I am an “outside country person”, a foreign student in CUHK. I am no stranger to Hong Kong and Chinese culture, but I still feel like an alien when it comes to enjoying close friendships with the Chinese people of Hong Kong.

I have lived in southern China and Hong Kong for four out of the past five years. Recently returning to continue Cantonese and Chinese culture studies at CUHK has caused me — in my effort to “fit in” as much as possible here — to wrestle with many questions.

Why is it acceptable for Chinese people to wear T-shirts with American designs on them and blue jeans, admire western singers and actors, speak, read, write and sing in English, adopt Western customs and manners?

Why does it seem quite shocking, and at times even unacceptable, for a foreigner to wear cheong sam or other “Chinese style” clothes, go by herself to Jacky Cheung’s concert or Andy Lau’s latest movie and enjoy herself.

Why does it seem strange also for a foreigner to be able to speak Cantonese and sing some Canto-pop songs at karaoke?

It is also strange to them when a foreigner is the only non-Asian to join a kung fu or calligraphy class and to adopt many Chinese customs and manners.

Why is it expected that Chinese people will become Westernized; whereas, it is nearly bizarre to expect Westerners to become Sinocized?

Fellow CUHK students, please know that there are some foreign students here who truly respect Chinese culture. We are really trying to adapt to life here, to learn from you and to develop genuine friendships with you.

Please be patient with us, especially when our habits seem strange or we behave in culturally-insensitive ways. Help us when we look confused in the canteen. Learning how to order food is a real challenge! Be our friends.

After the French government had launched the nuclear test at the South Pacific, Muruoa Atoll, a chain of reaction of protest, boycott and riots occurred. France was accused of relauching the arm race and environmental contaminations.

Despite international indignation, the French government prepared to have another eight nuclear tests between September and May. The country claimed that its decision was “only” based on scientific grounds. It is a “must” to complete the whole experimental programs.

It should be noted that nuclear tests cause great ecological impact. Radioactivity contaminates not only the local area but also the global one. There are 2500 inhabitants living within a 500-kilometre testing site; the act endangers their lives.

Apart from this, there is a threat of the follow-up problems. The government’s action may trigger nuclear tests from other countries, who perhaps make much larger scaled tests.

In fact, the French government underestimates the reaction from the world. More than 20 countries such as Australia, New Zealand, Germany, Britain, United States and Japan had criticized the selfishness and stupidity of France. President Jacquws Chirac, the decision maker, should be the one who broke off the international relationship.

Correspondingly, the boycott staged by these protesting countries would destroy the territory’s economy. It is ironic to realize that France “weaken” its economy by “strengthening” its political force.

In my opinion, these continuing nuclear tests would bring out a more serious consequence in the future. The French and other people around the world seemed to have lost their patience; a series of bombing by the radicals within their territories is the proof.

Undesirably, nobody would like to see the brutal scene. It is a high time the French government reconsidered and terminated the test.

A few months ago, our government has spent millions of dollars on a system to generate the Air Pollution Index for the weather reports.

Why do these numerical values have to go with the highest temperature, the lowest temperature and the humidity of the day? It doesn’t make sense, does it? What is its importance to the community?Does it mean that we should even hold our breathe when the air around us is classified as contaminated?

It seems to me that the Environmental Protection Department is just trying to show that they have done something, but they did not realize they have done the wrong thing. It is no use at all telling the public to reduce non-essential physical exertion and outdoor activities during the polluted days.

When the API shows a very unhealthy level of air pollution, the EPD is unable to convince the public that the API project is a pragmatic one without any kind of contingency plans.

To make this project worthwhile to what it costs to the taxpayers, the EPD should revise the project periodically. Seven out of the eight network monitoring stations should be moved to a height level not more than five metres above ground.

Besides modifying the project itself, more effort should be put to resolve the problem of the intensifying air pollution. Laws should be enacted to prohibit the use of diesel as fuel by taxis, minibuses and buses, which occupy the roads most of the time.