Features
Where do Chinese Australians go from here?
Published
3 months agoon
Article/Blessing CALD Editorial;Photo/Internet
14 mins audio
Is Chinese culture a form of social control and brainwashing?
Chinese people have been coming to Australia since the Gold Rush era. However, in the last 30-40 years, very few Chinese people have planted their roots in Australia. Many Chinese people believe that this is the result of the White Australia Policy implemented in Australia since 1901, but I think this is a shallow and misleading view. Most of the commentators do not have an in-depth understanding of Chinese culture and Australian history, and they do not understand that since the Gold Rush Era, there has been a cultural gap between the Chinese miners and the Australian society, and that they could not integrate with each other, which led to the formation of the White Australia Policy.
In order to understand Chinese culture, we have to start from the
history of Chinese people. Chinese history has been written since the Shang Dynasty. When I was in secondary school in Hong Kong, Chinese history was a compulsory subject in junior high school, and Chinese literature was included in senior high school, although I took up a subject later on, my interest in this history and literature has not waned. The interesting thing is that I never thought about why students have to study these subjects. Later, I realized that in Hong Kong, which was a British colony, the teaching of Chinese History and Literature in schools was in fact meant to pass on the Chinese culture in the community.
At that time, the subject of Chinese History was only taught up to the founding of the Republic of China (ROC) by Dr. Sun Yat-sen, the father of the nation, because after the founding of the ROC, the two regimes, the ROC and the People’s Republic of China (PRC), had very different interpretations of history. The British chose to seek common ground and put aside their differences, so schools chose not to teach it. What puzzles me most about studying Chinese history is that in the Spring and Autumn period, 2800 years ago, when China was still a feudal society with no centralized authority, there was a market for different theories on how to govern the country, and this was the golden age of Chinese philosophical thought and the freest society. The hundred schools of thought were able to put forward their views on things and learn from and compare each other.
However, Emperor Qin Shihuang used the Legalists to unify and establish the first Chinese empire with a strong army, and by burning books and burying scholars, all books were burned and scholars who had transmitted different ideas were eliminated. With the unification of the written language, the state was governed by harsh laws and controlled the thoughts, words and deeds of the people. In less than 13 years, the Qin Dynasty fell and the Han Dynasty was gradually established. In this short period of time, different ideas had re-emerged in the society. However, within a few decades, Emperor Wu of Han Dynasty abolished the Hundred Schools of Thought, adopted the advice of Dong Zhongshu, and honored Confucianism, establishing through education and authoritarian rule the only patriarchal system of governance accepted by the society for nearly 2,200 years. Until the Republic of China, every opposing thought of the Chinese people in this part of the country was destroyed under totalitarianism. It can be said that both the Chinese who came to Australia during the Gold Rush era and those who immigrated from China to Australia today are accustomed to being the ideological slaves of the rulers, and all they can beg for is a chance to live as the rulers allow them to live.
Western culture is human-centered
Comparing to the history of the West, since the Greek city-states put forward the ideas of democracy, rule of law and freedom 2500 years ago, even if the Christian Church combined with the kingship in the Middle Ages, the totalitarian rule could not take root in Europe. Since the establishment of the Magna Carta in 1215, the British kingship was restricted by the aristocracy. Afterwards, the Enlightenment and knowledge became an important force for social development, and democracy became an alternative to totalitarian rule, with the constitutional monarchy in Britain or the republican system in France as the two major developments. No matter which system is adopted, it is essentially a system in which power is granted by the people to the rulers, and the rulers have to gain the recognition and support of the people in order to maintain legitimate governance, which has gradually become the basis of governance in the western democracies today.
In contrast, most of us Chinese from different parts of the world have seldom experienced the baptism of democracy. When we come to Australia, it is difficult for us to understand and recognize the concepts of democracy, human rights, rule of law and freedom.
Worse still, we have little regard for the social patterns of life that Western societies regard as universal values, and this impacts on our commitment to the society in which we are rooted.
Hong Kong’s 23 pieces of legislation reflect a totalitarian culture
In the last issue of this magazine, we suggested that Hong Kong should pass the National Security Ordinance quickly, but in less than a week, the Ordinance has already passed the third reading in the Legislative Council, fully reflecting the fact that the totalitarian regime that has used harsh laws to govern and control people’s thoughts, words and deeds for more than 2,000 years, as mentioned in the previous section, is still the case today. This contrasts sharply with the Australian Senate’s decision today to suspend and study the government’s interim bill against illegal immigrants on the grounds that it may conflict with the Bill of Rights. What appears to be a draft legislation scrutinized by the Legislative Council is in fact no different from the emperor making it a law once he has given his royal seal of approval. What is even more interesting is that such a bill enacted in Hong Kong claims to have extraterritorial jurisdiction over any country in the world, binding Hong Kong people born in Hong Kong, regardless of the fact that they have become citizens of other countries today.
Why? Because if you are a Hong Kong-born person of Chinese descent, if you do not have a passport from another country, you are defined as a permanent resident of Hong Kong, and Hong Kong residents are regarded as Chinese citizens, and the National Security Ordinance states that it has extraterritorial jurisdiction over them. Only those who have emigrated and applied to the Hong Kong government to give up their permanent right of abode in Hong Kong lose their Chinese citizenship and are no longer subject to this Ordinance. Examining this Ordinance has also made me rethink the question of the status of Hong Kong immigrants who have taken root in Australia.
Immigrants who take root in Australia should not necessarily be cut off from their place of origin. On the contrary, Chinese immigrants can become the middleman between Australia and their place of origin in establishing closer academic and cultural exchanges, business and trade cooperation, or in establishing cooperation between the two places in terms of human resources and resources. In order to play this role well, Chinese immigrants need to integrate into Australia, build up various relationship networks here, and become part of the mainstream society, as well as spreading Chinese culture to them. The Chinese immigrants who are able to do so, I believe, are the ones who will receive the greatest blessings in the process of immigration. This is because they have combined the strengths of two different regions and played their unique roles. Their second generation, who grew up in Australia but in Chinese families, have an advantage over those born in mainstream Australian families, and are more likely to benefit from this special status.
Hong Kong immigrants with this status also play an important role in promoting China’s internationalization and maintaining Hong Kong as a cosmopolitan city. Because of their familiarity with Hong Kong society, and the fact that many of them are still connected to the elite of Hong Kong society, they are vital in promoting cooperation between the two places.
