Facebook Instagram Twitter Youtube
    Latest

    China

    Home China Page 2

    China’s Dystopia II: The Digital Panopticon

    By
    Warren Wang
    -
    2

    During my recent one-month stay in China’s bustling metropolises, the omnipresence of technology, particularly WeChat (a “Super App” Elon Musk wants X to be for the West), was starkly evident. QR codes adorned nearly every surface, from restaurant menus to market stalls, making WeChat an indispensable part of daily life. The ‘everything app’ seamlessly integrates functions akin to WhatsApp, Facebook, eBay, Uber and many others into one platform. 

    The convenience it offers is undeniable: messaging, social networking, making payments, ordering food and hailing rides are all accomplished with a few taps on a smartphone. However, beneath this veneer of ultra-convenience lies a more ominous reality.

    The Illusion of Convenience Over Privacy

    In Aldous Huxley’s “Brave New World”, a superficially perfect society masks deep underlying issues. This theme resonates profoundly with my experience in China. On the surface, life is streamlined and digitised. In cities like Shanghai, cash is almost obsolete (I used no cash at all for the one-month trip), and every need or whim is catered to with astonishing efficiency, with technology not just an enabler but a dominant force shaping society. Yet, this convenience comes at a steep cost – privacy is virtually non-existent.

     The convenience of digital transactions allows the government to track and control the financial activities of its citizens.

    Surveillance: Beyond the Physical Realm

    The extensive surveillance network I described in “China’s Dystopia I: Security to Slavery” is not limited to physical spaces. Every transaction, interaction or movement facilitated by WeChat and other digital platforms is tracked, recorded, and scrutinised whenever the government deems necessary. The app, while a marvel of modern technology, doubles as a tool for surveillance, with the Chinese government having unfettered access to the data collected.

    Digital Dystopia: A Double-Edged Sword

    This digital ecosystem, on one hand, epitomises technological advancement and consumer convenience. On the other, it represents a dystopian reality where personal details, preferences, and even thoughts are no longer private. Every digital footprint is monitored, contributing to a profile that the government can access and analyse at will. The notion of ”Big Brother” in George Orwell’s “1984” finds a parallel here, though it is perhaps more aptly described by Huxley’s vision where citizens are placated with pleasures and conveniences, unaware of or indifferent to the loss of their freedoms.

    The Perils of a Cashless Society and Social Credit

    The move towards a cashless society in China brings its own set of risks. The convenience of digital transactions allows the government to track and control the financial activities of its citizens. Coupled with the social credit system, this creates a scenario where individuals can be rewarded or punished not just for their actions, but also for their associations.

    This system has become a tool for cracking down on dissent. Individuals or groups who interact with or support entities disfavoured by the government can find themselves facing financial restrictions or worse. Being locked out of WeChat, for example, effectively prevents participation in daily life. 

    This level of control over personal and financial interactions adds another layer to the surveillance state, where not just actions, but also associations, are monitored and controlled.

    This digital ecosystem, on one hand, epitomises technological advancement and consumer convenience.

    Rethinking Freedom in a Digitally Connected World

    As we progress further into the digital era, the Chinese model serves as a crucial case study for the rest of the world. It poses a fundamental question: what is the true cost of convenience? In a society where every digital interaction is monitored, can freedom truly exist? The allure of a frictionless, digital life is powerful, but it should not blind us to the importance of safeguarding our privacy and freedom.

    Join Mailing List

    As Australia observes the unfolding digital dystopia in China, it becomes imperative to reflect upon our own relationship with technology and surveillance. While enjoying a more open and democratic society, Australia is not immune to the risks posed by the unchecked expansion of surveillance technologies. The use of such technologies for contact tracing during the COVID-19 pandemic signalled clear privacy erosion and government overreach. 

    As Australia strides forward in its technological journey, it must tread cautiously to avoid the pitfalls seen in China. As Huxley’s “Brave New World” warns, a society enamoured with comfort and entertainment may be blind to the erosion of its essential liberties. The challenge for us is to ensure that technological advancements serve humanity, not government.

    The Death of Li Keqiang

    By
    Warren Wang
    -
    1

    Li Keqiang, China’s former Prime Minister, passed away on 27th October 2023, at the age of 68. His death has plunged many in China and around the world into mourning, particularly those who supported his vision of greater economic freedom rather than increased state control in China, and towards more political diversity instead of ever-increasing centralised power.

    Li Keqiang was widely regarded as a successor to Deng Xiaoping’s reform and opening-up policy, favouring reform-oriented policies and continued economic liberalisation within the framework of the Chinese socialist market economy. Throughout his tenure he was a steadfast advocate for economic liberalisation, transparency, and international cooperation. His economic philosophy, often summarised as “Likonomics,” was characterised by avoiding large-scale government stimulus measures, focusing on reducing debt levels within the economy, especially in the shadow banking system and amongst local governments, and pushing for structural reforms to let market forces play a decisive role in the economy.

    For many advocates of change, Li Keqiang’s death highlights the significant obstacles on the road to transforming China into a society in step with the wider world’s aspirations for open economic engagement and improved political stability.

    Despite his concerted efforts, Li Keqiang faced an ongoing struggle with the more dominant state-centric approach favoured by Supreme Leader Xi Jinping. Li’s push for economic reforms often met with a level of centralised power not seen since the death of Chairman Mao. Xi aggressively consolidated power, even amending the Constitution of China to grant himself the potential for a lifelong presidency. Although Li sometimes seemed sidelined, his commitment to his reformist principles never wavered as he continued to advocate for economic modernisation and the growth of private enterprise within the confines of the prevailing political climate.

    The passing of Li Keqiang carries weight that goes beyond the loss of a political figure; it symbolises the dimming of a progressive era in China’s storied journey toward modernisation. As a top-tier leader with a solid background in economics, he championed a new direction in Chinese policy – a route lined with broader economic and political freedoms. For the many Chinese who share his dream, his death sharply underscores the complex and often difficult political realities that shape the nation’s progression towards liberalisation.

    During Li Keqiang’s time as Prime Minister, clashes between two opposing ideologies were occasionally evident – Xi Jinping’s assertive centralisation of power on one side and Li’s advocacy for economic decentralisation on the other. The 20th National Congress of the Chinese Communist Party, held in October 2022, signalled a decisive shift, affirming the dominance of Xi’s vision. It was a defining moment that resulted in the thorough marginalisation of Li and his fellow reform-minded colleagues, signalling the end of the reformist era they had supported.

