The proportion of multicultural immigrants in Australia has increased from about 20% to 51.5% over the past 30 years. Little systematic research has been done on their roots in Australia, because the change has been so rapid and so large that the government has not understood the situation before it has had a significant impact on the community.

Until the early 1980s, immigrants to Australia were predominantly English-speaking British and non-English-speaking European immigrants with a close Christian culture. Non-English speaking immigrants who came to Australia and learned to speak English could easily integrate into the community as there was not much difference in their living habits. However, from the mid-1980s onwards, Asian non-native English-speaking immigrants became the majority, and the Australian society became more diverse. Multicultural media played an important role in the integration of these immigrants into Australia.

Only large groups of immigrants have newspapers and magazines in their own language, and most minority groups use community radio to broadcast in their own language. In every major city, the Australian government has a government-run SBS and a ethnic language radio station staffed by community volunteers. In Melbourne, 3ZZZ Ethnic Radio broadcasts in over 60 languages every week. With the increase of immigrants, there are other community radio stations, which provide minority radio stations with lesser utilized time. Today, there are more than 700 programs of ethnic language broadcasting in cities and towns across Australia every week.

SBS broadcasting began in Australia in the 1970s, and ethnic radio and television became an important part of Australian society, leading to the integration of immigrants into the community to this day. Research has shown that, to this day, these traditional media outlets are the primary means by which ethnic Australians learn about life in Australia, rather than the internet platforms that people think of.

Many people think that the internet, social media platforms and mobile smartphone technology have changed the way we access information today, and that this is the way of the new media, but this is not the case. If we think about how we change the way we think about things, we will realize that traditional media still plays an important role. For multicultural immigrants, especially Chinese immigrants, we are even more influenced by the Chinese media in Australia.

Chinese rarely use English media

Migrants other than Chinese, most of whom are Indians, are forced to use English for work or life, so English becomes a common language in their lives. As a result, many immigrants, especially young ones, use at least a little English as a language of communication after living in Australia for a period of time, and obtain information about Australia through English, unlike Chinese immigrants. Due to the large number of Chinese immigrants and their wealth, it is easy for them to establish a Chinese-dominated economic circle, and at the same time build up a lot of supportive communities. Therefore, most of the Chinese people are able to use Chinese as a language of life as they wish, and there is not much motivation for them to learn English.

Young immigrants, many of whom are professionals or have more contact with the mainstream society at work, also use basic English for communication, but not many of them are able to make speeches in English. These people can use English to access information and news in their daily lives, but at home, when they communicate with their family members or take a break from work, they mostly use Chinese, and of course, some of them use English in between. It can be said that using Chinese media is a more comfortable choice for them.

It is true that there is a lot of information in Chinese on the Internet today, which can be used by anyone in a free information society. Chinese people from different regions can actually continue to use the Chinese media that they are accustomed to using in their place of origin to communicate with their friends. Therefore, the use of Chinese language information on the Internet is primarily for social purposes, rather than for information about life in Australia. It can be said that prolonged use of online media makes it difficult for people to participate in Australian life. However, Chinese people who have been living in Australia for a long time will use high quality Chinese information sources if they are available.

Chinese-translated social media platforms are heavily used

Many Chinese social media platforms have translated many mainstream social media messages into Chinese to meet the needs of this community. For new immigrants over 50 or 60 years old, it is difficult for them to learn English, so they are happy to use these Chinese platforms.

It is in this context that the SBS Chinese TV and radio stations in Australia, whether in Cantonese or Chinese, have developed into reliable news sources, which is precisely why the Australian government is willing to invest a lot of resources in SBS. However, since SBS is funded by the Australian government, it naturally adopts the values of the mainstream Australian society and is oriented towards providing news, but cannot provide much entertainment information. However, due to the prevalence of the Internet, Chinese people can access Chinese entertainment programs anywhere on public platforms, so the quality of life of immigrants is not too restricted.

Secondly, there are many social media platforms that provide news and information in Chinese, and many people feel that they provide a lot of information in Chinese. Yes, but WeChat, which is the most widely used social media platform in China, is known to be a strictly regulated and managed system. It can be said that any information that can be disseminated must be tolerated by the Chinese government, and because of this, most WeChat users have a much lower opinion of the truthfulness and accuracy of the information that is circulated.