However, the legislation just passed in Hong Kong has made these Hong Kong-Australians wary. For one thing, they can only support but not criticize Hong Kong, or else they will have to run the risk of violating the Ordinance one day when they return to Hong Kong because of what they have said or done in Australia, and the consequences will be unimaginable. Under these risks, these Hong Kong people will either have to give up their permanent resident status in Hong Kong, or they will have to refrain from contacting their friends in Hong Kong and returning to Hong Kong. Either way, it is not a good thing for Hong Kong or China.
Chinese will only recognize Australian values more
Over the past two decades, the Chinese government has emphasized its united front with overseas Chinese, seeking their recognition and support for China, which has led to the creation of many overseas Chinese communities, as well as fostering exchanges and co-operation with China in different parts of the world. Since 2017, China has changed its united front policy to require Chinese people around the world to fight for China’s rights in the countries they live in, which has led to the enactment of the Anti-Foreign Intervention Act (AFIA) in Australia, which protects nationals from being infiltrated. Mr. Sunny Duong, a Vietnamese Chinese leader who has just been charged with violating the Anti-Foreign Intervention Law in Australia and convicted and sentenced to two years and nine months in prison, has become a victim of the tense relationship between China and Australia.
As a matter of fact, few Chinese people living in Australia initially thought about the advantages and disadvantages of the systems and cultures of China and Australia. Most of them only look at which place offers them the greatest monetary return, such as where the best investments are made, or where the most money is made in trade and business. That’s why when China’s economy grew at a phenomenal rate after its accession to the World Trade Organization (WTO) over the past 20 years, most Chinese immigrants to Australia were engaged in Sino-Australian trade or went back to China to develop their businesses, and were less inclined to devote themselves to life in Australia. Hong Kong people, who are more engaged in professional work in Australia, chose to integrate into the Australian mainstream, only to realize that they are a tiny minority.
However, with China’s economy under pressure and Hong Kong no longer having much room for development, it is believed that those Chinese who remain in Australia will be more proactive in seeking room for development, and as a result, they will be more proactive in integrating into the Australian mainstream society. As a result, the Australian society and culture will be more attractive to them.
Mr. Raymond Chow
You may like
Charles III’s visit to Australia reminds me of the return of Hong Kong to China 27 years ago, when Charles, as Crown Prince, handed Hong Kong back to the Chinese leaders on behalf of the Queen, opening a new page in Hong Kong’s history.
I believe that Charles’s visit to Australia will probably be his last as King, given his age, his health and the demand of the Australian community to become a republic. Last week, I was invited by the Prime Minister’s Office to Canberra on Monday to attend a reception in the Parliament Hall to welcome King Charles, and to see for myself how Australia has welcomed him. The protest ‘performance’ by Aboriginal Senator Lidia Thorpe at the end of the welcome ceremony was right in front of my eyes, and it got me thinking.
Charles’s love affair with Australia, 17 visits in total
Charles III became King of Australia last year, immediately following his accession to the British throne, and it is a misnomer for many Hong Kong newspapers to describe the visit of the King of England to Australia as a visit in his capacity as monarch of a foreign country. Charles arrived in Sydney on Friday evening, rested for a day and then visited the North Sydney Anglican Church for a service on Sunday, and then visited the NSW Parliament in the afternoon, where he presented an hourglass timer to celebrate the 200th anniversary of the founding of the NSW Parliament. The Commonwealth Universities Association (CUA) also announced that Charles had made a personal donation to establish a scholarship to help smaller developing countries face urgent economic, social and environmental challenges.
On Monday Charles attended the Canberra Parliamentary Welcome Reception and a number of charity events. In the afternoon Charles met with two climate scientists and Queen Camilla visited charities. On Tuesday, they met with Australian of the Year 2024 and fellow cancer specialists Professor Georgina Long and Professor Richard Scolyer to discuss cancer research. Later they met with Aboriginal leaders and attended an Australian barbecue. On Wednesday Charles III travelled to Samoa to open the Federal Heads of State Conference. It was not easy for King Charles, who began cancer treatment in February, to stop for nine days to visit Australia. Polls conducted in Australia during the period showed half of Australians were satisfied with the King’s visit, ahead of Prime Minister Albanese and Opposition Leader David Dutton.
This is the second visit by a sitting head of state to Australia since Queen Elizabeth’s visit in 2011. Charles first visited Australia when he was 19 years old and spent six months as a Year 9 student boarding at Geelong Grammar School’s Timbertop campus. This was his 17th visit to Australia (one more than Queen Elizabeth) and his first as King. In 1983 he visited Australia with the then Princess Diana and the newborn Prince William, with Princess Diana adding to Charles’ popularity.
Will he give up the headship soon?
In a sign of the importance Charles III attaches to his relationship with Australia, he took a break from his cancer treatment to visit Australia for five days before travelling to Samoa to preside over the Federal Heads of State Conference. He was met at the airport on Friday evening by Governor Sam Mostyn, Prime Minister Albanese and NSW Premier Chris Minn, but all the Premiers declined to attend the State Welcome Reception on Monday, citing official commitments. I had thought that Australia might be speeding up its transformation into a republic as more immigrants from different countries become Australians, and that Charles’ trip would become a “farewell to Australia” tour. However, the polls conducted during this period show that most Australians do not want to change the status quo, so if Charles’ health improves, perhaps he will have a chance to visit Australia in the future.
Charles has always reiterated that he has no objection to Australia becoming a republic, and that he would be happy to fulfil the wishes of the Australian people. However, some of the organisations pushing for Australia to become a republic have argued that Australia is not really a ‘land without people’ and that it would be disrespectful to the Aboriginal people to have an Englishman as head of state through an election. However, it seems that there is no consensus in the community on whether an Aboriginal leader should be allowed to take up the role of the head of state, and it may not be accepted by the current multi-ethnic society. 1999 Australia held a referendum, only 45% of Australians would support a republican system, and the situation is still similar to that time in the opinion polls released on Tuesday. So it seems unlikely that the monarchy will be abolished any time soon.
The Monarch Who Won the Hearts and Minds of the People
After the British landed in Australia in 1788, the colonies were formed into state governments under the British Empire, with a democratic system of government whereby the King of England became the head of state, and between 1890 and 1900, the Australian states voted in a referendum to form the Commonwealth of Australia, with today’s constitution, no longer colonies but self-governing by the people of those states. It was the choice of the people of each state to become a Commonwealth, and on 1 January 1901 the Commonwealth of Australia was formally established when the King of England, who was also the King of Australia, was voted into office by the British Parliament. For the Australians, it was not the British who conquered this part of Australia by military force and forced the Australians to accept the King of England as their head of state, but the colonisers fought for independence as a self-governing country, but after independence, Australia still maintained its ties with Britain and appointed the King of England as the King of Australia.