    Li Keqiang’s legacy will be recorded in the annals of China’s contemporary history as a testament to ‘what might have been’ in an era of tightened control. His consistent efforts to liberalise the economy—where private enterprise could operate with greater autonomy and where market forces were allowed a more decisive role — resonated with many who envisioned a China more integrated with the global economic system. As China’s second-in-command, Li’s voice for moderate reform provided a counterpoint to the prevailing trend of centralisation, offering a ray of hope for a middle path that might lead China towards a more open society and a more resilient economy.

    Join Mailing List

    For many advocates of change, Li Keqiang’s death highlights the significant obstacles on the road to transforming China into a society in step with the wider world’s aspirations for open economic engagement and improved political stability. The sorrow that has accompanied his passing goes beyond a simple tribute to a leader’s memory. It reflects a profound collective longing to preserve his vision for China – a vision of a balanced economy that supports both individual and economic freedoms in society. In the wake of his passing, his parting words resonate with particular poignancy: “While people work, heaven watches. Heaven has eyes.” These words, ultimately omitted from the official record, now take on a profound significance as the nation reflects on the end of his tenure and his life.

    As the nation arrives at a pivotal juncture in its history, this period of mourning also presents a vital opportunity for reflection on how China will navigate the intricate balance between preserving internal stability, managing relations with Taiwan and the Western world, and confronting the myriad challenges posed by regional conflicts and global economic instability.

    Laughing In The Face of Tyranny, $1 Million Bounty On Their Heads

    By
    Kenelm Tonkin
    -
    0

    Imagine you lived in Australia and enjoyed a great life. Then the government became tyrannical, you protested for democracy, but an anti-democratic security law was passed and you were intimidated and arrested. Released, you fled to New Zealand and were granted a visa there. But the Australian Federal Police placed a bounty on your head of $A190,202 (US$127,728) and activated its security apparatus to ‘extract’ you.

    Can you image this breach of your basic civil liberties? In what kind of psychological state would you be?

    As far as Liberty Itch knows, this story is fictitious. However, it corresponds to a true story so similar that we need only change three facts. In the real-life version you were born and raised in British-ruled Hong Kong, a Commonwealth country. Your new home is Australia. And your name is Ted Hui. All other details are the same.

    If you default to the ‘don’t-rock-the-boat’ conservative position of, ‘Yeah, well, that’s none of our business because he’s not an Australian citizen’, let’s take Mr. Hui’s situation but assume the victim is an Australian citizen. You now have the factual circumstances of Australian lawyer, Kevin Yam.

    Ted Hui
    Kevin Yam

    The Hong Kong Police has issued a HK$1 million bounty on someone who is not only an Australian resident, but an Australian citizen!

    Slothful ‘status-quo’ thinking might argue, “These men have obviously broken the law. They’re criminals. Police issue bounties all the time.” But there’s a lot more to the story.

    When the British transferred Hong Kong to China in 1997, the City was imbued with all the benefits of British culture: a parliamentary democracy, small government, plus a robust common law judicial system protecting civil liberties and property rights. It was a stable, bustling success story. China agreed to preserve democracy there for at least 50 years.

    Hong Kong Handover. 1997.

    Six years in and the Chinese Communist Party couldn’t resist meddling. Small snippets at first, then an attempt to implement a security law in 2003, thwarted by democrats. The student Umbrella Movement resisted the tyranny from 2014. But by 2019, the communists had installed sufficient sympathisers to flex their coercive muscle. Pro-democracy protests continued, in some ways similar to Australia’s Freedom Rallies protesting against the Covid lockdowns, but with higher stakes. In 2020, the Hong Kong National Security Law was passed, establishing “crimes” of secession, subversion, terrorism, and collusion with foreign organisations, control mechanisms to entrench authoritarianism.

    In Mr. Hui’s case, he was elected to the Legislative Council as a Hong Kong Democracy Party MP. He lent his support to the protests. For his efforts Mr. Hui was arrested and imprisoned without trial several times, the duration each time becoming longer than the last. In jail, he was coerced to be silent about the loss of freedoms and assaulted. He was released, fled and today lives in Adelaide.

    Liberty Itch has covered Mr. Hui here and here.

    Mr. Yam’s story is that he is an Australian citizen and merely lived in Hong Kong for twenty years. He’s a legal scholar with Georgetown University’s Centre for Asian Law and lives in Melbourne.

    These aren’t the backgrounds of criminals.

    These are scholarly, principled men acting for democracy and freedom.

    The CCP-backed Hong Kong Government is using extra-territorial arrest warrants and bounties as an intimidation tactic against an Australian lawyer. In light of the new security law, Australia rightly cancelled its extradition treaty with Hong Kong in 2020. Interpol has not been issued with a Red Notice by the Hong Kong Police. It would never be approved.

    In response to the Chinese Communist Party’s bounty, Mr. Hui said it “makes it clearer to Western democracies that China is going towards more extreme authoritarianism.”

    Mr. Yam stated, “It’s my duty to speak out against the crackdown that is going on right now, against the tyranny that is now reigning over the City that was once one of the freest in Asia. All they want to do is try to make a show of their view that the national security law has extra-territorial effect.”

    The freedoms of speech, assembly, movement, the presumption of innocence and right to a fair trial are cornerstones of liberal democracy which libertarians cherish.

    It would be an error to view these men as an overseas problem. A CCP edict that Australian citizens and residents be ‘pursued for life’ is an affront to all Australians. If you support Assange’s freedom, you will find these bounties on Mr Hui and Mr Yam abhorrent. And, being the thinking, philosophically consistent libertarian that you are, you should express support for their human rights.

    If you don’t, who will support yours?

    INTERVIEW: Former Chinese Diplomat Embraces Liberty

    By
    Fiona Hui
    -
    0

    Since a new Labor government in Australia was elected in 2022, there has been a warming trend in Australia-China relations. Our ministers are back engaging with Beijing officials and trips to China by our elected leaders are resuming.