Moreover, the WeChat platform has also been influenced by the “navy”, which crowds out the real information with false information, and thus often misleads people, and their perception of things can be easily manipulated. Therefore, many people do not want to believe in the information spread on WeChat, and it is not easy to influence the thinking and values of Chinese immigrants. However, these platforms can be like a stratosphere of like-minded people, making it difficult for a person to accept new things and things he or she is not familiar with, and therefore not easy for a person to change his or her mind about things. It can be argued that the use of WeChat is an effective tool for the Chinese government to continue to control the thoughts and contacts of Chinese people coming to the country.

Lack of politically neutral Chinese media in the community

Due to the high cost of running a media outlet, most Chinese information services using social media platforms now hold on to their readers with low-quality translated news (many of which are translated and edited by machines in China). However, since online platforms are regulated by the Chinese government, the information obtained from these platforms only reflects certain viewpoints, so it can be said that the audience is not able to get comprehensive information.

However, after using these platforms for a long period of time, many people have come to believe that what they read is correct, and that they can’t distinguish between true and false information because they don’t have access to Australian society.

I remember in the 2018 Victorian election, the Leader of the Opposition, Matthew Guy, proposed that maintaining law and order in the home should be a key part of his platform, as it was something the Liberal Party had heard from Chinese immigrants that they valued. However, these platforms were not recognized by the general public. In the mainstream society, people simply do not think that law and order is a very important issue. In this election, the Liberal Party received even less support than in the previous one, and Matthew Guy stepped down in disgrace. Do you still remember that in WeChat, there are at least hundreds of WeChat groups organized by region to support the cooperation among Chinese people to maintain the safety of their home life? Doesn’t this show that Chinese people really believe that home safety is a big issue?

In fact, many people have pointed out that this kind of thinking is just a reaction to the insecurity of Chinese immigrants who have recently moved from living in high-rise urbanized buildings to bungalows in Australia, and due to the large distance between families, it does not really reflect that the law and order situation in Melbourne is poor or unsafe. Because everyone is talking about it, it is mistakenly assumed that this is the case, or that it is a common belief shared by the rest of the community. That’s because we’ve mistakenly taken people’s social conversations as accurate information about our society.

I remember in the same-sex marriage referendum, some people analyzed the Chinese WeChat platforms and found that a high percentage of people were against same-sex marriage, but the results of the referendum showed that the majority of Chinese people were in favor of same-sex marriage. This shows that the supporters are reluctant to express their views to their friends, while the opponents are more courageous to express their views, which creates misunderstanding in the community. Therefore, it is a mistake to take the messages sent by social media platforms as public opinion, news, or social consensus.

Traditional Chinese media in the Chinese community, especially the print media, is limited by the Chinese government’s huge foreign propaganda funding, and most of them are pro-China and full of political propaganda, which makes it difficult for independent media to survive as they try to maintain their neutrality and hope that their readers will understand and integrate into Australian society. The situation has only improved since 2016, when China abandoned its traditional media outreach, and instead monitored WeChat to influence overseas Chinese. However, it is believed that these independent media outlets still need more support from the community and mainstream society in order to survive and help the Chinese to plant their roots in Australia.。

Mr. Raymond Chow

The last Coalition government successfully pushed then-opposition Labor into the corner of publicly supporting its tax cuts. In the 2019 general election, Labor’s tax issue dominated the agenda and ultimately lost the election, and after voting in Parliament to support the Coalition government’s tax cuts, Labor doubled down on its 2022 campaign, with Albanese promising to keep the previously passed tax cuts if it won the election. The Labor Party has not publicly proposed to shelve or amend the tax cuts that have already been passed, but the winds of the tax cuts have been blowing through the media backstage for a few times, but they have soon passed. However, a few days ago, Prime Minister Albanese used the National Press Club to announce the third phase of the revised tax cuts: by lowering the tax cuts for high-income earners, it will be reversed to benefit low and middle-income earners in Australia. There was not much opposition to this proposal in today’s society under the pressure of high cost of living, but there was a lot of discussion on whether Labor had reneged on its election promise. A stone has stirred up a thousand waves.

Whether this is a betrayal of the electorate by the government is a matter of opinion.

Low- and middle-income earners will benefit

In 2019, the Coalition government hoped to stimulate the economy and solved the problem of ‘budget creep’ through tax cuts, so it has launched a three-stage tax cut program. Currently, Australia imposes a tax on personal income, which is a progressive tax system. This means that the amount of personal income will be subject to different tax rates, which will be gradually increased according to the amount of income.