Queen Elizabeth was the first sitting monarch to visit Australia in 1954. After the Second World War, Britain pursued a policy of de-colonisation, with British Malaya and Singapore in the vicinity of Australia becoming independent states. Queen Elizabeth visited 57 Australian cities and towns during her 58-day tour. The trip involved 31 flights of over 16,000 kilometres by plane, and many trips by train, car and ship. It is estimated that 75% of the 9 million Australians who met the Queen in person at the time, made the Queen’s visit the only major event of its kind in Australia at that time. The visit made the Queen the Queen of Australians, and it is fair to say that the Queen gave the majority of Australians who had settled in the Commonwealth far from Britain an identity that connected them to British history and tradition. From that time until today, Australians have believed that they were not separate from the Asian nations from which they were so different, living in isolation in the Pacific in a Western society.
Charles’s visit to Australia today is not the same as it was in Elizabeth’s time. But the latest opinion polls show that Australians are not keen to speed up the establishment of a republic, indicating that although Australians have been in closer contact with Asian countries, it is clear that Australia is still reluctant to give up its historical ties with Britain. the establishment of AUKUS, which has become the centre of gravity of Australia’s foreign affairs and defence in recent years, shows that the Australian society is not willing to become a completely independent country from Britain in the near future. In all likelihood, Australia would like to strengthen its co-operative relationship with more ex-British countries. If this were to happen, there would be a market for the King of England to be the King of Australia, at least for a certain period of time.
A Different Concept of Monarch from the Chinese Empire
Due to historical factors, most European heads of state were not direct rulers of the country, but rather symbols of the country. This is a completely different concept from that of the emperors who have always governed China, and it is believed to have started in Britain.
More than 800 years ago, the King of England signed the Magna Carta, handing over the power of governing the country to the aristocracy, and eventually developed the present democratic system. It can be said that the power of the king has long since passed away, and the monarch is no longer, and does not need to be directly responsible for the policies of the country. However, the emperors of the Chinese Empire (i.e. China in history) have always had the supreme power to govern the country. When an emperor failed to govern and the country was in turmoil, there was often a coup d’état or a popular revolt, leading to a change of dynasty and the Chinese would support the new emperor. It can be said that such a system, which advocated the supremacy of power, made the rulers unwilling and unable to give up the power they possessed. Whenever the Chinese nation was invaded by foreigners, the majority of the Chinese people would accept the new emperor’s rule, but in the end, the ruling system composed of scholars assimilated the foreign monarchs and nations. For example, the Manchurian dynasty was still ruled by the Han Chinese ruling class, and the Manchurians were eventually Sinicised to the extent that not many of them know much about Manchu culture today. Another example is that the Mongols refused to be Sinicised, and as a result, when their control over the society was weakened, they were driven back to the north by the Han Chinese, and their life has never been un-Sinicised.
From these different views on kingship, we can understand the situation of Charles III today. Though the kingship is inherited from history, the actual governing power is in the hands of the people, so the kings do not have absolute power and interests. Today, the British Royal Family is an alternative group of people in Britain who can contribute to the improvement of the country’s inequalities, or give hope to the neglected people, and thus provide strength to the stability of the society. Most of the activities of the British royal family are ceremonial and charitable, and the royal family has accumulated a great deal of wealth over the course of its history. Whether or not they continue to be members of the Royal Family is not an important issue for them. Moreover, while royalty is often the centre of public attention, there are some members of the royal family who are unwilling to take on such a role. Prince Harry, for example, who had no right of succession, gave up his position and became an independent celebrity, enjoying his leisure time.
Charles III knows what he’s doing
For me, still in Hong Kong, a visit from the British Royal Family means holidays, celebrations and good news. When the Queen comes to Hong Kong, she’s bound to be on holiday, and part-time workers are always hoping that the Queen Mother (Hong Kong people’s nickname for Queen Elizabeth) will come to Hong Kong more often. The royal family’s visits to Hong Kong are often to preside over the launching of large-scale construction or projects, and are a sign of Hong Kong’s prosperity, stability and development. Charles visited Hong Kong five times in his capacity as Crown Prince. Initially, it was thought that the Queen was too old for the Crown Prince to take over the throne, but the Queen’s longevity made Hong Kong people realise that he would not have the opportunity to preside over the handover as King in 1997.
But Charles did manage to get the British out of Hong Kong in style. Charles III left Hong Kong’s Queen’s Pier (which no longer exists today) on the HMS Britannia with the British flag lowered, signalling that the British had come and gone by ship. I believe that most people in Hong Kong at that time, as well as the rest of the world, were amazed that the British had turned this barren harbour into the richest metropolis in the world. Looking at the prosperity of Hong Kong, the quality of life of the people of Hong Kong at that time, who would say that the colonial government was a tyranny that exploited the people?
Charles summed it up as the contribution of the British in Hong Kong, and today, 27 years later, many Hong Kong people around the world would agree and still miss it. Charles’s ‘farewell to Australia’ is a low-key visit to a country where many have rejected him as king, despite the difficulties of fighting cancer, and where he insists on his duty as ‘King of Australia’ (many Hong Kong media have misrepresented his visit to Australia as the ‘King of England’). Charles III’s early public statement that he would let the Australian people decide whether to become a republic or not shows that Charles III realised that the era of the king as the head of state was over. By making the change known to the Australians, the hardliners, who had been in favour of retaining the royal system, had no reason to hold out any longer. But the Australians were in no hurry to change, and Charles did not have to accelerate the pace. Australia’s transformation into a republic has become a consensus that the Australian community needs to seek on its own, and this attitude shows Charles’s ability to know what to do and what to do not, as well as his political wisdom.
A Nation Grows
The attitude of the Australians towards the royal family also shows that a country has to grow. In the beginning, Australia was just a new continent discovered by the British, similar to the Americas. These two lands were too far away from Britain and not on the Asian trade routes to be of much trade value to the British Empire. India, Hong Kong, Singapore and some parts of Africa were different, they played the role of entrepot and supply port in the East-West trade, and as these places were already governed by established sovereign governments, the British had to become sovereigns through war as conquerors. However, the British did not colonise these colonies in large numbers. While the administration of these colonies brought benefits to Britain in terms of global trade and the plundering of the resources of these lands, at the same time, the administration of these colonies also brought great problems and costs to the British Empire. After the First World War, Britain’s power declined so rapidly that after the Second World War, Britain adopted a policy of decolonisation, allowing these colonies to become independent. To this day, many of these countries still maintain a good co-operative relationship with Britain and are part of the Commonwealth.