    The CCP influence whistleblower, Sydney based former Chinese diplomat Mr Yonglin Chen, who defected to Australia in 2005, issued a warning many years ago that Beijing aimed to transform Australia into ‘a stable and obedient resource supplier’ and, if we are not vigilant, we could be economically colonised into becoming a Province of China.

    Mr Yonglin Chen. Former Chinese diplomat. Defected to Australia in 2005.

    Chen’s chilling reminder resurfaces, as Australia-China relations begin to thaw.

    Having been part of the ‘CCP body’ in the past, Chen’s ‘flip’ is invaluable in helping us understand how the Chinese Communists operate within Australia.

    Despite his efforts to lead a simple life, Chen and his family receive regular threats from Beijing operatives in Sydney. But threats and coercion only make him more determined to defend universal principles and values.

    Chen has agreed to an interview with Liberty Itch and has drawn from his personal experience to reveal the key functions of Chinese consulates in Australia.

    In this interview, Chen asserts that these consulates engage in harassment of the Chinese diaspora and conduct activities aimed at interfering in the host country.

    Unlike consulates of other countries,
    Chinese consulates prioritise political interference over consular affairs,
    with various offices aggressively involved in surveillance and espionage activities.

    Beijing currently operates 275 diplomatic posts worldwide, surpassing the United States’ count of 267 and Australia’s count of 125, according to the Lowy Institute’s Global Diplomacy Index. These figures highlight China’s ambition to exert influence globally.

    Here is the interview with Yonglin Chen.

    LI: Tell us about the inner workings of Chinese Consulates in Australia.

    YC: China gathers local intelligence through multiple avenues. General Staff focuses on military intelligence and high-tech innovations, while the Ministry of State Security (MSS) focuses on high-tech intelligence, counterespionage, and political interference.

    The Ministry of Public Security (Police) focuses on Operation Fox Hunt, targeting individuals from the Chinese community and Chinese companies in Australia. Chinese missions also collaborate with Australian governments through Sister Cities or Sister State Relationships and oversee United Front organisations and Chinese Students & Scholars Associations (CSSA) at Australian universities.

    They seek to control the majority of local Chinese language media and utilise the Confucius Institute system to influence opinions.

    Beijing also promotes propaganda in mainstream local media
    and attempts to bribe and lure Australian MPs for their personal gains.

    Additionally, China employs the Thousand Talent Plan and similar programs to recruit scientists and experts in order to acquire top-secret intelligence, as Australia shares academic research with the US. China’s methods for gathering intelligence are extensive, aiming to collect comprehensive big data on individuals.

    LI: Please tell us more about the scale and tactics of the Chinese Spy network in our country.

    YC: China’s spy network in Australia operates on a significant scale, with over 1,000 professional operatives not only deployed in various Australian sectors, including government institutions, universities and laboratories, but also located in China’s state-owned enterprises, media outlets, commerce, and trade organisations in Australia.

    China’s spy network in Australia operates on a significant scale,
    with over 1,000 professional operatives

    The CCP targets individuals within the Chinese diaspora and Australian elites, such as local, state, and federal politicians, their staffers, scientists, and academics, aiming to obtain valuable information. Confucius classrooms specifically target younger generations in Australia.

    LI: We have seen an increasing number of seemingly ‘pro-CCP candidates’ running for our local councils and state parliaments. How are they ‘endorsed’ and ‘selected’? How do they interfere with Australian elections?

    YC: The CCP’s United Front Work Department initiated the Chinese for Political Participation Program globally in 2005. Before that, politicians and officials of Chinese descent usually received preferential treatment, including luxurious trips to China and free accommodation and education for their children in Chinese universities.

    After 2005, even more favorable treatment was provided, funded through the Ambassadorial Fund and other Special Budgets. Chinese missions may also arrange secret funds from Chinese state-owned enterprises and pro-CCP individuals in the Chinese community in Australia.

    China’s media promotes election candidates through CCP mouthpieces such as China Central Television (CCTV), People’s Daily, and authorised WeChat red groups, boosting their popularity.

    This increases their chances of winning elections in areas with a dense Chinese population. Chinese immigrants, who use WeChat, and Chinese language media in Australia, including Media Today Group, massively influenced by China, are utilised to disseminate CCP propaganda and influence voters.

    Chinese volunteers, particularly young international students, are recruited to support ‘selected candidates’. Secret funds are also utilised in these efforts.

    To protect Australia’s national interests, Chen emphasises six urgent actions:

    • Uphold principles when dealing with the Communist Regime and avoid appeasement, recognising that China relies on Australia’s resources and market, not the other way around.
    • Enforce the Foreign Influence Transparency Scheme Act 2018 and the Autonomous Sanctions Amendment (Magnitsky-style and Other Thematic Sanctions) Act 2021 effectively.
    • Reduce by half the number of PRC diplomats in Australia and expel CCP spies, removing specific operatives located within consulate’ premises.
    • Exercise strict oversight on funds directed towards election candidates.
    • Provide education on universal values and democratic principles to the mainland Chinese immigrant community and international Chinese students.
    • Expose spies’ activities in Australia and ensure the protection of Australian nationals.

    As Beijing continues to entice our elected representatives, let’s hope that the Australian Parliament and the State MPs will consider Chen’s well-meaning advice.

    Trade Minister, Don Farrell, was given a tour of the Forbidden City in Beijing in May 2023

    Betrayal for Bucks: A Seduction Story

    By
    Fiona Hui
    -
    0

    If Foreign Interference is still a strange concept for laid-back Aussies, we will all soon be familiar with it – directed, supervised or financed foreign meddling and, unfortunately, citizens who knowingly assist with such foreign meddling for various reasons.

    The most common reason, of course, is financial benefits. And the most rampant meddler is not Iran, or even Russia, but Communist China, a fact the Albanese Government refuses to admit. But they know. We also know. It is the elephant in the room.

    Playing by the rules is not in the Beijing psyche. We can, therefore, expect more and more of these novel criminal charges to occur in Australia.

    On 14 April 2023, Sydney man, Alexander Csergo, was charged with one count of ‘Reckless Foreign Interference’ by the Australian Federal Police (AFP) for allegedly selling sensitive Australian defence and economic information to the Chinese Communist Party.

