标签： Asia

A new set of workplace restrictions for UK National Health Service (NHS) staff, which bans the display of political symbols in health facilities and bars workers from wearing medical scrubs at public protests, has triggered widespread condemnation from healthcare professionals and politicians alike. Critics argue the policy is weaponizing legitimate concerns about antisemitism to silence public expressions of solidarity with the Palestinian people amid the ongoing humanitarian crisis in Gaza.

The new guidance stems from the Mann report, an inquiry into antisemitism within the NHS commissioned by former UK Health Secretary Wes Streeting in 2025. While NHS England has formally adopted the recommendations, enforcement is left to individual regional NHS trusts. Even as stakeholders broadly agree that addressing antisemitism and all forms of racism within the public health system is a critical priority, leading medical bodies and frontline workers warn that the broad scope of the ban risks severe overreach that undermines free speech.

The British Medical Association (BMA), the UK’s leading doctors’ union, has raised deep alarm over the vague language of the policy, questioning how authorities will define what qualifies as a “political symbol.” The union has called for clear, nationally consistent guidelines that draw a firm line between legitimate expressive activity and professional misconduct, warning that a blanket ban on all symbols interpreted as political goes far beyond what is needed to combat discrimination.

Labour MP Kim Johnson echoed these concerns, noting that pro-Palestine expression has been disproportionately targeted as part of a broader national crackdown on Palestinian rights advocacy. Johnson emphasized that sweeping restrictions on solidarity messaging risk conflating legitimate demonstrations of identity and support with professional wrongdoing, ultimately undermining rather than advancing efforts to root out racism in the health service.

Medact, a UK-based medical justice advocacy organization, said the Mann report’s recommendations bypass open, nuanced debate to impose a one-size-fits-all ban on expression. Medact spokesperson Nina Radulovic argued that political leaders and segments of the UK media are more focused on suppressing dissenting views than engaging with the urgent ethical questions frontline health workers are raising about the NHS, corporate influence, and the UK’s role in the political dynamics driving the war in Gaza.

Professor Nick Maynard, a veteran British surgeon who has worked in Gaza hospitals throughout the current conflict, described the framing of the new policy as deliberately dishonest. Maynard, who witnessed firsthand what United Nations experts have labeled “medicide” – the deliberate targeting of healthcare infrastructure and personnel by Israeli forces, including the widespread use of deadly double-tap airstrikes on first responders – said the policy conflates pro-Palestine solidarity with antisemitism as part of a deliberate government campaign to silence critical doctors. He added that the deliberate destruction of Gaza’s health system is a core pillar of Israel’s policy of ethnic cleansing, a reality that has compelled healthcare workers globally to speak out. Maynard noted that despite Streeting’s recent public positioning as sympathetic to Palestinians, the former health secretary has led efforts to silence NHS workers who advocate for Gaza.

Dr Omar Abdel-Mannan, a 15-year NHS veteran and co-founder of Health Workers 4 Palestine, framed the ban as part of a growing wave of censorship targeting pro-Palestine voices across multiple UK sectors. He argued that authorities fear health workers because their professional authority gives their statements unique credibility with the public, making their calls for accountability for Gaza particularly threatening to the status quo. Abdel-Mannan also questioned the foundation of the Mann report itself, noting that the NHS lacks even basic data on racist incidents across many regional trusts, making it impossible for the inquiry to meaningfully address the problem it was meant to solve.

He pointed to the high-profile case of Palestinian doctor Ghassan Abu-Sittah, who was reported to the UK General Medical Council (GMC) by the pro-Israel advocacy group UK Lawyers for Israel over his pro-Palestine activism. GMC tribunals twice dismissed all antisemitism claims against Abu-Sittah, but the doctor has alleged Streeting pressured the GMC to launch what he calls a McCarthyite witch hunt against him and other critical clinicians – an unprecedented political interference that Abdel-Mannan said has created a chilling effect across the NHS, pushing many workers to self-censor out of fear of professional retaliation.

Ahmad Baker, a British-Palestinian nurse at London’s Whipps Cross Hospital, is one worker who has already faced disciplinary action under the new policy direction. Baker was ordered by hospital managers to remove a still-life painting featuring a watermelon from the background of his work video calls, with managers labeling the artwork potentially antisemitic – a common misinterpretation of the watermelon, which has become a widely recognized symbol of Palestinian identity. Baker, who is now pursuing legal action against Barts Health NHS Trust alongside two other NHS employees, said he is being told to hide his Palestinian identity at the exact moment that his people are facing genocide in Gaza because of that identity.