The situation in America and Australia was different. The opening up of America was driven by religious idealists who were dissatisfied with the British social system and soon formed self-governments in opposition to Britain. As a result, the United States of America was founded on the other side of the Atlantic Ocean with western democratic institutions but without the historical baggage of Britain, and with a strong belief in individual freedom, human rights and the rule of law, and has become the most powerful country in the world in the last few decades. Australia, on the other hand, because of its more remote location, only had settlers from the lower social classes and gold miners who pursued a free life, and up to 70 or 80 years ago, it was still a small country with a population that supplied Britain with wool, beef and dairy products for trade. Nevertheless, the lives of these oppressed people, who sought freedom and equality, were greatly improved by the richness of the land. The colonists quickly established self-government, honoured British traditions, and because the neighbouring countries were all undemocratic in Asia, Australian society was keen to maintain its close relationship with Britain until the Second World War, and naturally, the British king became the king of Australia.
Queen Elizabeth’s charisma, coupled with the White Australia policy that prevailed in Australian society for more than 50 years, has kept Australians from changing the present system of having the King of England as the head of state. However, over the past 30 years, Australia has absorbed a large number of immigrants from all over the world, and this generation of Australians is now a global citizenry with a global outlook, but still retains the old values of freedom, equality and tolerance of different perspectives. Australians are able to build co-operative relationships with different countries and ethnic groups around the world, and because of this, Australian society is capable of making institutional changes.
It can also be said that Australia has grown to become a democratic, free and lawful nation in the Asia-Pacific region, one that demands mutual respect and tolerance, and that resists the threat of force and oppression. In the face of the reorganisation of the world order, Australia will play an important role in the region, and perhaps it is a good symbol for a change in the system of national leadership.
Who will be the head of state?
If Australia ever becomes a republic, how will she elect her head of state? Australia’s most powerful Governor-General has always been an elected head of government, nominated by the Prime Minister and appointed by the King of Australia. Most of them are respected members of the community, come from a wide range of backgrounds, and are seen as representatives of fairness and justice. Most of these nominees are knowledgeable people, but if we recognise that Australia did not start out as an uninhabited land, but was inhabited by Aboriginal people for more than 60,000 years, does it mean that the Australian community should consider an Aboriginal leader to be the head of state?
No Aboriginal person has ever been appointed as the Governor-General of Australia. Douglas Nicholls was appointed Governor-General of South Australia in 1976, the first Aboriginal person to hold such a position. Mr Le Van Hieu, an immigrant from Vietnam, also served as Governor-General, but they were appointed by the King and had no real power.
But if the head of Australia is elected by the people on a one-man-one-vote basis, how much power should he have? Is it possible to elect an Aboriginal head of state? Or should the Aborigines be the head of state of Australia? It seems to be very difficult for the Australian community to reach a consensus on these issues.
As I attended Charles III’s welcome reception in Parliament on Monday, I observed a number of things of interest.
You’re not my king, you’ve committed genocide
Before the King got off the bus and arrived at Parliament House, there was an Aboriginal welcome, a sign of respect for Aboriginal people, and a parade of Australian soldiers. I saw Charles III stop to talk to the soldiers, some of whom were obviously not white. On entering the parliamentary chamber, the sign language interpreter, sitting on the far left hand side of the room, conveyed a very clear message. I don’t think many people in the room would have needed a sign language interpreter, but rather a way to express to the Deaf people of the country that they too are part of this country and can be seen on the TV news. Before the start, Auntie Violet Sheridan gave the Aboriginal welcome to the King, and then the Prime Minister’s speech, which showed that the Australian government recognises that this land belongs to the Aboriginal people.
The Prime Minister’s and King’s speeches also mentioned how Queen Elizabeth won the hearts of all Australians on her first visit to Australia as King. The Prime Minister also praised King Charles for his many visits and interest in Australia’s development and charitable work during his years as Crown Prince. Prime Minister Albanese recognised the positive role Charles has played in Australia’s development and growth to date. Charles spoke about his first time living in Australia and how the Aboriginal culture has had a huge impact on his life over the past 58 years. He also expressed his concern about the recent fires and natural disasters that have occurred in Australia in recent years, and was pleased that Australia has grown to become such an influential country in the world.
It could have been a perfect farewell visit. The guests did not come as kings to a land of exiled convicts, the hosts did not bow and scrape as vassals, and we all parted in a courteous manner, with the Prime Minister saying that Australia would continue to play an active and important role in future federal meetings of states. It could be said that this visit was the perfect prelude to Australia’s entry into a republic. However, immediately after the speeches, Aboriginal Senator Lidia Thorpe rushed forward and shouted, ‘You are an exterminator’ and ‘You are not my king’. Her action absolutely disrupted the harmony of the whole welcoming ceremony, and all the participants shook their heads and sighed. Bringing politics into the ceremony was not recognised and supported by the participants and Australians. Lidia was later criticised by many Aboriginal leaders for insulting the king she claimed to be loyal to, losing her integrity and bringing shame to the Aboriginal people.
Aboriginal people are being ignored?
Are Lidia’s demands reasonable? Firstly, Lidia wants to get back the bones of the Aborigines. Many Aboriginal skeletons were brought to Britain during the colonial era, and some museums have returned them to Aboriginal communities in the past.Lidia’s request is reasonable, but should it have been made at the King’s welcoming party, or is there a better way?
Secondly, Lidia says the King is responsible for the genocide of the Aborigines, which is a difficult question to answer. When the British first landed in Australia, not many people would have thought that the Aborigines were living in a highly civilised society at that time. Since the Australian continent had been isolated from the world for tens of thousands of years, when the known civilised society developed into the Industrial Revolution, the British encountered the Aborigines and regarded them as undeveloped and did not regard the land as inhabited. However, inhabited land can also become colonies of other countries through wars. It is not uncommon for the original inhabitants to die in large numbers after the invasion of a new nation.