To put it simply, there are 5 tiers.

The tax cuts will be implemented from July 2020 onwards, with a higher range of tax bands to allow lower income earners to enjoy a lower tax rate. For example, the 19% tax bracket was raised from $37,000 to $45,000, and the 32.5% tax bracket was changed from $90,000 to $120,000 to allow low-income and middle-income earners to enjoy lower tax rates. This change does not reduce the tax for high income earners who earn more than $200,000 and still have to pay 45% tax on every dollar of income after $180,000. To the high-income earners, such a tax system does not encourage them to earn more money. The third phase of the tax reduction scheme was originally intended to give more tax concessions to high-income earners.

Specifically, because tax brackets do not automatically adjust for inflation, this means that over time, as an individual’s salary rises, so does their average tax rate, meaning that a raise in salary results in a person paying a larger percentage of their income in taxes. Previously, Phase I and Phase II tax cuts were already in effect for low- and middle-income families. The third phase of the tax cuts is intended to stimulate the economy through these changes by encouraging people to work more and earn more, as the extra income will be disproportionately seen as less of a disincentive to pay taxes. However, there are opposing voices that say the cuts will have an inflationary effect on the economy because people will have more money to spend, which will further drive up the cost of living.

Under the Coalition’s previous plan, the third phase would have abolished the 37% tax rate and introduced a flat rate of 30% for taxpayers earning between $45,000 and $200,000, while under Labor’s adjusted policy, the rate would have been reduced to 30% for taxpayers earning between $450,000 and $200,000. According to Labor’s adjusted policy proposal, from July 1, for most workers, the new tax cuts will be better than the current rules, especially expanding the scope of the third stage of the tax cuts, the previously announced third stage of the tax cuts will not reduce taxes for people earning less than A$45,000, while the latest plan to ensure that “everyone” will receive tax cuts, so that low-income earners will benefit; and the tax cuts for high-income earners with income of $200,000 and above, will not be applied to those earning more than $200,000, so that low-income earners will benefit from the new tax cuts. The tax cuts for high earners earning A$200,000 and above will be cut by almost half.

Specifically, those earning an average of A$73,000 a year will receive a tax cut of more than A$1,500 a year. Those earning A$50,000 a year would receive an additional A$929 a year, while those earning A$100,000 would receive A$2,100 a year. In the higher income groups, those earning A$200,000 a year will see their tax cut reduced from A$9,075 to A$4,500 a year. Overall, the one million Australians earning more than A$150,000 are worse off under the proposed reforms, while those earning less than that amount have more tax cuts. Labor MPs have confirmed to the ABC that the revised package has been passed within the party. Federal Treasurer Jim Chalmers said the changes would give people more help in dealing with the cost of living crisis. The Labor government estimates that the tax cuts will benefit around 13.6 million Australians.

Betrayal of election promises or going with the flow?

As soon as Labor’s proposed changes to the third phase of the tax cuts were announced, Shadow Treasury Minister Angus Taylor immediately took the position that the Labor government’s breaking of its ironclad election promises meant that Labor had broken its election promises. He reminded Albanese that Australians had voted for the policy at two elections (2019 and 2022), so today was a reversal by the incumbent government of a policy it had supported during the campaign. The Deputy Leader of the Opposition, Susan Rye, even called Albanese a ‘liar’, suggesting that Albanese, who insisted in the election that he would do what he said he would do, and that he ‘would not change the third phase of the tax cuts’, had lied his way to a general election victory. Of course, Albanese has his own reasons for this decision – it’s because the global economy has changed since Morrison’s legislation in 2019.

That’s true. Over the past three years, there have been pandemics, recessions, and global inflation, affecting not one war, but two. Albanese pointed out that the changes to the tax cuts were in response to the huge cost of living pressures being felt by the Australian people at the moment, and that the right decision had to be made to make changes accordingly. Jim Chalmers has also defended the government’s new proposal as an approach that will work and provide middle class Australians with the cost of living relief they so desperately need for the same amount of money. The package of Stage 3 tax cuts is scheduled to be legislated by Morrison in 2019, so rewriting this plan bypasses parliamentary approval until July. This means that the government will need the support of the Greens and neutral MPs in order to change the tax cuts that were previously required. According to the opposition’s current stance, it will oppose any changes to the third phase of the tax cuts.