He also highlighted the glaring double standard in how the policy is applied: after Russia’s 2022 full-scale invasion of Ukraine, NHS staff who wore pro-Ukraine solidarity badges faced no disciplinary action or scrutiny, unlike workers who display symbols of support for Palestine. For Baker, these public displays of solidarity matter because they let other supporters know they are not alone, building a collective movement for justice – which is exactly why authorities are seeking to ban them. He added that the concept of political neutrality in healthcare is widely misinterpreted: while clinical care must be impartial for all patients, there is no requirement for health workers to set aside their political beliefs, and they have a moral obligation to speak out against genocide rather than remain silent.

Advocacy group Health Workers for a Free Palestine warned that full implementation of the Mann recommendations would create an absurd reality where NHS managers are pulled away from core patient care duties to adjudicate whether everyday items – from fruit to pieces of jewelry – qualify as punishable political expression, all while Gaza’s entire health system is systematically destroyed. Dr Aarash Saleh, who joined Baker’s legal challenge against Barts Health, said he knows of one colleague who was disciplined simply for wearing watermelon-shaped earrings. Saleh noted that even though Mann has insisted his report should not be weaponized against pro-Palestine voices, the symbol ban has almost exclusively been used to target Palestine supporters.

Saleh added that the ban on health workers wearing scrubs at protests is even more unjustifiable. He called the rule an overreach of government power that blocks clinicians from marching as healthcare professionals in solidarity with their Gazan colleagues who are being targeted by Israeli forces, breaking with a long history of UK medical workers advocating for marginalized communities. Dr Sara Ali, who is also a party to the legal challenge, emphasized that the policy contradicts the core mission of the NHS. “I find it deeply troubling that an institution whose core purpose is the provision of care should regard expressions of human empathy and solidarity with a people undergoing a genocide as inappropriate or objectionable,” Ali said. “Defending the right to express such solidarity is important because healthcare professionals should not be required to abandon their humanity when they come to work. Compassion and empathy for human suffering are not separate from our professional values – they are fundamental to them.”

In a landmark announcement Monday, Belgian Foreign Minister Maxime Prevot confirmed he has directed his ministerial team to finalize preparations for Belgium’s formal recognition of an independent Palestinian state. The long-awaited policy shift comes just after Hamas carried out a key prerequisite set by the Belgian government: dissolving its 18-year governing administration in the Gaza Strip.

Speaking to public broadcaster VRT, Prevot acknowledged uncertainty over whether the preparations will be completed in time for this Friday’s scheduled council of ministers meeting, but emphasized that the issue will be brought to the body for a vote in the near future. “I don’t know if we will be ready by Friday, but it will be on the table soon,” Prevot told reporters.

Hamas’s formal dissolution of its Gaza governance clears the path for a handover of power to the National Committee for the Administration of Gaza (NCAG), a Cairo-based body made up of independent Palestinian technocrats drawn from the Gaza Strip. This new administrative structure was designed to oversee daily civilian affairs in the enclave under the terms of the September 2025 ceasefire agreement mediated by the United States, Qatar, and Egypt.

The pathway to this step was laid out more than a year ago, when Belgian Prime Minister Bart De Wever announced at United Nations headquarters in New York that Belgium would recognize Palestinian statehood only after two core conditions were met: the release of all remaining hostages held in Gaza, and the full withdrawal of Hamas from the territory’s governing institutions. A member of the Belgian parliament whose party had long pushed for recognition noted Monday that a cross-party agreement with the federal government had been reached the previous summer after months of negotiations, saying “Belgium must not break its word” on its commitment to recognize Palestine once conditions were met.

If Belgium proceeds with recognition, it will join a growing wave of European nations that have formalized their recognition of Palestinian statehood following the outbreak of Israel’s military campaign in Gaza in October 2023, which the report notes has killed more than 73,000 Palestinians to date, with thousands more still missing and presumed dead under rubble. Spain, Ireland, and Norway became the first Western European states to grant formal recognition in 2024, joining more than 140 existing United Nations member states that already recognize Palestinian statehood. Most recently, the United Kingdom, Canada, and Australia announced their recognition in September 2025, a move that was quickly followed by France and Portugal. The wave of recognitions has drawn sharp condemnation from both the United States and Israel, which have opposed unilateral recognition of Palestine by Western nations.

BEIJING – China has issued a firm formal protest to Tokyo over Japanese interference with the lawful operations of Chinese research vessels in waters adjacent to the Diaoyu Islands, according to Foreign Ministry spokesperson Mao Ning, who made the announcement Tuesday.

The diplomatic pushback came after the Japan Coast Guard claimed that a Chinese maritime survey ship had lowered a cable into the water last Friday in an area Japan claims as its exclusive economic zone.