In fact, under such circumstances, the British did not carry out genocide against the indigenous people to a large extent. This was not because the British were not aggressive, it was believed that it was only because of the vastness of Australia and the distance between Australia and Britain that the British did not colonise on a large scale. After the conflict between the British colonisation and the Aborigines, the Aborigines settled in the more remote inland of Australia. It was not until the discovery of gold mines in Australia in the 60s and 70s that more Britons emigrated to Australia, and Lidia’s assertion that Charles or the King of England carried out genocide in Australia is clearly not true.
The British colonial government set up loyalist governments in each state, recognising the King as the head of state was their choice, and there is no law in each state that says that Aborigines must be citizens of each state. However, there were Aboriginal Protection Officers in each state to protect the rights of the Aborigines in case of conflicts between the Aborigines and the citizens of the state, so that the Aborigines could be treated fairly in the society. You can say that the colonialists stole the land by claiming that it had no owner, but this is the view of the post-World War II world on respecting national sovereignty. During the colonial era, when it was a common belief in the world that military might was the key to determining who belonged to a territory, it was considered progressive for the colonisers to ignore the rights of the aborigines instead of exterminating them.
Perhaps the officials who dealt with the Aborigines at that time did not know how to do the job well, but at least the Australian society did not completely ignore the Aborigines.Lidia can say that the British colonialists initially ignored the cultural heritage of the Aborigines, or they did not respect the rights of the Aborigines, but it is far-fetched to think that they had occupied the Aborigines’ land. At that time, the Aborigines did not have a life style of settling on a piece of land for a long period of time. It can also be said that they were not a people who settled in a fixed place, but a people who travelled around a certain place for a long period of time. The Aboriginal people also did not have any concept of property rights (settlement) or who owns a certain piece of land, and naturally, there was no such thing as encroachment.
A Free, Democratic and Rule of Law Australia
When the state and federal governments of Australia were formed, Aborigines were not initially included in national statistics. The intention was that Aborigines would be denied the responsibility of state protection, and that they would not be taxed or provided with welfare benefits by the state and federal governments, not that the state or federal governments would not recognise their existence and right to exist. The fact that Aboriginal people could only live on land that no one else owned or used was not a big problem, as there was plenty of land in Australia in the first place. The Aborigines had the right to deny that they were nationals of either the British Empire or the Commonwealth of Australia, but in doing so, they also denied the responsibility of Australia as a nation to protect them. Senator Lidia Thorpe’s behaviour is therefore clearly contradictory.
As Aborigines, Lidia has the right to deny the existence of the Commonwealth of Australia because the Aborigines did not become Australian citizens in 1900 when they voted in a referendum to accept the Commonwealth’s constitution. They became part of the Commonwealth of Australia in a referendum in the 67th century, when the original colonisers and their descendants were accepted into the Commonwealth of Australia. Since then they have enjoyed the privileges, benefits and Aboriginal land rights of living in Australia, and Lidia was born after the constitutional changes that made all Aboriginal people Australians, and naturally, a subject of Charles III of Australia. Since her birth, she has enjoyed the welfare and education provided by the Australian government, and has become part of the Australian government by running for election, being elected, and swearing allegiance to the Australian government. However, Australians enjoy freedom of speech, and simply stating publicly that you are not a subject of Charles III is not treason or sedition, nor is it a criminal offence, as long as you do not take any specific action. She is a democratically elected member of Parliament, and the Parliament does not have the power to remove her from office.
Lidia’s behaviour demonstrates that Australians today enjoy a great deal of freedom, and that they use this freedom ‘unreasonably’ to promote their own political ideas without fear of being suppressed by the government. This is all because Australian society practises democracy and the rule of law, and allows its citizens to enjoy freedom. Whether they are descendants of the original British colonisation, Aboriginal people, or people who have immigrated from outside the UK and settled in this country, they all enjoy these rights, and this is the most valuable change that some of us, the first generation of immigrants to settle in this country, have experienced.
King Charles has gone, but his visit to Australia has made Australians think again about who they are and how Australia should go forward. How should Australia go forward? I’m sure it will be discussed amongst Australians for some time to come.
Since the beginning of the new financial year, the 485 visa adjustment has come into effect and has sparked a lot of discussion. After all, this move by the government potentially affects the future of many international students.
Last week, a protest organised by some international students, which did not receive much attention from international students or the community, was described as a protest by tens of thousands of people on some Chinese social media platforms. A small piece of news has become fake news in the Chinese media, which makes us reflect on how to provide more valuable and truthful news to our readers.
The Seriousness of the False News Problem and its Overwhelm
It is a basic human desire to get true information. And news is based on the true reflection of objective facts as the nature of the characteristics. However, with the rapid development of communication technology and the arrival of the new media era, the problem of false news, which has long plagued the news media industry, has become more and more serious. Especially nowadays, everyone has a microphone, all members of society are intentionally or unintentionally involved in the dissemination of news and information in the process – as long as there is a smart phone, you can take pictures, video or voice a key to disseminate the so-called information, objectively leading to the emergence of false news.
The rapid development of the Internet and the convenience of the application of communication technology, so that almost all members of society can participate in the dissemination of information, but the norms of communication have not been accompanied by the rapid development of communication technology and the establishment of one of the direct consequences is the spread of false news. The dissemination of news and information is a professional behaviour, which needs to follow the basic norms of news and information production and dissemination. However, for many members of the society, these norms have not become the threshold of their participation in the dissemination process, and at the same time, they also lack professional knowledge of news media and news works, thus, there is a wide space for the popularity of false news.
In today’s society with the rapid development of new media, there is fierce competition among the media, especially the new media which takes traffic as an indicator, and they do not hesitate to finish their reports with hearsay and fabrication, and write whatever they can to attract eyeballs. As a result, the quality of information cannot be guaranteed. Sometimes, when a hot story breaks out, major media outlets republish it among themselves. In some hotspot events, lax gatekeeping by the first media resulted in false news, which led to dominoes of errors by the reposting media, resulting in the collapse of public trust in the media. In addition, with the use of artificial intelligence, virtual reality and other technologies, the production of fake news on the Internet has become even faster and easier, making it difficult for ordinary people to distinguish the authenticity of graphics and video content.
Let’s take a look at this process from the perspective of a news story about 485 visas that turned into fake news.
485 Visa Policy Adjustment Causes Controversy
From 1 July this year, the maximum age limit for applying for an Australian Graduate Temporary Visa (Type 485) will be reduced from 50 to 35 years old. For PhD graduates and Masters by Research graduates, the maximum age limit to apply for a Class 485 visa will remain at 50 years old. With the implementation of the new policy, many international students are worried that they will lose the opportunity to work in Australia and be forced to return home. The change has not only taken thousands of international students by surprise, but has also sparked widespread debate about Australia’s migration strategy amongst industry and migration experts.
