China’s vaccine diplomacy suffers setback as more than 60% of ASEAN people distrust it

Public negativity towards the CCP in ASEAN countries has intensified, and the percentage of distrust has risen. Photo shows China’s Kexin vaccine.

After last year’s “mask diplomacy,” the Chinese Communist Party has launched “vaccine diplomacy” this year, especially targeting ASEAN and African countries. However, a recent survey shows that people in ASEAN countries have increased their negative attitude toward the CCP, with a higher percentage of distrust.

So far, Indonesia, Brunei, Cambodia, Malaysia, Laos and other ASEAN countries have reported that they have received “donations” of vaccines against Newcastle pneumonia (CCP virus) from the Chinese Communist Party.

But a recent survey shows that more than 60 percent of the people surveyed in ten ASEAN countries do not trust China (CCP).

The survey, conducted by the ISEAS-Yusof Ishak Institute in Singapore and cited by Radio Free Asia on February 11, showed that 63 percent of the more than 1,000 academics, government officials, and businessmen surveyed do not trust China (CCP) and refuse to believe that it will do the right thing to contribute to the world, a higher percentage than in 2020 and 2019.

Also, if they had to choose between the US and China (which country to support), 61% of respondents chose the US over China.

Among the factors mentioned in the report that people in ASEAN countries resent the Communist Party of China are the concealment of the Epidemic; the quality of vaccines; the use of Chinese embassies by Chinese institutions to pressure local governments to do wrong; and the disruption of the “Belt and Road” to local people.

Many people feel that if China had directly confronted and controlled the epidemic and not concealed it, we might not be in a bad situation now,” said Chong Kah Ying, an associate professor of political science at the National University of Singapore.

On the other hand, respondents had reservations about the quality of vaccines developed in China, saying that the development of the New Crown Pneumonia (CCP virus) vaccine in the United States gave the outside world the impression of transparency and independence, and that the technology and validation process were trustworthy enough, which China (CCP) lacks.

The mainland media has recently exposed that some individuals have produced “fake vaccines in saline” and “fake vaccines in mineral water” and that they have already reached the market. But what is even more frightening, according to some people, is the CCP’s silence on the necessary data for “real vaccines.

On February 4, the CPC health Commission said, “As of 24:00 on February 3, a total of 31.236 million doses of the new coronavirus vaccine had been reported to key populations nationwide.” However, no information was given on how immunized people were after receiving the vaccine, side effects of the vaccine, and whether there were secondary infections.

This follows the simultaneous resignation of two executives from the mainland’s state vaccine producer, which has so far only claimed that the efficiency rate of its vaccine is 79 percent, but has not released details of the analyzed data. Kexing Vaccine and the Communist Party’s military-backed KangXinuo Vaccine have also not released details.

Recently, a second-generation Communist Party official living in Taiwan said that many problems were revealed in the development of Chinese vaccines, including the use of inactivated viruses to make vaccines from inactivated pathogens, without completing tests and without successful mass vaccination cases.

Taiwan toxicologist Zhao Mingwei said that Chinese vaccine research and development uses the traditional inactivated vaccine method, not the mRNA technology of European and American vaccines, but because of the tradition, its produced vaccines need more Time to do human trials for evaluation, generally more than 5 to 10 years; in order to respond to the epidemic must speed up before the upgraded version of mRNA technology comes out, but China only spent less than a year to produce it in the traditional way, which is really unreasonable.