My first response to the Gladys Liu scandal was laughter.
Last week, Liberal MP Gladys Liu was interviewed by Andrew Bolt on Sky News. This led to further questions into her alleged links with persons or groups in Australia connected with the Chinese Communist Party (CCP). These questions led to accusations of racism against Chinese-Australians from certain sections of Australian politics and Twitter.
As someone who spent 15 years growing up in Melbourne before returning to Hong Kong to live in 2001, I just couldn’t stop laughing when I saw such reactions. I showed Hong Kong friends; I showed Australian friends who had migrated from Hong Kong. We all felt the same way. Why? Because we’ve seen it all before in Hong Kong.
The term “United Front” gets bandied about a lot in the discussion about China’s influence in Australian politics, but I’m not sure everyone knows exactly what it means. It’s a common short form for the United Front Work Department of the CCP. Its role is to set up, infiltrate or influence groups and persons within or outside China for the purpose of ensuring that they support (or are otherwise of use to) the CCP.
As such, groups or persons falling under United Front influence are mostly not CCP members. Sometimes, they knowingly embrace connections with the CCP. At other times, they end up unwittingly becoming purveyors of the United Front message through social, commercial, or academic connections.
In the years since China resumed sovereignty over Hong Kong in 1997, United Front influence has gradually permeated through Hong Kong society: local neighbourhood associations, apartment block owners’ management committees, chambers of commerce, professional associations, charities and the like. The infiltration often starts with the United Front identifying individuals that are considered influential in such groups, or persons who are qualified to join such groups. They never paint their approaches to such individuals as CCP influence operations.
Instead, they present networking opportunities. They (and the groups to whom they belong) get feted by political and business leaders when they visit China. Seminars about the “national situation” — which parrot CCP lines — are sometimes thrown in with such visits. The individuals also join various WeChat or WhatsApp networking groups where more pro-CCP information is received.
Gradually, or so the playbook goes, these people are influenced; they infiltrate the groups to which they belong. They act to shut down dissenting voices within their groups. They deny access to facilities within their control or influence to opposition voices. They offer unqualified praise or at least decline to criticise the CCP, its leaders, its positions on issues, or anyone sympathetic to it. They treat all criticisms of such as separatism, or anti-Mainland Chinese prejudice, or both.
These people are politically active, using their financial clout and social influence to place advertisements and op-eds parroting the CCP line. They would lobby a Hong Kong government that is already in sync with the CCP to toe the CCP line. Their groups are mobilised to raise funds and to act as volunteer campaigners for pro-CCP candidates in Hong Kong elections.
I have no knowledge of whether the allegations against Gladys Liu are true. That is a matter for journalists in Australia to look into further. But it’s surreal for me and my friends to watch, at a distance, as the allegations and howls of “racism” pour in — some of the allegations to date bear similarities with what we have long seen in Hong Kong.
We must all be careful of xenophobia and witch-hunts, but it’s foolish to dismiss allegations of CCP influence as mere “racism”. To do this — to look to the individuals rather than the systems they inhabit, to not interrogate methods and results — would be to play directly into the United Front playbook.
The lesson from Hong Kong for Australians is simple: be vigilant.
Kevin Yam is a Hong Kong lawyer and political commentator. The views expressed in this article are his own and do not represent those of his employer or any organisations to which he may belong.
The HK methods used by UF as the author describes sounds a lot like our own dirty ‘democratic’ system at play. ALP/LNP and the others all have these kind of influences all the time. When HK comes up with a solution let us know.
It’s almost ironic this piece should be published on the very same day as Crikey’s INQ ‘unit’ lays out – in 2 pieces – how the state publicly funds and resources propaganda units devoted to ensuring the citizenry only hears about the excellent performance of the political party that happens to be in power at the time.
There’s an excellent article at Consortium News by a former Oz diplomat (and now an Emeritus Professor at ANU) Tony Kevin, on how ‘access’ is managed to ensure dissenting opinions are kept from the local citizenry, by government, academia, ‘policy’ bodies, and the media.
It is damning.
This ” Racist” line taken by the libs is disgusting in the extreme, about as low as it is possible to get and cowardly to boot.
Followed through to a logical conclusion nobody of any ethnicity, of any colour, or with any disability could ever be accused or charged with anything. Including white people of foreign extraction, Brits,German,Italian Etc.Etc.
Meaning anyone other than a white Australian whole of mind and body. Women people could also probably get an exclusion as well, even if Australian.
If Shanghai Sam (thanks scumo) had played the Race Card he could still be a Senator, but he always was a bit slow.
It’s cowardly because once someone has been called “Racist” any form of repudiation or defense only serves to confirm and magnify the “Racist” undertones and prove the accusation.
The problem for Gladdie is not who she is, or where she originated but WHAT SHE IS ALLEGED TO HAVE DONE.
That should be investigated, regardless of Colour, Creed or Origin in every case.
However with a narrow margin in parliament the current crop pf LNP pollies will use any tactic regardless of the immorality, truth, honesty, or ethics to maintain their position.
The sooner Climate Change removes Human Beings from this planet the better.
Sounds awful, imagine if the CCP were to gain influence here, certain protests might be banned, workers rights might be subject to the whims of the state. We might even put minorities in camps. Our foreign policy might be decided by a foreign superpower. Cops might start brutalizing people with less-lethal weapons. What a topsy-turvy world that would be!
“PHEW!’, eh?
Indeed Draco. Where else on earth could this possibly be happening?
Post of the week, month, maybe year, Draco.
DRACO: Oh what a wonderful world you paint. And oh what a little bitty scenario it is. Do tell if such an outlook could exist anywhere in Oz. Ooo la la!
How good is Australian vigilance – when you’ve got Mercurial Morrison and Murdoch’s Muppets defining it?
Pezzullo’s Puppets, Duttons ‘Glansheads’ ….. if only the AFP was a “Cashless” society?
From my brief excursion around online commenting platforms I get the feeling Beijing has paid lackeys ridiculing and abusing commenters who support Hong Kong protesters.