The 485 Graduate Visa was introduced in 2007 and was originally intended to allow university or college graduates who intended to stay in Australia but did not meet the work experience requirements for skilled migrants to work in Australia for a period of time to make it possible for them to meet the relevant requirements. Initially, there was less than 24 months, and visa holders who could not apply for a different visa before the end of the visa were required to leave Australia.
The 485 Graduate Work Visa has now become an important factor in attracting international students to Australia. Previously, 485 visa holders were able to work full-time in Australia as a primary or secondary applicant with a high degree of flexibility, making this type of visa one of the most attractive temporary work visas in the world. Particularly in the absence of stringent skills requirements, employer sponsorship and minimum wage standards, some students have used the visa to gain valuable work experience on which to apply for permanent residence. At the same time, more people are using the visa to gain up to eight years of work experience in Australia by taking a simple two-year diploma course. In South Asian countries, many study abroad consultants have used this as a way of recruiting large numbers of students to become permanent workers in Australia. However, policy changes in the new financial year have shattered many of these dreams.
International students coming to Australia seem to follow an unwritten rule: study – get a transitional visa after graduation – get a job – apply for permanent residence, but this is more like the brainwashing effect of the study migration industry on international students, and the agents don’t share all the information with these students who don’t have a good understanding of Australia’s policies. The agent will not share all the information to these students who have no idea about Australia’s policies. The language bottleneck, cultural differences, and the financial and psychological pressure of high tuition and living costs have left international students with no time to understand Australia’s immigration policy. In fact, Australia’s immigration policy is not necessarily linked to studying in Australia, and many professions are not on the list of immigrant-eligible occupations. Due to the massive influx of international students in recent years, many of the professions on the list have been taken down, resulting in many international students investing a lot of time and money in the early stages of the cost, but it is still a basket case; however, the immigration agents have already made a lot of money.
The alarmist talk is aimed at creating chaos in the world
The tightening of 485 visas is expected to affect nearly 20,000 students, and some are worried that they will not be able to stay in Australia once their visas expire. Students taking part in protests in Sydney, Melbourne and Canberra told SBS they had expected the 485 visas to provide them with the necessary work experience to stay in Australia, and indeed some have recently organised vigils in various cities to demand a fair transition period. The problem is that the protests, which were only attended by a handful of students, have been described by some Chinese-language WeChat platforms as ‘tens of thousands of students protesting against the Australian government’s tightening of the 485 visa on 17th October! — No doubt it is a proper headline, even though there are photos showing that only a few students were at the protest.
This is not an isolated case. Just this past weekend, the Commonwealth Bank of Australia experienced a major malfunction, with multiple accounts being charged repeatedly, resulting in overdrafts on some accounts. When it comes to Chinese language internet platforms, it’s ‘the sky is falling! A large number of Chinese Australians have been hit by the malfunction. ‘A large number of Chinese Australians have had their bank accounts emptied!’ It’s a complete statement – based on certain facts, but exaggerated in order to attract attention and increase traffic. This is a typical practice in the Chinese language media, whereby the English language reports are laundered, and then the information is selected, filtered and presented in a more exaggerated way, only that the information has already been seriously distorted when it reaches the recipients – the readers.
The essence of WeChat is the title
Information is different from knowledge in that knowledge helps us to live and work, whereas information enables us to know and make decisions. Modern people value information at the expense of knowledge, striving to know everything without distinguishing the details of what they know in order to make a judgement, and so a great deal of information in the form of headlines has appeared on mobile platforms. This is the nature of WeChat’s information.
When people read the headlines, they think they already know what is going on without looking at the details. So the headlines become exaggerated and easy to remember, and at the same time create room for false information. In a short period of time, the content of an incredible headline can become something that everyone believes.
There are currently over 800,000 WeChat users in Australia. Due to language barriers, WeChat has become an important source of information for Chinese Australians, but it’s important to be vigilant about this kind of misinformation. After all, the information that people are exposed to on a daily basis can have a huge impact on their views and political opinions. Imagine if people left China and still received information via WeChat or watched Chinese TV programmes even though their bodies had been turned over the wall, it would be difficult to see a huge change in the way people think before and after leaving the country – after all, the source of information would still be the same. As WeChat becomes indispensable, more users will enter a kind of information vortex, meaning that no matter where they live in the world, they will still be living under the same set of narratives and censorship as they do in mainland China. This will do more harm than good to the integration of new Chinese immigrants into the Australian community.
The two examples mentioned above, at a glance, you would believe that the 485 visa affects the right of many people to stay and work in Australia, without thinking whether granting a 485 visa means that the Australian government agrees that these people can stay and work in Australia for a long time? Fake news is so destructive to the society. The second example makes you think that the Federal Bank of Australia is deliberately targeting Chinese customers, but in fact, different people are affected and there is no question of targeting the Chinese. Of course some Chinese were inconvenienced by the incident, but the focus of the problem was not on the Chinese at all.
Of course, it seems to be a daily news report that provides this kind of content, but the practitioners may not be able to pass the minimum standard of journalism, but nowadays, social media platforms are flooded with this kind of unintentional false news.
Government regulation is not an option
Like many people around the world, Chinese people now get their news from social media rather than traditional news media. In Australia, there are more than 100 Chinese-language news publics on WeChat platforms that publish news specifically for Chinese Australians. Many of these public numbers push articles about which restaurants are popular, where there are discounts, or other lifestyle topics. However, due to their readership model, they often exaggerate and exaggerate in order to attract attention, and some even create fake news and spread rumours, as their readership determines their advertising revenue. Moreover, the proliferation of fake news is not only a problem for WeChat, but also for Facebook and Twitter. There have been calls for the Australian government to step up its legislative oversight, and recently there have been some signs of this.
Due to the widespread popularity of digital platforms, while they bring unlimited convenience to the audience, they may also become a tool to disseminate misleading or false information that is very harmful to the hands. The rapid spread of harmful misinformation and disinformation poses a significant challenge to the functioning of societies around the world. The Commonwealth Minister for Communications, Mr Rowland, has said that around 75 per cent of Australians are concerned about the harmful effects of misinformation and disinformation. Recently, the Australian Federal Government introduced new laws to address the dangers of misinformation and disinformation in the digital age. Regulators will have the power to impose large fines for misconduct by some major technology companies to combat the spread of misinformation and disinformation on the platforms of technology companies such as Meta and X. The bill aims to provide regulatory support for the spread of misinformation and disinformation on the platforms of technology companies such as Meta.