In her official remarks, Mao Ning reaffirmed China’s long-held and unambiguous position: the Diaoyu Islands and their affiliated islets have been an inherent part of Chinese territory since ancient times. Conducting regular research activities in adjacent waters falls fully within China’s sovereign rights, and the operations of Chinese vessels are entirely lawful and unquestionable, she added.

The diplomatic exchange marks the latest escalation in ongoing territorial tensions over the Diaoyu Islands, a strategically significant island chain in the East China Sea that has been a point of contention between the two neighboring countries for decades.

A top congressional panel focused on U.S.-China policy is escalating pressure on the owner of Washington D.C.’s major professional sports teams to end all business partnerships with Alibaba Group, the Chinese technology giant that is currently challenging a recent Pentagon designation labeling it a “Chinese military company.”

Rep. John Moolenaar, the Republican chair of the U.S. House Select Committee on the Chinese Communist Party, made the formal demand in a written letter sent to Ted Leonsis, founder and CEO of Monumental Sports & Entertainment (MSE). MSE is the parent company that owns both the NBA’s Washington Wizards and the NHL’s Washington Capitals, two of the capital city’s most high-profile professional sports franchises.

Copies of the correspondence, obtained by The Associated Press, show Moolenaar tied his request directly to a decision made by the U.S. Department of Defense one month earlier, which added Alibaba to a growing roster of entities accused of supporting China’s state-led military-civil fusion strategy. The lawmaker gave Leonsis a deadline of July 15 to confirm MSE has ended or will end all active commercial ties with Alibaba and its subsidiaries.

Alibaba has already pushed back against the Pentagon’s classification, filing a federal lawsuit seeking to have its name struck from the government’s blacklist. The current list of designated Chinese military companies includes 188 total entities, spanning from state-owned defense manufacturing conglomerates to private Chinese technology firms such as Alibaba. This designation reflects a sharp rise in longstanding concerns among U.S. national security officials over Beijing’s strategy of leveraging private and non-state commercial enterprises to advance its military modernization and technological development goals.

As of Monday, MSE officials had not issued an immediate response to AP’s request for comment on the congressional demand. Notably, MSE is far from the only U.S. professional sports organization with financial or commercial connections to Alibaba. Joseph Tsai, the co-founder of Alibaba who remains a major stakeholder in the firm, owns the NBA’s Brooklyn Nets and the WNBA’s New York Liberty, meaning the Chinese tech giant has deep existing ties to North American professional sports.

The House select committee, which was first established in 2023 to coordinate congressional oversight and policy on U.S.-China relations, has increasingly turned its attention to global sports in recent months. Earlier this year, Moolenaar and the committee’s top Democratic member, Raja Krishnamoorthi of Illinois, sent a joint letter to the International Olympic Committee (IOC) raising concerns over the World Anti-Doping Agency’s handling of a doping case involving 23 Chinese swimmers who tested positive for performance-enhancing substances.

Twelve months ago, the panel also sent a letter to then-Homeland Security Secretary Kristi Noem, voicing concerns about Alibaba’s global sponsorship deal with the IOC, and warning that the partnership could lead to a similar commercial agreement between the firm and organizers of the 2028 Los Angeles Olympic Games. The letter at the time highlighted steps that Paris 2024 organizers had taken to reduce Alibaba’s operational role in the 2024 Summer Games.

Weeks after the committee sent that 2023 letter, Los Angeles Olympic organizers announced that Google, one of Alibaba’s major global technology competitors, would serve as the official cloud services provider for the 2028 Games, ending speculation that Alibaba would secure that high-profile contract.

On Tuesday, Kazakhstan’s highest judicial body delivered a landmark ruling that paves the way for incumbent President Kassym-Jomart Tokayev to run for a third seven-year term when his current term ends in 2029. The decision hinges on constitutional amendments approved by national referendum in March that entered into legal force earlier this month, which reset presidential term count rules entirely.

Under the revised constitutional framework, Tokayev’s current tenure, which began after he took power in 2019, does not count toward the new two-term limit established by the amendments. This ruling aligns Kazakhstan with a broader trend across several former Soviet states including Russia, Belarus, Uzbekistan and Tajikistan, where ruling leaders have modified national constitutions to expand executive authority and extend their time in office.

