This is an election year in Australia. April 12, the date previously recognized by the outside world, is no longer likely to be the date of the election. With at least 33 days between the announcement of the election and the official vote, there are only three possible election dates left: May 3rd, May 10th and May 17th. The general election must be held no later than May 17, and the campaign must last at least 33 days. To vote on May 3, Albanese must announce the election no later than Monday, March 31; to vote on May 10, he must announce it no later than Monday, April 7. By convention, Election Day is usually announced on a Sunday. If the election is not announced by April 7, then May 17 will be the only election date. As the federal election draws nearer, the latest opinion polls show Labor narrowly ahead of the Coalition.

Election is approaching and the race is tight

The latest YouGov poll shows that Labor and the Coalition are now tied, and the election has officially entered the heat of battle. Just two weeks ago, Labor was narrowly ahead of the Coalition 51% to 49%, thanks to Prime Minister Albanese’s response to Tropical Storm Alfred and the government’s support for Ukraine. But now, the situation has been completely leveled. In terms of the first-past-the-post vote, Labor’s support remains unchanged at 31%, while the Coalition’s support has risen by 1 percentage point to 37%, which is growing steadily. However, on the question of “who is more suitable to be the Prime Minister”, Albanese is still ahead of Dutton, at 45% to 40%, but Dutton has overtaken him in terms of voter satisfaction. As for the other minor parties, first-party support for the Greens and One Nation have both dropped by half a point to 13% and 7% respectively, while the independents have also dropped by one point to 8%.

Previously it was significant increases in support for the Albanese government in Queensland, Victoria, South Australia and Tasmania that tilted the overall result in Labor’s favor, giving it a narrow advantage. This advantage did not last long. Meanwhile, the Roy Morgan poll also suggests that the election may be a hung parliament, with the winner needing the support of smaller parties and independents to form a government, as the two parties are so close in support. Leader of the Opposition Peter Dutton has said that if Labor were to go into government as a minority party, it would increase inflation through higher taxes and spending. Dutton has emphasized throughout the election that under a Labor government, Australia’s inflation rate has been consistently higher than in most major developed economies, that household and small business budgets have been squeezed to the limit, and that the Coalition would aim to repair the damage done to the Australian economy by the Labor government in Albania, where living standards have suffered the worst of the developed world under Labor. Under Labor, Australia’s living standards have suffered the biggest decline of any developed country. Albanese responded that inflation was falling.

The poll was conducted between March 14 and 19, with 1,500 voters participating, and has a margin of error of 3.4%. It comes as Labor prepares to deliver its fourth federal budget next Tuesday, which suggests it will run a deficit after consecutive surpluses. The fiscal outlook had prompted many to predict the government would call a general election before the budget, but the onset of Storm Alfred forced Albanese to postpone plans to call an early election. Under Australia’s constitution, a federal election must be held on or before May 17, and Albanese is expected to announce a date within days of the budget.

Struggle for a middle-of-the-road vote

The Australian Financial Review has summarized the results of the last three polls to show that the Coalition has made significant progress in Victoria since the last election, but will need to increase its support in NSW and WA if it is to have a chance of forming a government after the next election. Figures show that in the key state of Victoria, policing is approaching the importance of housing as one of the most important issues for voters, second only to cost of living pressures. For the Coalition, Victoria is the most promising place to grab seats. The Coalition currently holds only 10 of Victoria’s 39 seats, and the Labor government’s declining popularity in recent years has given the Coalition a chance. It is only in the past month that the Coalition’s upward momentum has stalled. The reasons for this include a series of blunders by Mr. Dutton, the government’s new policies, and growing unease within the Coalition.

Albanese and Dutton’s joint appearances at three events over three consecutive weekends over the Lunar New Year period underscored their campaign to win over Australia’s Chinese voters, a key group that could play a significant role in the upcoming federal election. There are many reasons why former Prime Minister Morrison and his Coalition Party were ousted three years ago. One of them, rightly or wrongly, was the perception that the Alliance Party was anti-China. The Liberal Party’s analysis of the defeat found that in constituencies with a high concentration of Chinese voters, the swing away from the Liberal Party to other parties was significantly greater. This analysis found that in the 15 electorates with the highest number of Chinese-Australian voters, the swing in support between the two parties was 6.6%, compared to a 3.7% swing in other seats. The Liberal Party’s election analysis suggests that the party needs to prioritize rebuilding relationships with members of the Chinese Australian community. It’s no wonder that both parties are using festivals and celebrations to sway the Chinese vote, and even the popular Chinese social media platform Little Red Book has become a platform for politicians from both parties.

