concern, I agreed to join. But a sense of unease gnawed at me. The trend of guoxue, framed as a path to enlightenment, had always unsettled me. Something about it seemed too commercialised and packaged. In my first video session with the reading group, we were told to introduce ourselves. An older woman who seemed to hold a position of authority spoke last. 'It's so good to see young people here,' she said. 'These days, no one reads any more. But you all – you have the time. Life is more than just drinking and eating.' Her words carried a quiet disdain, as if fundamental human joys were distractions from something greater. As if nourishing the body, sharing meals, enjoying small pleasures – things that ground us in the world – were lesser pursuits. After two more sessions, I couldn't continue. What pushed me over the edge was a new requirement: we were to record ourselves reading the founder's book out loud and submit these recordings for review. No discussion. No questions. Just repetition. Supposedly, this would deepen our understanding – though how exactly, no one explained. As a philosophy major trained in the Western tradition, I found this deeply frustrating. The purpose of engaging with a text should be to analyse, question and discuss its ideas. But here, those very acts were forbidden. I told my friend I wanted to leave. She said she needed to check with her superior first. That response alone spoke volumes.