The bill seeks to strengthen the voluntary code by providing regulatory support. Specifically, the bill will empower ACMA to review the effectiveness of digital platform systems and processes, and will increase the transparency of the measures taken by platforms to protect Australians from misinformation and falsehoods in the use of social media. It is hoped that the new bill will have a binding effect on Chinese-language digital platforms to enhance the verification of information. More importantly, Australia’s mainstream media needs to reach out more to the Chinese community and international students to ensure their voices are heard, otherwise it’s no surprise that ‘bad money drives out good money’. Currently, The Australian, SBS and ABC are the only three mainstream media outlets that produce Chinese-language Australian news. The Chinese community is in dire need of media platforms with a voice from their own community and a conscience to provide better news to the Chinese community in Australia.
More resources for the community
Multicultural communities have always provided information platforms that are more relevant and influential to their own communities. For example, Chinese newspapers were already published in gold mining towns more than 160 years ago during the gold rush era. Community-supported Chinese-language media, while not as exhaustive as the mainstream media about Australian life, did distribute important social and governmental information. Today, there are community radio stations in Australia, and the government encourages immigrant communities to broadcast in their own language to disseminate messages and information about their community, as it is a basic human right for everyone to be able to access information in the language they are most comfortable with.
In today’s information society, this is even more important. Because of the Internet, every multicultural Australian in Australia has the potential to be influenced by information from other countries through the Internet. This information can be distributed in an organised and systematic way with the intention of influencing these communities, or it can be created inadvertently by people but spread due to the misperceptions and limitations of the distributors and their biased attitudes towards things. In any case, if the Australian community is to deal with such a large number of messages and platforms that are so easily created and uncontrollable, the community can only build a more credible, trustworthy and quality information platform on the one hand, so that the right messages are valued by the community on the other. Of course, how to disseminate and enable everyone to enhance the ability to distinguish the authenticity of information also becomes important. Information Literacy and Media Literacy are becoming an important part of the basic life skills of modern people.
Therefore, it is necessary for society to provide more resources in this area. Otherwise, the general public will easily become unable to distinguish between right and wrong, and it will be difficult to reach a consensus when society makes a decision, and there will be no basis for discussion when important decisions are made. In that case, society will have to pay a heavy price in the long run for making wrong decisions.
Features
Australia’s Retirement Village is a tough nut to crack
Published
2 weeks agoon
October 22, 2024Ageing is a topic of concern in Australia.
According to the Australian Bureau of Statistics, in June 2020, there will be an estimated 4.2 million Australians aged 65 and over, accounting for 16% of Australia’s total population. The Australian Center of Excellence for Ageing Population Research, in a research report released in August 2022, said that by 2041, Australia’s population could reach 32 million, with the number of people aged 65 and over increasing to 6.66 million. The age of people currently eligible for the Age Pension has been updated to 67. Elderly people are an important social issue that cannot be bypassed in the future.
Utopia or Scam for the Elderly?
In Australia, there are two main ways to age in place: at home and in a nursing home. In addition, the community and hospitals provide a range of support and services for the elderly. Elderly people who can take care of themselves usually choose to age at home; while those who need to age in nursing homes are mostly disabled people, such as those suffering from Alzheimer’s disease, who can no longer take care of themselves and need 24-hour nursing home care. For those in the middle of the spectrum – those who want to live independently and receive assistance in their daily lives – a retirement village is a more suitable option.
The majority of Chinese seniors have always lived at home. Due to the cultural relationship and the fact that many Chinese families believe that the elderly can help their children to take care of the third generation at home, many Chinese elders will live with their children, and not many of them choose to live in retirement villages. As a result, the Chinese community is rarely concerned about the retirement village system. Many people do not realize that a retirement village is not a housing investment project, and buying a retirement village will not bring the same investment returns as a home ownership property in the market. On the contrary, since retirement villages can only be sold back to the management company when they are put up for sale, elderly people often realize that they have to pay a huge amount of money when they leave the village because they need to access care facilities, for example.
Retirement villages are not like traditional rental apartments, but rather, they require the elderly to purchase or rent on their own. They are living communities that provide independent living quarters, shared activity space and recreational facilities for the elderly over 55 years of age or who have retired. Elderly people living in retirement villages should be independent, safe and cared for. Today, it is very common for retired seniors to choose to live in retirement villages. In Australia, about 250,000 (7%) of seniors over the age of 65 choose to live in retirement villages. Retirement villages are generally small 2-3 storey apartments or townhouses, and seniors usually rent or buy one of the units.
Retirement villages are staffed by security personnel and caregivers on duty. In addition, like apartments, retirement villages also have gyms, tennis courts, swimming pools, and so on. Elderly people can meet a lot of like-minded people in the community to participate in activities together, and they can also invite their children to stay over occasionally. This is very convenient for the elderly to make new friends, especially those with similar lifestyle and personal interests. Of course, most retirement villages in Australia are still predominantly English-speaking, so there may be a cultural and linguistic barrier for some seniors.
From the manager’s point of view, retirement villages provide not only housing, but also the facilities, maintenance, care and social life of the entire retirement village, and to enjoy these services, of course, charges. In most of the retirement villages, the facilities and space are more than those enjoyed by the tenants living in independent houses in the same district. Therefore, it is not a fair comparison to compare the price of a retirement village unit with that of a house in the same district. However, the Government has seldom actively regulated the charges and principles of these services provided by retirement villages, thus making the fairness of this industry to the users questionable.
This utopia for the elderly has been hailed as such, but it does not stand up to investigations and revelations. It turns out that there is a serious lack of regulation in the industry, which has escaped the attention of politicians and the Aged Care Royal Commission for many years. Tim, a retired actuary, called it the peddling of a “cunningly devised scam” and Federal Member of Parliament Rebekha Sharkie called it “corporatized elder abuse”. Some elderly residents and their families have complained about the high costs of leaving, such as check-out fees and renovation costs, describing it as a financial prison, a disaster and a loss of morals.