Of course, Chinese social media platforms prohibit political advertisements, but Little Red Book’s algorithm allows politicians to target users in a geographic area with messages that are seldom extremely pro-party. Australian politicians rarely talk about Australia-China relations on the Little Red Book. They celebrate Chinese New Year, engage with the Chinese immigrant community, and sometimes attend community events, but they hardly ever talk about Australia-China relations. Even if they do post relevant information, it’s unlikely to spread very far because politicians’ accounts have recently been secretly blocked. While the MPs’ accounts are still visible to existing followers, new users seem unable to find them. This means that interactions with users and the growth of fans of politicians across the political spectrum on the platform are at a standstill. How this ultimately affects the outcome of the election can only be inferred from the results.

Variables remain

The economic pressures of the last two years have wiped out the accumulated wealth of millions of Australians, particularly in outer-city and remote electorates. A single interest rate cut may boost Labor’s morale, but it’s unlikely to ease the deep economic pain experienced by voters who will decide the election. For decades, pollsters around the world have used the question “is the country heading in the right or wrong direction” to measure voter attitudes to change. As the Australian federal election approaches, pessimism among Australian voters is on the rise.

Overall, Labor supporters are more optimistic than the rest of the electorate, with 56% saying the country is heading in the right direction, compared to 18% of Greens and 14% of Coalition voters. Not only is pessimism deepening among the elderly, but dissatisfaction is also spreading among the young people Labor is trying to win over. Regardless of who is in power, this is not a mess that any professional politician would be willing to take on.

As Cyclone Alfred moved towards Queensland, Albanese abandoned his campaign for the April 12 election. The postponement of the election has hampered the Coalition’s momentum in the same way that a delayed battle affects a soldier’s morale and motivation – it’s all over again. The 30-day campaign was ready to go, every moment carefully planned, the Coalition candidates with their propaganda policies in place, and the ammunition to crush the Labor or Blue-Green candidates. But at the moment, Dutton’s team is at a standstill, unsure of where to point their sights. By contrast, the current government still has all the major levers. In addition to the internal concerns, the two parties are now facing an even bigger variable in the international community – the geopolitical turmoil and great uncertainty caused by the U.S. government’s frequent punches since Trump took office in January of this year. Trump is dismantling the alliances that have kept the peace and safeguarded Western freedoms. This represents a major challenge for Albanese and Dutton.

Today, Australian voters are increasingly anxious, both because of the cost of living and because of ‘Trump anxiety’ and global turbulence. Over the past few years, Australians have been pressured by economic uncertainty, and now even their long-dependent US ally is no longer stable. This will have a direct impact on public attitudes towards defense spending, as well as the most practical questions: will it affect jobs? Will it drive up prices? All of this adds to social anxiety. Ultimately, the person who responds most effectively to these compounded anxieties is the one most likely to win the next federal election. For both Albanese and Dutton, how they balance the need to preserve Australia’s sovereignty and independence with the need to maximize the US-Australia alliance will undoubtedly play an important role in determining the winner of this election.

Federal budget proposes tax cuts to win re-election

On March 25th, the Treasurer delivered his fourth budget in office, and one of the most surprising, but not surprising, features was the tax cuts he introduced, which will reduce income tax by $17 billion over the next year, or an average of $5 less per week per taxpayer. Treasurer Jim Chalmers said that although this would leave a $47 billion shortfall in the budget and push Australia’s external debt to $789 billion by 2028-29, it was the government’s determination to ride out the rising cost of living with its citizens. The Coalition is in a dilemma as it disagrees with the tax cut proposal, but it cannot promise that it will not propose tax cuts at the election. The Labor Party’s move to reduce tax is only a symbolic way to reduce the burden of Australians, but it does not actually solve the problem. However, it is believed that it will generally gain the support of the public, and increase their support in the election. If the Liberal Party is adamantly against it, it will be ignoring the people’s suffering. However, it is not easy to put forward a proposal that can specifically solve the problems faced by the low-income group, and it will not be able to take care of the dissatisfaction of the whole nation.