Opponents argue that today is a good day, the world is facing inflation, the cost of living is under pressure, but why doesn’t the government propose a subsidy or other increase in profits tax on large corporations, so that the money goes directly into the hands of the people who are facing difficulties, or let investors pay more taxes, so that they can make less profit? Taxing the high-income earners directly is a clear attempt to gain the approval and support of the majority by bullying and deceiving a small group of people in the community.

However, it is clear that the new program is designed to provide more support to middle income earners who are facing cost of living pressures, and to provide assistance without exacerbating inflation. On the other hand, it would be responsible to change policy when the economic situation changes. After all, equality is one of Australia’s core social values, and it’s always been the government’s responsibility to leave no one behind. It’s just a matter of clarifying where the limits lie and who determines them, or else this kind of reneging on election promises will be repeated, and will have a long-term negative impact on maintaining public trust in the government.

Trust compromised

While the Labor government is lobbying for changes to the third phase of the tax cuts, Treasurer Jim Chalmers has promised that there will be no changes to the negative deduction policy, which is not something that Labor has considered or is considering. But the Opposition says that given that Labor has violated the public trust by changing the third phase of the tax cuts, it needs to be more specific about its commitment to negative withholding this time around. After all, a politician’s credibility with the electorate depends on keeping his word, but it seems that the Labor Party has gone back on its word and broken its promise. It’s no wonder that Liberal frontbencher Dan Tehan wants Labor to explicitly rule out any changes to the negative tax deduction policy, after all, Labor has betrayed the public’s trust by reneging on its promise to change the third stage of the tax reduction plan.

The newly released report, Everyone’s Loss of Housing, warns that the negative deduction policy encourages people to invest in property through tax cuts that could have been used to build more homes; and that if the focus of government subsidies isn’t changed from property investors to those who have been squeezed out of the market by high house prices, the housing crisis will only get worse. Jim Chalmers, on the other hand, said that the government had found other ways to reduce the pressure on the housing market, including encouraging the construction of more ‘build-to-rent’ homes.

The tax cuts have been redistributed under the revised third phase of the tax cuts, with lower and middle income earners benefiting more and higher income earners receiving smaller cuts – and everyone knows it. After all, next year is another election year in Australia, and Labor’s move is nothing more than a gesture of goodwill to the low and middle income voters, and there is no way to avoid the suspicion of buying people’s hearts and minds. It is impossible to avoid the suspicion of buying people’s hearts and minds. And such a move will only arouse great resentment and opposition from the opposition party. At present, the biggest uncertainty is whether the Labor Party’s amendment plan will be passed in the legislature to realize the legislation; however, the Labor Party has a better chance of winning. After all, this change is also in line with the Green Party’s political position, which is to demand more support for low-income earners, and to raise the threshold of tax exemption, so that more low-income earners will not have to pay any tax. In the long run, Labor’s reneging on its primary election promises will be a source of confusion and even resentment for voters. After all, Australian voters, who have been immersed in the democratic world for so long, are not so easy to fool, and backtracking on their promises is often a big step down for those who believe in simplicity and simplicity.

Author/Editorial Sameway

Photo/Internet

With Christmas and New Year approaching, everyone was immersed in the festive atmosphere. However, a case that has been waiting for nearly three years for a verdict, like a bomb, has aroused the close attention of the Chinese community – Mr. Sunny Duong, a Chinese leader in Melbourne, was convicted by a jury of the Victoria Court of the charges related to foreign interference, making him the first person to be convicted of a crime under the Anti-Foreign Interference Act since the introduction of the law in Australia in 2018. Mr. Duong was convicted by a jury in a Victorian court of foreign interference-related charges. A stone has stirred up a thousand waves. Is this judgment a “stone throw” by the Australian government? Or is it a warning signal to the Chinese government? Our editorial team will guide you to find out.

Court found guilty

On December 19, 2023, 68-year-old Melbourne businessman and Chinese community leader Sunny, Di Sanh Duong) was convicted by a Victorian court of violating the Anti-Foreign Interference Act, making him the first person to be convicted under the law since the introduction of the Anti-Foreign Interference Act in 2018 in Australia. This makes him the first person to be convicted under the Anti-Foreign Interference Act since it was introduced in Australia in 2018. Sunny was released on bail after his conviction and will return to court in February 2024 to be sentenced. Bail conditions include reporting to police every day and not leaving the state.