Lurking traps in the contract
In the course of the survey, a number of residents, children, lawyers, staff, brokers and academics at the retirement village claimed that most of the residents did not understand the contents of the contract, and left the retirement village in a worse financial situation. It is important to realize that before moving in, seniors are required to sign a contract with more than a hundred pages, and if they don’t pay an attorney to read it, they have no way of knowing what they are signing. Exit fees collected by retirement villages when residents leave are an important source of revenue for the industry, and are based on a percentage of the sales price that increases each year, with upper limits varying by contract and operator. Green, an 89-year-old Village resident, bought her Village property 11 years ago for $384,000 and has received only $81,000 since leaving. Not only did she lose her life savings, but she doesn’t have enough money left over to pay for senior care. The $300,000 she lost by signing the contract was 80% of the purchase price, while the value of homes in the suburbs has doubled over the same period.
When one buys a house, it is hard to imagine losing more than half the cost of moving out, which has to be called a form of robbery. However, the sale and purchase of houses in retirement villages is restricted by law, for example, to ensure that only retired people can live in the villages, and that no one under the age of 55 can buy a house. As the manager has a certain degree of responsibility for maintenance, the cost of operation is often added to the usual management fees and exit fees. Even apart from the exit fee, the renovation fee when residents decide to move out is also a huge cost. Many residents are asked to pay for painting and carpet replacement, and some are even asked to pay for more extensive renovations, with some quotes exceeding $100,000 for a three-page remodeling list that includes a number of options. The explanation given by the operators of retirement villages is that the cost of renovation has risen sharply since the outbreak of the epidemic. Not to mention that if a person dies or leaves the Village, their home will continue to be subject to maintenance fees until it is sold.
Some would describe this as an elaborate scam, but the operators see it as the price to be paid by the users of the retirement villages. Most retirement villages feature an operator who sells the property and sets the price, which is convenient for the seller but can also cause conflict because the operator effectively controls the market, including price, time of sale and buyer selection, especially when residents are eager to sell. Sreyfel lost tens of thousands of dollars in less than three years of living at the V.I. retirement village, and was left with only $243,000 after paying $310,000 in 2017. She left after a confrontation with residents and management, and says it took her four years to get back on her feet. A person who enters a retirement village with the intention of enjoying a peaceful life can find themselves in a lot of trouble. Many people think it’s unfair that not only do retirement village operators fail to provide value-added to users, but they even have to sell at a reduced price because housing prices are rising every year. However, the rise in housing prices is only a norm in metropolitan areas where the population is increasing. In some rural areas, the value of housing decreases due to aging, which also occurs occasionally.
For Chinese immigrants, it is hard to imagine that retirement villages were originally intended to provide a form of supported living for the elderly together in the same community, rather than nursing care. As a result, it is only when an elderly person enters the need for personal care that he or she realizes that it is not appropriate for him or her to continue to live in a retirement village. In some retirement villages, nursing care may be provided, and the elderly may be able to transition to nursing care in a familiar environment, while those who need to leave for another care facility may not understand the reasons why.
Where has the government gone?
The aging population has always been the lasting support for the retirement industry. Moreover, the aging trend of the Australian population is still intensifying, and it is unlikely that it will be effectively improved in the short to medium term. Therefore, demand for the industry will always exist, and there is still room for the long-term development of an industry such as retirement villages, driven by demand. The Government should intervene in the direction of rectifying the unfair terms and conditions and the high fees charged by the operators, rather than letting them go unchecked and allowing them to develop in a distorted manner in a regulatory vacuum.
In fact, the scandal of retirement villages is not a recent development; in 2017, Australian media group Fairfax Media and Australian broadcaster ABC’s program Four Corners launched a joint investigation into the retirement industry (especially retirement village operator giant Aveo), exposing Aveo’s high fees, contracts, and misleading policies towards its retirement village residents. The Australian Competition and Consumer Commission (ACCC) launched an investigation into the Aveo Group and called on national regulators to cooperate. Seven years on, the situation in the industry has not only not improved, it seems to be getting worse.
State governments have promised to overhaul their oversight methods, but nothing has materialized. Victoria, for example, held a parliamentary inquiry and made recommendations that were endorsed but not put into practice. The new state did make some minor changes after the survey, such as limiting the amount of time operators have to pay residents when they leave the retirement village, but it has avoided the most serious issue – exit fees – and has not discussed whether exit fees should be banned or at least limited to a maximum amount, or whether an inspector should be appointed, and so on, and so on. This is rather like the root of the tree not moving but the top of the tree shaking in vain.
Taking Canberra as an example, the Retirement Living Council predicts that the number of people aged over 75 will grow by 75% in 20 years, and the occupancy rate of Canberra Retirement Village has now reached 95%, the highest in Australia. A silver hair tsunami is inevitable. No one wants a retirement village to end up as a torturous alternative to the prison that once you’re in, you can’t get out. Currently, one in six older Australians, including those living in retirement villages, are abused. Abuse can take many forms, including neglect, financial exploitation, physical violence and psychological abuse. A more systemic form of abuse is the one that is often overlooked but has a wider impact, and retirement villages, now in a regulatory vacuum, may be a reflection of that systemic abuse.
In terms of responsibility, the Government has the duty to explain the principles of the retirement village system to the elderly immigrants, and to make them understand that the life in the retirement villages is definitely not an investment in real estate, so as to enable the retirees to make choices that suit their own needs in life.
Listen Now
Charles III’s visit to Australia
False information that should not be ignored
NEMBC Cantonese News – 29 October 2024
NEMBC Mandarin News – 29 October 2024
NEMBC Arabic News – 29 October 2024
Fraudulent ivermectin studies open up new battleground
Cantonese Mango Sago
FILIPINO: Kung nakakaranas ka ng mga sumusunod na sintomas, mangyaring subukan.
NEMBC Arabic COVID 19 News – 14 June 2022
保护您自己和家人 – 咳嗽和打喷嚏时请捂住
Trending
-
COVID-19 Around the World3 years ago
Fraudulent ivermectin studies open up new battleground
-
Cuisine Explorer4 years ago
Cantonese Mango Sago
-
Tagalog4 years ago
FILIPINO: Kung nakakaranas ka ng mga sumusunod na sintomas, mangyaring subukan.
-
Arabic2 years ago
NEMBC Arabic COVID 19 News – 14 June 2022
-
Cantonese - Traditional Chinese4 years ago
保护您自己和家人 – 咳嗽和打喷嚏时请捂住
-
Uncategorized4 years ago
如果您出現以下症狀,請接受檢測。
-
Uncategorized4 years ago
在最近的 COVID-19 應對行動中, 維多利亞州並非孤單
-
Uncategorized4 years ago
COVID-19 檢驗快速 安全又簡單