    Australian businessman, Alexander Csergo

    That was the second time anyone had been charged with a Foreign Interference Offence in the country since the relevant legislation passed in the Australian Parliament in 2018. The first Australian charged with Foreign Interference, a Melbourne man with Vietnamese heritage, was reported in Liberty Itch in February 2023.

    A savvy Australian entrepreneur, a UNSW graduate, Mr Csergo, aged 55, had taken cash payments from the CCP proxies in exchange for his reports on Australia’s defence and trade matters, Sydney Court heard on 17 April 2023.

    Mr Csergo was approached by two individuals via LinkedIn, calling themselves ‘Ken’ and ‘Evelyn’, who told Mr Csergo that they were from a ‘think tank’. They asked Mr Csergo to assist with their ‘research’ by providing information on highly sensitive national security matters to their make-believe research centre.

    Mr Csergo was arrested at his Bondi NSW home on 14 April 2023

    Magistrate Michael Barko denied bail for Mr Csergo, stating that the prosecution had a compelling case and the defendant was a “sophisticated, worldly businessperson” with flight risks.

    According to court proceedings reported by The Australian Financial Review on 14 April 2023, Mr Csergo admitted that he knew the two individuals who approached him were from China’s Ministry of State Security.

    The reports compiled by Mr Csergo included data on Australia’s AUKUS defence technology partnership, the QUAD, iron ore and lithium mining. They had been discovered by the AFP three weeks after Csergo returned to Sydney. Mr Csergo had been on the AFP radar since 2021, the court was told.

    On 23 April 2023, The Guardian reported that Mr Csergo’s defence lawyer, Bernard Collaery, was requesting the Attorney General, the Hon Mark Dreyfus KC MP, to drop the matter before the court.

    As libertarians, we may have conflicting emotions regarding these charges. While we advocate for personal freedom, privacy, and limited government intervention, we are also becoming increasingly aware of the growing threat posed by the CCP, as it aggressively abuses and exploits our open and ‘lenient’ democratic policy.

    Liberty Itch has reported on numerous CCP influence operations in our institutions, including in Higher Education and Political Parties.

    Without tough legislation in place, our freedom, sovereignty and the integrity of our institutions will be, if not already, in jeopardy.

    As democracy loving liberals, of course, we presume Mr Csergo innocent until proven guilty. We also appreciate how important it is to have separation of powers between the executive and the judicial system.

    Asking the AG to exercise his executive power to drop the prosecution is questionable to those who believe in the rule of law. This is a national security matter for all Australians and a matter of public interest.

    In light of this, Liberty Itch earnestly hopes that the Hon Mark Dreyfus KC MP will continue to resist pressure from the defense lawyer which could obstruct the discovery of truth and the delivery of justice in our court.

    Amidst the disappointments that we have held in recent times as a nation, I hope that we have not all completely lost our faith in the institutions that form the backbone of our society. Otherwise, we would only serve to amuse the manipulative Chinese regime that seeks to exploit our discord and disunity.

    INTERVIEW: Undaunted, He Still Fights For Freedom

    By
    Fiona Hui
    -
    0
    Tibetan Australian, Tenpa Dargye.

    Australia is home to nearly 3,000 Tibetans. This number has increased steadily by around 100 new Tibetans a year. Almost all are on humanitarian visas.

    3,000 is not a huge number, but it fills up the whole town of, say, McLaren Vale, a well-known wine-producing region in South Australia. Whilst it may sound quite cozy, the reality of life for these Tibetans, of course, is nothing like sipping delicious wine.

    These Tibetans are political prisoners who have fled Tibet and come to Australia for safety, due to the brutal persecution by Beijing since its Tibet annexation in 1951. Although it may seem like a long time ago, the human rights abuses in Tibet have not stopped since the Chinese invasion.

    Religious persecution has been a consistent theme in China. Liberty Itch has reported the Chinese Communist Party’s unspeakable abuses of the Uyghurs, Christians, and Falun Gong.

    The Chinese regime is determined that all their citizens worship nothing but the Chinese Communist Party – except that Tibetans are not even ‘Chinese citizens.’ Like East Turkistan, Tibet was an independent neighbouring country on the Western side of China.

    Neighbours of the People’s Republic of China.

    It’s unfortunate to be China’s neighbours, as their autonomy and freedom are constantly at risk.

    Alarmingly, the CCP’s invasion of economically weaker countries is not just a matter of history. We know that Taiwan is the next immediate invasion target while the Indo-Pacific region has received increasing ‘interest’ and economic coercion by the Chinese State.Subscribe

    It is not right that only the Chinese propaganda machine has the power to narrate history. Liberty Itch is eager to reach out to individuals, who possess first-hand stories of what has occurred in their nation’s history.

    We made contact with Perth based Tibetan Australian, Tenpa Dargye, who spent five years in a Chinese prison from 2001 to 2006. He is a direct victim of the atrocities committed by the Chinese government. Although he is well settled in Australia, his life continues to be impacted today.

    Tanpa visited Adelaide last week and the interview was conducted face to face.