However, the Budget’s optimistic and positive outlook on the world economy may not be able to convince the majority of Australians. If the opposition party wants to continue to reduce its support to the government, it is believed that it will continue to sell the instability in the world, and only the Coalition party can have a strong leadership to lead Australians to face the crisis.

Obviously, the Labor government will be pushing for the budget to be passed by the parliament, implementing the policies that have been put forward in the past few months, and speeding up the process in the hope of getting a mandate from the voters, and at least three more years in power. It is believed that whether the Labor Party can make progress or not will be known in the coming one or two weeks when the budget is debated in the parliament.

Article/Editorial Sameway Magazine

Photo/Internet

Earlier this month, Cheung Kong Hutchison, controlled by the Li Ka-shing family, announced that it had reached an in-principle agreement with a consortium led by U.S.-based Blackrock to sell 80 percent of the assets of its CK Hutchison Port Group. The deal involves 43 ports and supporting logistics networks in 23 countries around the world, and is one of the largest port sales in the world in recent years. It is expected that the final agreement for the sale of Panama Ports will be signed by April 2nd. However, Beijing’s dissatisfaction may cast a shadow over the deal. With all the parties speaking out, the issue continues to attract strong attention and has become a new battleground in the U.S.-China wargame.

The uncertainty of the sale agreement

After US President Donald Trump threatened to repeal the Panama Canal transfer agreement due to Chinese manipulation, the issue of the right to operate this key international waterway has become a hotspot in US-China relations. A few days ago, Hong Kong’s richest man Li Ka-shing’s Cheung Kong Hutchison Holdings Ltd. has planned to sell its 43 overseas ports to a consortium led by BlackRock for US$19 billion, including the Panama Canal-related business, which Trump claimed “poses a national security problem for the U.S.”. Trump praised BlackRock after the deal was announced. Cheung Kong’s sale does not include its HPH Trust, which manages port facilities in Hong Kong, Shenzhen and other Chinese ports, including Yantian International and Hong Kong International Terminals.

The deal bears the mark of Li Ka-shing, the Hong Kong billionaire who has been dubbed “Superman” for building his vast business empire. Now, to avoid being drawn into a wider showdown between the U.S. and China, Li is looking to stay out of the line of fire by selling his business to a group of well-heeled U.S. investors for US$19 billion. However, a number of Chinese media outlets have recently published articles questioning Cheung Kong’s port deal, saying, “Don’t be naive, don’t be foolish,” and that “great entrepreneurs are all geniune patriots”, and questioning why CK Hutchison has so easily transferred so many of its important ports to “unsuspecting U.S. forces”. CK Hutchison responded to the skepticism by saying that the transaction was purely commercial in nature. It must be said that Li Ka-shing’s sale of global port assets other than China, especially the Panama port, once again demonstrates his precise grasp of capital market trends in the global geopolitical landscape.

It remains to be seen whether there will be any complications in the countdown to the signing of the agreement. The Hong Kong and Macao Affairs Office of the State Council of China has recently forwarded a number of commentaries to Ta Kung Pao, criticizing Li Ka-shing for “succumbing to U.S. pressure” and “betraying the interests of the country”. “The article “All Great Entrepreneurs are Geniune Patriots” begins with a series of five questions to CK Hutchison, including “In the face of right and wrong, how should an entrepreneur make choices and where should he lead his enterprise? The article said, “Great entrepreneurs are never cold-blooded speculators seeking profits, but passionate and proud patriots. Although the article did not name Li Ka-shing, it cited Henry Fok, Pao Yuk-kang, Tso Kwong-piu, Ko Lin, Ko Ching-ping and other deceased Hong Kong and Macau people who contributed to the country during the early period of the founding of the Communist Party of China (CPC) and after the reform and opening up of the country as a comparison group of Li Ka-shing, and emphasized that entrepreneurs have to have a spirit of “the greatness of the businessman is to serve the country for the sake of the people”. At a time when Beijing’s political pressure is escalating, CK Hutchison’s share price has fallen, underscoring the investment market’s heightened concern about Beijing’s involvement in geopolitical risks.