The law in question does not charge Sunny with spying in a foreign country. Every country has an espionage or treason law, which is a national security law, and in 2017 discussions began on the creation of an Anti-Foreign Interference Act, which would address the influence of foreign governments on Australian society and officials. Australians enjoy freedom of speech, but if community organizations or leaders, with the support of foreign governments, initiate actions through community organizations that support other countries and oppose Australian government policies, or even attempt to influence politicians, officials and others in the community to change Australia’s policies, this is precisely the reason for the Anti-Foreign Intervention Act. For many Chinese community organizations, especially those with countless ties to the Chinese government, not many people understand the purpose of the Australian government’s legislation, and few people are concerned about whether the activities of these organizations have already fallen into the activities that are not allowed by the law.

What is the offense?

Sunny Duong, a Vietnamese-born Chinese, has been a member of the Liberal Party of Australia, has held a number of key positions in Chinese organizations, is a well-known leader of the Asian community in Australia, and has been accused of being associated with the Global Overseas Chinese Association for the Peaceful Reunification of China (GOCAPRC), an organization run by the United Front Work Department of the Central Committee of the Communist Party of China (CPC). In October 2020, the Australian Security Intelligence Organization (ASIO) and the Federal Police indicted Sunny Duong, alleging that he had prepared or planned to engage in acts of interference on behalf of a foreign country, had frequent contact with Chinese intelligence officers, and had attempted to influence then Federal Minister Alan Tudge to gain political influence on behalf of China.

In June 2020, Sunny Duong donated A$37,450 to the Royal Melbourne Hospital on behalf of the Chinese community. The donation was made at a time when there was a shortage of critical medical equipment during the Covid-19 pandemic lockdown. The money was raised in his capacity as chairman of a Chinese clansmen association. Sunny told a colleague that he was building a relationship with Alan, who was “going to be the prime minister in the future” and could be “a supporter of ours”. Alan Tudge, who has not been charged with any wrongdoing, told the court that he was concerned about the “ugly racism” facing Australia’s Chinese community in the wake of the outbreak.

Some in the Chinese community saw no reason why Sunny Duong should be convicted for handing over the donations to Tudge. The fact that the donation was not made by Sunny Duong, nor was it a private bribe for illegal purposes, and that it was not a large amount, is considered a form of political persecution. The fact that the donations were not made was seen as a confirmation of Sunny Duong’s attempt to demonstrate his influence in the Chinese community and to establish a personal relationship with Tudge as a government minister. This is one of the fundamental things that the Anti-Foreign Interference Act recognizes. Of course, the violation of this law depends on whether the person concerned has an agent relationship with the foreign government or whether the act was authorized by the foreign government. The prosecution also presented more evidence to convince the jury.

Neil Cleland, Sunny Duong’s defense lawyer, argued that the donation was simply a way to combat the surge in anti-Chinese racism due to the pandemic and to show concern for the Chinese community in Australia, but barrister Sophie York disagreed, pointing out that the defendant’s attempt to defraud under the guise of charity was revealed in court, but that the defendant and his legal representatives incorrectly claimed that it involved “racial discrimination”; York also pointed out that the case was a “racially motivated” one. York also noted that the verdict in this case will inspire police officers, prosecutors and future juries to put justice and the laws that protect national security ahead of false and tactical accusations of racism.

The warning signs are clear

In recent years, as Australia-China relations have hit rock bottom and Australia’s fears of Chinese influence in its domestic affairs have grown, comprehensive legislation introduced a few years ago to prevent foreign interference has only now been put into practice in a real court of law. The decision in the Sunny Duong’s case is undoubtedly a landmark warning to Chinese agents of clandestine infiltration, and signals a long-overdue change of attitude on the part of the Australian government. For too long, important issues of national security and sovereignty have been ignored by the Australian government, with the mistaken belief that even treasonous criminals should “be tolerated”.

In September 2023, the Australian Security Intelligence Office (ASIO) released its annual report for 2022-2023, stating that foreign spies were “actively stealing secrets about defence capabilities, political parties, foreign policy, critical infrastructure, space technology, academic research, medical advances, key export industries and personal information”. （Mike Burgess, ASIO’s director, said ASIO has adopted “a more aggressive counter-espionage and anti-foreign-interference posture” over the past year, adding that prosecuting people charged with foreign interference “will have a chilling effect on hostile foreign intelligence agencies. The conviction of Sunny Duong is the beginning of the “knocking down of the mountain to shake the tiger”.