    • Liberty Itch: Please tell us about your experience in Tibet.
    • Tenpa Dargye: I was born and grew up in the Golog of Eastern Tibet. Today, Tibet is the least free country in the world, among the same ranks of Syria and South Sudan. I believe in Buddhism and my spiritual leader is the Dalai Lama. I meditate regularly and believe in peace and kindness.
    Golog, Eastern Tibet.
    • Prior to People’s Republic of China’s invasion in 1950, Tibet was an independent country with its own government, military, national flag, language and currency. The majority of Tibetans practice Buddhism and respect the nature that inherits the Ancient Bon Religion, the indigenous religious tradition of Tibet.
    • Since 1987, the PRC government suddenly tightened its control over the three regions of Tibet again. I was imprisoned by the Colonial Government of the PRC for practicing the political vision of the 14th Dalai Lama. I was in prison for five years from 2001 to 2006. I was released in 2006 but I got arrested again, during the 2008 Tibetan uprising, for another two months.
    • LI: Five years is a long time. What was it like in a Chinese prison during this period?
    • TD: I was in a Colonial Government prison in Lhasa, which is the capital city of Tibet. The interrogations in prison were unbearable. Without given any reason, I was given electric shocks to my heart and mouth. The PRC prison guards seemed to enjoy causing anguish, as they were laughing after giving me each shock. During interrogations, they demanded I recant my faith in the Dalai Lama and declare loyalty to the Chinese Communist Party. I felt powerless and terrified.
    Potala Palace, Lhasa City, Tibet.
    • I was finally released in 2006 on admitted that the Chinese Communist Party rule was the best rule for all Tibetans. I was coerced into admitting it so I could get out of prison.
    • Then in 2008, I was arrested again for two months. Arbitrary arrest and detention are ‘normal’ in Tibet. I was arrested for ‘having incorrect sentiment’ towards to Chinese Communist Party.
    • This time when they released me, I fled to India. India is a common place to which Tibetans escape, because of its proximity to Tibet.
    • LI: How did you end up in Australia? How is your life impacted today?
    • TD: When I was in India in 2009, I was helped by people who created the Tibetan Government-in-Exile. They were very kind and helped me apply for an Australian humanitarian visa.
    • In 2014, I started the campaign, “I’m not celebrating the Tibetan New year before the reunion of inside and outside Tibetan people”. As part of the campaign, each year, I visit a different Australian capital city during Tibetan New Year, usually in February. I want people to understand and remember the 160 Tibetan self-immolators, including among them 41 Buddhist monks and 8 nuns, who have set fire to themselves in protest at the Chinese occupation.
    • ‘Self-immolation’ is an action in Tibetan Buddhism, where one sets fire to oneself as a form of protest and sacrifice. I want people to honour and remember them, like we honour our war heroes on Anzac Day. All of them have sacrificed themselves for our freedom.
    • My campaign started in Dharamshala in North India in 2014. Then I went to Brisbane in 2015, Sydney in 2016, Canberra in 2017, Melbourne in 2018, Perth in 2019, Hobart in 2020, Perth again in 2021 and 2022 due to COVID restrictions, and in 2023 I visited Adelaide for the first time.
    Tenpa Dargye at Parliament House, Adelaide. 21 February 2023.
    • I want my fellow compatriots to understand that although Tibet seems ‘invisible’ today due to Chinese occupation, I still refuse to accept my nation’s invasion by Beijing.
    • Tibet still lives in my heart and I dream of a day when it will be free again, with spirituality replacing the CCP’s vandalism.

    GRAPHIC: Live, fatal organ extraction exposed

    By
    Fiona Hui
    -
    0

    Prepare yourself.

    This interview is hard for sun-soaked Australians to comprehend.

    It’s a topic most of our politicians avoid. It’s too troubling. It opens a Pandora’s Box of questions, about humanity, ethics, complex interconnections, human rights, our future, and sickening expediency beyond our imagination.

    So, before the interview, Liberty Itch will step you through a quick, summarising primer.

    There is credible evidence that Australia’s #1 trading partner, the People’s Republic of China, runs the world’s largest forced organ harvesting business.

    Australia doesn’t simply buy electronics, steel and machinery from China but, critics assert, the Communist Chinese Party does a roaring trade in human hearts, lungs and kidneys, treated as commodities like any other. It’s a lucrative, bloody business.

    https://www.youtube-nocookie.com/embed/u2bUusvh3c0?rel=0&autoplay=0&showinfo=0&enablejsapi=0

    The China Tribunal, a London-based non-government tribunal which investigated claims of forced human organ harvesting chaired by former lead prosecutor of the Slobodan Milošević trial, Sir Geoffrey Nice KC, has made some shocking findings.

    This will give you a feeling for those findings:

    https://www.youtube-nocookie.com/embed/naJFMfDv3Tc?start=425s&rel=0&autoplay=0&showinfo=0&enablejsapi=0

    Its damning final judgment claimed there are over 1.5 million people currently detained in Chinese prison camps, many of them are being brutally killed or operated on, alive, to provide organs for the $1 billion transplant industry.

    $1 billion! That’s the size of Australia’s wine exports to China, when the communists aren’t interfering with free trade. This is the scale of the ghoulish business.

    If you think the issue of Beijing’s organ trafficking is a far-away problem overseas, you are mistaken. It’s on our doorstep. It’s here.

    The China Tribunal discovered a few Australians in the medical profession linked to a Sydney hospital were denying organs were sourced through coercion and human rights abuses.

    Further, the Australian reported contentious, CCP-propagandist white-washing of forced harvesting by a former Griffith University academic, Campbell Fraser, who had a history of cooperative association with CCP mouthpiece, China Daily.

    Campbell Fraser. Griffith University barred him from trips to China.

    Further again, Australia’s SBS reported a complicated fracas between medical practitioners at Westmead Hospital. In that report, Dr Chapman, a staunch defender of Chinese Communist Party organ harvesting practices, had in earlier years reported another physician allegedly being told by a patient of Chinese origin, “I cannot come in for dialysis tomorrow. I have to fly tonight because they are shooting my donor tomorrow.”

    Though obviously the Australian and SBS are reputable sources, Liberty Itch wanted to speak directly with other investigators with expertise in China’s organ harvesting practices.

    The following interview is with David Matas CM.

    David Matas CM is an international human rights lawyer based in Winnipeg, Manitoba, Canada. He is co-author with David Kilgour, a former Canadian Secretary of State and Deputy Speaker of the Canadian House of Commons, of Bloody Harvest: The Killing of Falun Gong for their Organs, 2009 and co-editor with Torsten Trey of State Organs: Transplant Abuse in China, 2012. David is a co-founder with David Kilgour and Ethan Gutmann of the International Coalition to End Transplant Abuse in China, and a member of the Order of Canada.

    David Matas CM. International human rights lawyer, author, researcher and 2010 Nobel Peace Prize nominee.

    <Interview starts>

    LI: Can you give Liberty Itch subscribers a brief overview of the Chinese state’s organ harvesting business? How is it done?

    DM: Prisoners of conscience in arbitrary indefinite detention are systematically blood tested and organ examined. The lists of prisoners with blood types and tissue types are circulated to nearby health practitioners and hospitals. When a patient arrives needing a transplant, the blood and tissue typing is matched with that of a prisoner. The matching prisoner is, in detention, injected with anti-coagulants and immobilisers and then taken to a nearby van where organs are extracted. The extraction kills the prisoner. His or her body is cremated on site. The organ or organs are taken by the van to a nearby hospital or to an airport for transport elsewhere in China.