Who dares to invest?

Hong Kong’s richest man, Li Ka-shing, has built a multinational port business empire that has been able to expand, not only because it has gained trust from China, helping to promote important national strategic interests such as “One Belt, One Road”, but also because it has gained trust from the international community, proving that the group is not a spokesperson for China under Hong Kong’s unique position of “one country, two systems”. However, in recent years, with the entry into force of the Hong Kong National Security Law, the west sees Hong Kong as losing its autonomy, and it is difficult for Li Ka-shing’s multinational port business kingdom not to be viewed by the international community as a “Chinese enterprise” and become a target of attack by various countries.

According to a report by the Mercator Institute for China Studies in Germany, China has placed considerable emphasis on its global port presence, with 110 ports in 67 countries, and the roles of Chinese companies in these ports can be categorized into three types: operator/owner, developer, and funder. Among these ports, CKH owns or operates 78 ports in 37 countries, of which 33 are owned or operated by Chinese companies. The two ports that CKH intends to sell served 39% of the container ships in the Panama Canal last year, with the US being the largest user of the canal, accounting for 73% of the traffic. China was second with 21.4%. If CKH were to sell all of its overseas ports, it would mean an instant loss of 40 percent of this strategic node for China. The Chief Executive of the Hong Kong Special Administrative Region (HKSAR), Mr. Lee Ka-chiu, has already said that the concerns raised by Li Ka-shing’s deal “deserve to be taken seriously”.

Subtly, in the case of CK Hutchison’s port sale, it is different from the Chinese government’s direct statement and even intervention in the TikTok and Huawei’s Meng Wanzhou cases. This time, the Chinese government did not make a direct statement, but expressed its attitude through the official media department’s newspapers in Hong Kong, in order to incite nationalistic sentiments to flog a private enterprise. The fact that Li Ka-shing has not violated any laws or regulations, but has been subjected to a lot of pressure from public opinion, is questionable. At the same time, the fact that the government has not yet intervened directly shows that the Chinese top management may still be exploring and evaluating the situation. On the one hand, the matter is so big that it has to be taken care of, but on the other hand, since it is an offshore transaction of a foreign enterprise, it is not good to intervene. According to sources familiar with the matter, the Chinese authorities have begun to investigate the sale of Li Ka-shing’s overseas port business, and a number of departments, including the State Administration for Market Supervision, have been instructed by senior state leaders to examine whether there are any potential security loopholes or antitrust violations in this transaction.

In recent years, Hong Kong’s status as an international trading port has been facing serious challenges. Over the years, Hong Kong has become the world’s seventh-largest re-export port for goods by virtue of its independent tariff zone, with re-export trade supporting a quarter of Hong Kong’s economy. However, the Trump administration’s imposition of tariffs on Chinese goods and the inclusion of Hong Kong for the first time in the scope of the same tariffs have directly impacted this position. A few days ago, China’s official newspaper Ta Kung Pao commented that the agreement between CK Hutchison and BlackRock was “profit-oriented, forgetting righteousness in the face of profit,” and that it was related to “national interests and national justice. This kind of open contempt and warning to a private company in the media is reminiscent of “Cultural Revolution-style criticism” and will scare away many potential foreign investors. Beijing’s increasing interference in Hong Kong’s business community – pressuring business leaders to be patriotic through statements and visits by Chinese officials – suggests that it is becoming increasingly difficult for Hong Kong companies to dissociate themselves from Chinese politics.

