Open letters by Australian Scholars on CPC interference
Vision Times (看中国)
30 March 2018

The following is a translated excerpt of an article by Xia Feiyan (夏飞岩) published in Vision Times (看中国). It covers the two open letters by scholars of China and the Chinese diaspora to the Parliamentary Joint Committee on Intelligence and Security:

Xia Feiyan: An Unequal Academic Debate

The legislative proposal of the “Anti-Foreign Interference Law” by the Turnbull government and the publication of Prof. Clive Hamilton’s new book “Silent Invasion: China’s Influence in Australia”, has set off a controversy among the elite in the Chinese-Australian community. The focus of the debate is whether the Communist Party of China’s (CPC’s) influence has interfered with Australia’s free and democratic society. Will exposing it and adopting legal measures arouse racial discrimination in our multiculturalism?

In fact, when two separate groups of academics, which included ethnic Chinese experts and professors, took part in the debate in open letters, the allegation of “racial discrimination” became nonsense. Regardless of the language used by each, the real target was not the ethnic Chinese, but to prevent the CPC’s influence on Australian society from spreading, or continuing to allow the CPC to fully control the Chinese community and spread to all areas in Australia.

The most successful aspect of the CPC’s penetration of Australia is to allow the vast majority of Chinese to acquiesce in their lies and to give up the courage to challenge the CPC’s bottom line. Because acquiescence means personal safety, it is what the CPC is most pleased to see. When the CPC cracks down on the calls and warnings for countering infiltration under the guise of “racial discrimination against China,” it can indeed allow a group of Chinese to follow up. If even the so-called Chinese experts and scholars jointly sign an endorsement of the Chinese Communist Party, it only shows the Chinese Communist Party’s deep penetration of this group of scholars.

In December last year, Australian Prime Minister Turnbull expressed his determination that Australians have begun to counter the strong penetration by the CPC by saying the “Australian people have stood up.” Many Chinese expressed their gratitude for the courage of the Australian government. Strangely enough, it was mocked by the former Prime Minister of Australia.

The slogan “The Chinese people have stood up” was in a speech delivered by Mao Zedong at the first plenary session of the CPPCC National People’s Congress on September 21, 1949. The concept of “stand up” means that the communist ideology formally replaced the Western civilizational culture of the United States and United Kingdom and the traditional Chinese Confucian culture adhered to by the Nationalist government.

Must the comparison of Turnbull’s determination to use “Australian values” to drive away the “infiltration of the red forces” with “the Australian people have stood up” be challenged? Still we can see that Rudd’s article was reprinted and held in respect by numerous red media. Turnbull’s resolve was ridiculed by countless red media.

Thinking of Kevin Rudd’s letting slip on Weibo of “learning from the Nineteenth Party Congress”, one could not help but ask: “Comrade Rudd, can you stand up and speak?”

Some politicians and scholars who have lived off of others have always claimed that they often criticise the CPC’s actions, etc. I remind you that it is called “kneeling and pleading”. As long as you walk along the line drawn by the master, you will be esteemed.

In a democratic and open society, when it comes to disputes related to the dictatorial regime of the Communist Party of China, or when the subject of an argument touches the CPC’s bottom line, the situation is different. We can see that some Australian politicians and scholars will “consciously” integrate with the mouthpiece of the CPC, allowing public opinion to show a wide range of irrational disparities. This shows that the CPC’s influence in Australia is enormous. In such an environment, can we use the strength of sound to distinguish whether or not it is just? Of course not.

In retrospect, the open letters of the two groups of scholars seem to be equal in a society of free speech and mutually express the theory of support and opposition. But if you see the difference in the environment between the two, the state of the disparity is very great. Many signatures come from the same institution, but they express different opinions.

An open letter against the legislation said that “alarmist talk” would make “Australian Chinese not even dare to participate in this open debate.” Ask these scholars, don’t you feel ashamed to write such words? In the current environment, the reality is that “alarmist talk” makes the Chinese frightened not to openly tell the truth. Chinese who are willing to provide real proof to Clive Hamilton hardly dare to leave their real names.

At a press conference for the publication of the new book, “The Silent Invasion,” at the New South Wales State Capitol, I met John Hugh, a former Parramatta City Council member who supported the publication of the new book. I asked him with concern: “You will soon visit China. Won’t supporting this activity cause trouble?” John laughed. “I just think that everyone has the right to express their opinions. I often go back and there should be no problem.” As a result, he was forcibly repatriated at the Shanghai airport on the grounds that “you know what you did”. Obviously, the optimistic Mr. Hugh still underestimates the degree of evil in the Communist Party of China. The Party has issued an unequivocal warning to Chinese around the world. As long as you are Chinese, no matter where you live or what nationality you take, you do not have the right to freedom of speech and you must always conduct a “self-examination.”

An unequal debate is enough to show that the current measures of the Australian government have touched on the CPC’s sensitive nerves and caused it to come out fighting on all fronts. This is the naked expression of influence.

When Mao Zedong’s uttered the phrase “the Chinese people have stood up,” it left all the kneeling people of the mainland under their control. Now Turnbull also said that “the Australian people have stood up.” He is trying to get those who are still living in the free world to stand up.

I would like to ask those scholars and professors who bamboozle while signing their names, “Can you ask yourself first whether you are standing or still kneeling.”

Translation by: Chris R. Lanzit, NAATI Certified Professional Translator (Chinese-English), NAATI Practitioner ID: CPN0BC84W

Date of translation: 7 April 2018

Read More