    LI: What is the scale? Who are the victims and who are the ‘clients’?

    DM: About 100,000 organs a year. The victims are primarily practitioners of the spiritually based set of exercises Falun Gong, also Uyghurs in large numbers, Tibetans and House Christians, mostly Eastern Lightning, in smaller numbers. The clients are transplant tourists, and wealthy or well-connected Chinese.

    LI: Who benefits from the Chinese State’s organ harvesting business?

    DM: The health system benefits financially. The Communist Party benefits through elimination of those it sees as insufficiently Communist.

    LI: You recently visited Australia, late last year, and have gone to Canberra to present the issue of Beijing’s Illegal Organ Trafficking to our elected representatives in the Federal Parliament. What was the response?

    DM: There has been significant concern in the Parliament of Australia about organ transplant abuse in China. There have been many petitions in the Parliament of Australia, both in the House of Representatives and the Senate, addressing Falun Gong and organ harvesting, starting in 2006 when the report that I wrote with David Kilgour first came out and continuing to this year. The Parliament, it is safe to say, is well-informed of the abuse and has showed considerable concern about the abuse.

    However, the response from the individual elected representatives varied, depending on the representative with whom I met. I would suggest contacting these representatives directly for their response.

    LI: What more should the Australian Government do to tackle this crime?

    DM: These are 5 suggestions to the Australian government in summary.

    1) Improve the Australian Senate procedures. There are several Parliaments around the world which have, through motions or resolutions, condemned the mass killing in China of prisoners of conscience for their organs and called for Government action to avoid complicity in those killings. Australia should follow suit.

    2) Adopt mandatory reporting whereby medical professionals have an obligation to report, to an appropriate registry or authority, any knowledge or reasonable suspicion that a person under their care has received a commercial transplant or one sourced from a non-consenting donor, be that in Australia or overseas;

    3) Implement extraterritorial legislation. The current Australia’s Criminal Code does not explicitly prohibit organ trafficking. The government has accepted the recommendation to amend it but no amendments have been proposed in reality. As an alternative, private Members and Senators could introduce amendments to prohibit organ trafficking;

    4) Become a state party to the Council of Europe Convention on Human Rights and join other nations in a collective effort to combat foreign organ transplant abuse;

    5) One last suggestion I would make is the constitution of a friends of Falun Gong Parliamentary group. Australian Parliamentarians, through the many petitions they have presented to Parliament, as well as through the Sub Committee report, and statements they have made outside Parliament, have shown an understanding of the issue of the mass killing.

    You can see the full text of my suggestions here.

    <Interview ends>

    Liberty Itch urges the Albanese Government to take leadership to protect the most vulnerable members of our community. It was promised to us that Australia will ‘cooperate where we can, disagree where we must’ with China.

    This is an area that we ‘disagree where we must’ and immediate actions need to be taken.

    There’s more you can do:

    The International Coalition to End Transplant Abuse in China (ETAC) has an Australian chapter that works on a range of initiatives. Apart from legislation change, there is also a need for Australian universities, hospitals and transplant associated organisations to undertake due diligence in their interactions with China in the areas of transplant medicine, research and training.

    It’s important that our medical professionals and academics are not unknowingly aiding and abetting China in its illegal organ trafficking practices.

    China’s Covert Australian Ops

    By
    Fiona Hui
    -
    0

    The Chinese Communist Party’s public diplomacy programs in Australia look innocent enough.

    From the delightful Wang Wang and Funi Event at the Adelaide Zoo, to the partially CCP-subsidised OzAsia Festival, from the more recent Chinese Music Performance at the Adelaide Town Hall to the ‘Chinese Singing Competition’ held at a South Australian university campus. Chinese culture is on display.

    This is Adelaide alone. Such activities are rolled-out across the country and world.

    These are simply ‘Chinese culture’, correct? These public diplomacy projects participated in by Chinese Government officials are permissible in a democracy such as ours, right?

    Well, yes. But to a point.

    It’s understandable for a foreign government to attempt to build relationships with individuals in other countries in order to cultivate a good reputation and win international backing for its ambitions.

    However, multiple red lights flash when a foreign government is authoritarian, interferes with the domestic political discourse of a host country, and runs coordinated, covert operations for propagandist purposes.

    The alarm bells ring.

    This is especially true if the foreign government is currently engaging in aggressive expansionism, has a ‘Wolf Warrior diplomacy’ and has a notoriously shocking track-record when it comes to human rights.

    Liberty Itch is gathering evidence of questionable tactics currently being used by Beijing in Australia to manipulate our political system and institutions in various sectors. Once our research is complete, we’ll share it with subscribers.

    What Liberty Itch can say for certain is that much of this manipulation is managed and coordinated by an organisation called the United Front Work Department, a political body that aims to work on individuals and groups overseas to advance the CCP’s interests.

    Again, instances will be revealed in future exposés on Liberty Itch. For now, we reveal themes and tactics which have emerged in their modus operandi.

    In Australia, they are:

    1. Providing financial incentives to lure Australian politicians into backing their views;
    2. Appointing former politicians to well-paid consulting roles;
    3. Lavishing funds on Australian university institutes that show unwavering support for the CCP’s policies;
    4. Enticing Australian citizens and business owners with, first, useful connections and, subsequently, financial benefits;
    5. Drawing-in influential people from Chinese diaspora groups to assist with local infiltration;
    6. Targeting promising, younger Australian politicians whom they regard as having longer-term potential to ascend the heights of Australian political and corporate life over time;
    7. Sending CCP-endorsed candidates to run for local councils and state parliaments;
    8. Interfering in Australian elections by coordinating Chinese-owned Australian property investment companies and Chinese students to engage in ballot-harvesting;
    9. Disseminating propagandist communication with the implicit threat they can muster Chinese-Australian voters to punish incumbent politicians electorally if they don’t publicly support CCP policies;
    10. Infiltrating local Chinese community organisations or, where not possible, launching new competing groups, thereby giving the illusion of Chinese-Australian community backing; and
    11. Intimidating Australians and their elected officials for expressing negative views on China.