During the investigation of the case, there was a secret recording of Sunny Duong telling a colleague, “What I am doing will not be reported by the media, but Beijing knows what I am doing. This recording is believed to be the most unfavorable testimony against Sunny Duong’s conviction. Sunny Duong’s high-profile bragging about his relationship with Beijing, coupled with the fact that he was the leader of a group that mobilized the Chinese community to organize a march in the city center in 2018 to show the Australian government that “the South China Sea belongs to China,” is believed to have increased the likelihood that jurors would find him guilty of acting as an agent of a foreign government.

Zhang Yaozhong, a professor at Deakin University’s School of Information Technology, also pointed out that from objective data, we can determine that the severity of China’s interference in Australia, especially in the economy, media, and domestic politics, is much higher than that of most countries, including the purchase or funding of MPs and state legislators to increase China’s influence, or interfering in elections to help pro-China legislators to be elected, and so on, which is a worrisome situation.

Patrick Doyle, the Attorney who prosecuted the case, told the court that Sunny Duong, a former candidate for the Liberal Party in Victoria and a leader in the Chinese community, was an “ideal target” for the Chinese Communist Party’s (CCP) United Front Work Department (UFWD), and that one of the main goals of the UFWD was to win friends for the CCP, and that this included garnering sympathy for the party and its policies. The judge also agreed with the prosecution that the police did not need evidence that Sunny Duong planned to commit future acts of interference in order to prosecute. This case is the beginning of a re-examination of how the previous Australian government’s overly soothing and moderate attitude may well have provided potential criminals with too much leeway to take advantage of Australians. From now on, Australians will have to be more vigilant when it comes to national security.

What will happen to the Chinese in Australia?

The Anti-Foreign Interference Act (AFIA) requires political lobbyists to declare to the authorities whether they are working for another country’s government. Refusal to disclose will result in criminal prosecution, and the penalty for interfering with the activities of government officials has been increased significantly to a maximum of 10 years’ imprisonment if convicted. Before this law was enacted, many Chinese community leaders, or leaders of social organizations, were members of some Chinese government-affiliated organizations. Most Chinese people were unaware that some of these organizations might be considered by the Australian government as part of the Chinese government. In the case of Sunny Duong, some of the departments organized by the United Front Work Department of the Chinese government were considered part of the government. However, it is not necessarily true that all of these united front units are regarded as secret service organizations. For example, many cities in Australia have sister-city relationships with Chinese cities, and it is not clear whether the organizations involved constitute agents of foreign governments.

The conviction of Sunny Duong is just the beginning of what is obviously a huge deterrent to Chinese infiltration of Chinese expatriates in Australia over the past few decades, and the Australian government hopes to see a significant reduction in such activities. But for the millions of Chinese living in Australia, this is a case where it is important to think about how they can better integrate into the local community without being affected by their close relationship with China.

When the bill was tabled in the Australian Parliament, the then Prime Minister, Mr. Malcom Turnbull, made allegations of Chinese government interference in Australian politics and universities, which led to an angry reaction from the Beijing authorities. While the Australian government can ignore Beijing’s reaction as a matter of national security and sovereignty, more resources are needed to inform the public, especially the migrant community, about the kinds of behaviors that could result in assisting foreign powers to interfere in Australia’s internal affairs and society. It is also important to think about how to avoid xenophobic or discriminatory behavior that may result from the publicity given to the bill, as this could further polarize and divide the community.

From the perspective of the Australian government, any requirement for organizations affiliated with the Chinese government or government-linked organizations to conduct activities overseas is a cause for concern. Even if apparently well-intentioned, the underlying intention may be to help deepen the CCP’s influence overseas, such as an attempt to expand its influence under the guise of protecting the overseas community. As for the Chinese living in Australia, those who actively choose to embrace the mainstream political values of the Australian society – opposing authoritarianism and advocating the universal values of democracy and human rights – are more likely to integrate into the mainstream society.

Some people have a myth that the respect of Chinese people abroad has something to do with China’s strength. In fact, no matter how weak a country a person comes from, what matters is whether he or she is able to “put down roots”. It doesn’t matter where you come from, as long as you abide by the local laws and respect the local customs, you will be respected and accepted by the local people. Following the local customs is always the simplest and most appropriate way for every Chinese to settle down.

Article/Editorial Sameway

Photo/Internet