At 73, Tokayev brings decades of diplomatic and government experience to the role: a former Soviet official and veteran United Nations diplomat, he has governed the oil-rich Central Asian nation, home to 20 million people, since he stepped into the acting presidency in 2019 following the resignation of Nursultan Nazarbayev, the autocrat who led Kazakhstan through its post-Soviet independence for nearly 30 years. Widely viewed as Nazarbayev’s handpicked successor, Tokayev has navigated complex geopolitical currents since Russia’s full-scale invasion of Ukraine in 2022, maintaining a carefully calibrated balancing act between Moscow and Western powers amid sweeping sanctions imposed on Russia.

The constitutional overhaul that cleared the way for his potential re-election won overwhelming support in the March referendum, and has significantly consolidated Tokayev’s hold on national power. The package of changes merged Kazakhstan’s previously bicameral parliament into a single chamber, restored the dormant vice presidential post, and granted the president authority to appoint all top government officials subject only to parliamentary approval. It also established a new legislative advisory body, the People’s Council, whose members are all appointed directly by the president and granted the power to initiate new legislation and call referendums.

Tokayev has defended the constitutional amendments as a necessary adjustment for a rapidly shifting global landscape, arguing the changes will enable faster, more decisive policy-making to address evolving challenges. However, the changes come against a backdrop of limited political opposition in Kazakhstan: mainstream opposition groups hold no seats in government institutions and lack the capacity to shift widespread public opinion. Tokayev’s tenure has also been marked by controversy: in 2022, he ordered a harsh crackdown on widespread nationwide protests that became known as “Bloody January” to locals, which left 238 people dead and thousands more injured. In the wake of the unrest, Tokayev positioned himself as a pro-reform candidate and called an early presidential election later that year, which he won by a landslide.

LONDON – In a bombshell political move that upends Britain’s already volatile electoral landscape, Reform UK leader Nigel Farage announced Tuesday he will resign his current parliamentary seat and force a by-election, framing the contest as a direct appeal to voters to exonerate him of wrongdoing amid overlapping investigations into unreported financial donations.

Standing firm against mounting scrutiny from parliamentary regulators and opposition lawmakers, Farage, a high-profile ally of former U.S. President Donald Trump, released a pre-recorded televised statement taking no questions, where he forcefully denied any misconduct. “I have done nothing wrong. I have not broken the law in any way at all. I have not misused public money,” he asserted.

The controversy centers on two separate donation investigations that have put Farage’s political future at risk. First, Parliament’s independent standards watchdog is examining a £5 million ($6.7 million) gift from Christopher Harborne, a Thailand-based British cryptocurrency billionaire. Under UK parliamentary rules, newly elected lawmakers are required to disclose any gift valued over £300 ($400) received in the 12 months before taking office, unless the gift could not reasonably be linked to the recipient’s political work. Farage has defended the transfer, arguing it was a personal gift used to cover personal security costs, and that it was received before he won his Clacton, Essex seat in eastern England.

A second potential probe is being pushed by opposition lawmakers, who are calling for an investigation into donations from George Cottrell, an aristocratic crypto and gambling entrepreneur who previously served a prison sentence in the United States for fraud. If the investigations find Farage violated parliamentary rules, the outcome could have resulted in his suspension or permanent expulsion from the House of Commons. To pre-empt this disciplinary process, Farage is stepping down immediately to let Clacton’s voters decide his fate.

“The people of Clacton should be the judges of my actions,” Farage said. “This will be a people versus the establishment by-election. I will fight to win.” Even if Farage secures victory in the upcoming by-election, parliamentary officials have confirmed the standards inquiry will likely resume its work once the electoral process concludes.

Farage’s announcement comes at a pivotal moment for Reform UK, the right-wing anti-immigration party that has shaken up Britain’s two-party political order in recent months. Though the party holds just 8 of the 650 seats in the House of Commons, it has repeatedly outperformed both the governing Labour Party and the main opposition Conservative Party in national opinion polls, fueling speculation that Farage could even become Britain’s next prime minister following the next general election. Reform UK emerged as the clear winner of May’s local and regional elections, a result that triggered the internal ouster of sitting Labour Prime Minister Keir Starmer by his own party.

Yet recent electoral trends have raised questions about the strength of Reform UK’s momentum: the party has now lost three consecutive special elections it had prioritized, a dip that many political analysts interpret as a possible sign of softening support. The most recent defeat came at the hands of Labour’s Andy Burnham, who is widely expected to be confirmed as Starmer’s successor as prime minister in the coming weeks. For a party whose rise has closely mirrored Donald Trump’s nationalist, anti-immigration political playbook, losing Farage as its figurehead would deal a devastating blow to its electoral ambitions. Farage has built the party’s base around tapping into voter anger over irregular migrant crossings of the English Channel, repeatedly framing the influx as an “invasion” – a framing critics argue stokes anti-migrant sentiment.