    Next time you attend a local Chinese community event or cultural performance (with the exception of the worthy Shen Yun), be sure to be observant, particularly if representatives from the Chinese Government are present. Your interactions, acquaintances, and relationships at the event will be studied. The United Front Work Department is interested in knowing who is connected to whom in the local community and work on relationships that can be developed and leveraged to advance the CCP infiltration agenda.

    For more on how the CCP ‘study’ their own citizens, read Man Who Chanted “CCP, Step Down”, Arrested and Disappeared!

    To discover how the CCP applies pressure on Hongkonger freedom-fighters living in Australia, go to the interview Life as a Political Asylum Seeker in Australia.

    Australia’s Taiwan Visit Sparks Ugly CCP Sabre-Rattling

    By
    Fiona Hui
    -
    0

    This month, six members of Australia’s federal parliament, composed of both Labor and Coalition members, visited Taiwan. This diplomatic excursion was organised by Liberal politician Scott Buchholz and involved former Deputy Prime Minister Barnaby Joyce, as well as Labor MPs Meryl Swanson and Libby Coker.

    Under intense pressure from the Chinese Communist Party and no doubt advised by the Department of Foreign Affairs, Prime Minister Anthony Albanese downplayed the significance of the trip, noting that it isn’t uncommon for politicians to go to Taiwan.

    “There have been backbench visits to Taiwan for a long time. This is another one”, he said.

    He further qualified that this “isn’t a government visit” and that the bipartisan position when it comes to China and Taiwan remains the same.

    The Australian delegation in Taiwan is being careful not to make too much fuss about it, due to the sensitive nature of the issue. Nevertheless, it believes the visit is important for Australia to maintain a close relationship with both mainland China and Taiwan, and support the principles of democracy.

    Beijing has long viewed these visits as an unacceptable endorsement of Taiwan’s separation from the mainland, claiming that such visits are a “serious breach of the One China principle.”

    In response, the Chinese Communist Party’s propaganda mouthpiece Global Times lashed out with predictable broken-English sabre-rattling:

    “Those who play with fire will perish by it. The politicians from certain countries who visit Taiwan to seek limelight are like political god of plague and pestilence.”

    The Prime Minister should keep doing his handshakes. Heavens knows diplomacy seems to be a constant requirement for a twitchy Chinese Communist Party.

    However, if democratic Taiwan wishes to invite a bipartisan Australian parliamentary delegation for a visit, it will be up to that delegation to accept or decline.

    That’s how free societies operate.

    INTERVIEW: The CCP imprisoned him. She got him out!

    By
    Kenelm Tonkin
    -
    0

    If you listen to rare public forays by senior members of the security establishment, the spies and their agencies, we in the West are under threat from several fronts. Looming front and centre, they say, is an expansionary Chinese Communist Party.

    To be clear, Liberty Itch has no quarrel with the Chinese people.

    However, Liberty Itch is sceptical of government of all stripes, whether in the West or the Chinese Communist Party. Government has a nasty habit of suppressing its people, sometimes stripping freedoms one imperceptible step at a time, its citizens in a saucepan of the slow boil kind. Sometimes government makes swift and savage moves against its people. History is replete with examples of both.

    So well may we ask: Is the Chinese Communist Party friend or foe, our ally or adversary? We in the West welcome and educate their students. We trade with their corporations. Australia, the United States and indeed the entire OECD are beneficiaries of China’s emergence. Our shared prosperity is enormous as China brings a billion citizens out of agrarian life into a century-delayed Industrial Revolution and today’s Information Age simultaneously. The project is breathtaking.

    Share Liberty Itch

    But as Liberty Itch discovered, geopolitical relationships are complex. Material wealth is soulless if not accompanied by human rights. We cannot be so naïve or selectively blind as to ignore civil liberties in our estimation. The Dragon we feed and enable today should be ready to take its place on the world stage as a force for good.

    With an open mind, Liberty Itch therefore embarked on an investigation, a series of tell-all interviews with people with particular direct experience with the Chinese Communist Party. The stories are real. The events described happened and cannot be ignored. What each does is illuminate, directly and personally, how the Chinese Communist Party acts from a civil liberties perspective.

    Our first guest in this series is Fiona Hui.

    You can see the former flight attendant in Fiona instantly. Urbane, impeccably-dressed and possessed of a welcoming smile, she possesses a charm hard not to like. She has navigated many of life’s milestones and responsibilities already while retaining her youthful energy.

    First impressions rarely tell the whole story. As you peel-away the onion layers of her life, normality gives way to heartache, the collapse of her homeland, the incarceration of a loved one and a fight for survival with lessons for all freedom-lovers who value their civil liberties.

    So her story is yours. There are some timely warnings for all of us.

    Here’s Liberty Itch’s short interview with Fiona Hui.

    LI:          When did you become an Australian citizen?

    FH:        Although I have been living in Australia for nearly 20 years, I only became an Australian citizen very recently, in 2021.  I applied for my citizenship in light of the loss of freedom and democracy in Hong Kong in 2019. At that point, I realised that Australia is my only home, so I submitted my citizenship application.

    LI:          Prior to this, you were a citizen of which country?

    FH:        Prior to 2021, I was a citizen of Hong Kong. I was born and raised under the British rule in Hong Kong. 

    LI:          You lived in Hong Kong during which years?

    FH:        I lived in Hong Kong since I was born in 1980, until 2004, when I left Hong Kong and came to Australia to pursue a liberal arts education.

    LI:          What was life like in Hong Kong in those early years?

    FH:        As a successful former British Colony from 1841–1997, Hong Kong is a unique place blending East and West. I always felt free, safe, and connected to the West when I was a child and a young teenager. I enjoyed living in a ‘very Chinese city’ essentially, but also appreciated the opportunities to be exposed to Western literature, music, philosophies and ideologies. It was dynamic, stimulating and exciting.

    LI:          Why did you leave Hong Kong?

    FH:        I left Hong Kong for a Western higher education. I did not imagine Hong Kong could become what it is today when I left. Like most people. I have taken democracy for granted and couldn’t imagine otherwise.

    LI:          From the handover by Britain in 1997 to your departure, what changes did you notice in Hong Kong?

    FH:        Since the handover in 1997, there has been a steady and gradual erosion of Hong Kong freedoms. Since the structure of democracy was already in place, Hong Kong people had been asking for ‘universal suffrage’, all adult citizens should be able to vote for their government representatives, as highlighted by the Occupy Central and Umbrella Movement in 2014.

    In 2019, 70-80% of the Hong Kong population participated in the largest and longest Hong Kong protests in history, in demonstration of the City’s strong will to safeguard Hong Kong’s declining civil liberties and freedoms. 

    Then in 2020, the National Security Law was introduced by the Chinese Communist Party in Hong Kong. Under this law, any pro-democracy movement was suddenly classified as ‘secession, subversion, terrorism, and collusion’. 

    2020 was the year when Hong Kong lost its press freedom, the rights to peaceful protests, and the complete collapse of the rule of law.

    LI:          I believe this is the time we saw footage of Chinese Communist Party agents breaking into the The Epoch Times and smashing the printing presses with sledge-hammers …

    Share

    FH:        Yes. They actually set fire to the bureau. The building was aflame.

    LI:          How did these changes impact your family initially?

    FH:        My family was fine for many years after the handover. The whole world thought China was opening-up and we could work together for a more prosperous world.

    LI:          Your brother was a Hong Kong democratically-elected parliamentarian. How did his status slowly change?

    FH:        It was not until 2019 with the breakout of large-scale protests in Hong Kong that it started to seriously impact my family. My brother, Ted Hui, being a vocal pro-democracy legislator, was frequently arrested due to his involvement in mediating the protests, wanting to protect young people and ordinary citizens from being abused and arrested. Like the majority of the population, Ted was pepper sprayed, tear-gassed, abused and arrested many times. In the end, his parliamentarian status was completely disregarded by the Hong Kong Police and the Chinese Communist Party. They just treated him like a ‘criminal’. Democracy had suddenly become a serious crime.

    LI:          How did your brother and other democratically-elected parliamentarians reconcile the freedoms bequeathed by British rule and a growing autocratic influence from the Chinese Communist Party?

    FH:        They have never reconciled the loss of freedoms. Some of his MP friends are still in prison. Many like Ted, went in ‘exile’ and continued with the movement overseas, lobbying governments of the Five Eyes, warning them of the dangers of the Chinese Communist Party regime. I guess they are now all ‘colluding with foreign forces’, as the Chinese Communist Party would describe it.

    LI:          How did things come to a flashpoint?

    FH:        The prolonged protests in 2019, combined with the noble and pure intention of democracy-loving Hongkongers, and the Chinese Communist Party led by a psychopathic Chinese President Xi Jinping have all contributed to this flashpoint.

    LI:          What role did you play in responding to the loss of civil liberties?

    FH:        I was not interested in politics at all prior to 2019, I had a great life in Adelaide. Who cared? However, the 2019 Hong Kong Crisis made me awake. The images and live-streaming of abuse in Hong Kong stunned me. I was in disbelief that freedom could be lost like this overnight. I couldn’t believe that people could be thrown in prison for protesting and speaking. It was all just unimaginable.

    So I became a ‘democracy activist’.

    Then I discovered CCP activism in my adopted country of Australia. So I exposed the CCP’s interference in Australia and politicians who were working with the CCP for their own self-serving interests.

    I joined the Liberal Democrats for a period because I saw that they had good policy in support of libertarianism and humanitarianism principles. I also connected with organisations and communities who cared about our civil liberties.

    LI:          How did your brother escape?

    Share Liberty Itch

    FH:        My brother got ‘invited’ by some young, democracy-loving Danish politicians and libertarians to attend a ‘Climate Conference’. It was staged so that Ted had an excuse to get out of Hong Kong. At that time, his passport was detained by the Hong Kong Court, but the judge decided to release his passport so that Ted could attend this ‘conference’. The judge made a fine decision but, to this day, I don’t know whether he was subsequently imprisoned by the Chinese Communist Party!

    Ted escaped also because many people around that world have played a part in helping him and praying for him. This includes the Australian Government and many nameless men and women within and outside our government. We have some good people in this country, who have empathy, intelligence, capability and goodwill. God bless Australia.

    LI:          What did you leave behind?

    FH:        My family and I won’t be able to go back to Hong Kong for a long time. Under the current circumstances, I’ve convinced myself there is not much worth going back for anyway. I miss the mountains. I miss the views. Any love I had of shopping there is tainted by the lack of a free press, no free speech, no rule of law. Home is where the family is. Australia is my only home. Look forward rather than backwards!

    LI:          Why choose Australia to live?

    FH:        I chose Australia due to its beauty, its reputation in higher education and its proximity to Asia.

    LI:          What worrying early-signs in sliding from democracy to tyranny do you see in Australia?

    FH:        The early-signs were shown during the last two years: how our governments managed COVID, especially in Melbourne, the prolonged lockdowns, and the mandatory vaccinations in various industries.

    Modern technological advancement means that people are more easily monitored. I’m worry about the introduction of My Gov Accounts, facial recognition cameras in our City here in Adelaide, digital IDs and yet more business-crushing IDs for company directors.

    We have to be careful how people in positions of power use these mechanisms. They could be used to make us a more effective country, or they could be used as a means of monitoring and control. It all depends on how you view the government and the people holding those powerful positions.

    We need to be awake and alert.

    LI:          How quickly can that slide happen, in your experience?

    FH:        The loss of freedom could happen so quickly that people will be in disbelief. Just look at Hong Kong. A clean, proper judicial system could end so fast. Unimaginable.  

    LI:        What can your fellow Australians do to counteract this?

    FH:        Stay aware and united with fellow Australians. Unity and helping others in need. Play a part to end the divide and polarisation in society. Be the change you want to see in the world.

    LI:          What do you think the outlook is for Australia?

    FH:        Australia is a lucky country. I believe that we will continue to be blessed. Be careful of the ‘doom and gloom’ presented in the media. I feel hopeful and positive about our country.

    ***

    12Page 2 of 2

    Popular Posts

    My Favorites

    The Missing Ingredient – Assimilation

    David Leyonhjelm - 0
    When Al Grassby was Immigration Minister in the Whitlam government in the early 1970s, he announced that multiculturalism was to be Australia’s future policy....

    Little House On The Prairie: A Libertarian Story

    SNAP POLL: Voice To Parliament. Yes or No?

    There Is Hope. Check This Out …

    Popular Categories

    © Newsmag WordPress Theme by TagDiv