Geopolitical Risks Create Increasing Uncertainty

In the face of the intensifying US-China game, companies are naturally more concerned about whether they will be more easily victimized by the geopolitical rivalry between the big powers. If companies want to operate or expand their business in the international market, they have to strengthen their ability to anticipate geopolitical risks. Li Tzar Kuoi, the son of Li Ka-shing and chairman of Cheung Kong Hutchison, said in a statement accompanying last week’s financial results that the business environment for Cheung Kong Hutchison this year could be “volatile and unpredictable”. With just a week to go before the scheduled date for signing the agreement, any attempt by Hong Kong or Beijing to block the deal would be extraordinary. Chinese companies often have to get permission from regulators to move money out of mainland China. CK Hutchison operates ports around the world, including in China, but none of the 43 ports involved in the BlackRock deal are in China. None of the 43 ports involved in the BlackRock deal are in China, and CKH’s shares are not listed on the mainland.

Since 2012, shortly after Xi Jinping took power, Li has sold many of his real estate investments in mainland China and reinvested most of his money in Europe. His actions have been widely criticized by Chinese nationalists, but from a financial perspective, it was smart. He managed to divest himself of these investments before the start of the Chinese real estate market crash in 2021, which has continued to deteriorate ever since. It has since been argued that this sale of overseas ports, like the one that foresaw the dramatic changes in China’s real estate market, was strategically far-sighted if analyzed purely from a business perspective, avoiding possible political risks while realizing an asset at a very attractive price and leaving the group with plenty of room for its future strategic deployment. However, all these are based on the foundation that the agreement can be signed smoothly.

As geopolitical tensions between the US and China intensify, access to information on the flow of goods through key waterways will be crucial in the event of a “supply chain war”. Trump has repeatedly advocated regaining control of the Panama Canal and surrounding areas for reasons including the threat posed by Chinese influence. U.S. media revealed that the White House has asked the Pentagon to provide military options to ensure U.S. “free access” to the canal. In addition, the Office of the U.S. Trade Representative’s proposal to levy high fees on Chinese-made ships has triggered tremors in the international shipping industry. China’s influence in the global port network has also seen more setbacks than advances over the years, with a net overall decline in the number of ports owned directly by China or operated by third parties. As a result, Beijing is bound to take action against Li Ka-shing’s agreement to sell these two important ports. This standoff is a test of how far China’s top leader, Xi Jinping, is willing to go in exercising control over Hong Kong’s commercial sector, and the U.S. will certainly not stand by and watch. The global supply chain and control of ports are developing into a major battleground for great powers, and the future is sure to be a smoldering one.

Years ago, when globalization was in full swing, not many people questioned which country a company belonged to, but now, with the dramatic changes in geopolitics and the global economic crisis, ideology has once again taken over the high ground of public opinion. For example

TikTok is incorporated in the U.S., with corporate headquarters in Los Angeles and Singapore, but is controlled by the board of directors of the Chinese company, TikTok. Even if public opinion glosses over it, TikTok is a global private company: 60% of its investors are global institutions, 20% of its shares are held by its founder, Yiming Zhang, and the other 20% are shared by all its employees; and three of its five board members are Americans. But it’s hard to explain in a few words the real money at stake behind the scenes. And like most major Chinese companies, the Communist Party of China (CPC) set up a party branch at Beatnik in 2014, which probably says a lot. As for Li Ka-shing’s Cheung Kong Hutchison, there is breathing room in today’s searing situation only because of its reliance on Hong Kong, the former Pearl of the Orient, which has evolved into a multinational enterprise through decades of Chinese investment. The deal puts Beijing on the horns of a dilemma, as any major move to jeopardize it could aggravate tensions between the Chinese government and the Trump administration. As you can imagine, there will be consequences to this port sale, and even if the deal is signed, Beijing will be ready to “settle scores in the fall,” and there will be more to come.

Article/Editorial Department Sameway Magazine

Photo/Internet

After the Second World War, the United States, as the only country that was not affected by the war, rose to become the world’s policeman. The United States and the Soviet Union fought the Cold War under the Iron Curtain until the collapse of the Soviet Union in 1991, and the United States became the world’s political, economic, and military hegemony. 30 years later, President Donald Trump has reintroduced isolationism, and the rest of the world is adjusting its national policies in the face of this new era. The European countries have proposed an 840 billion euro rearmament program in the future, realizing that they can no longer rely on the US military protection and enjoy the “free lunch” that the US has provided for many years. Australia is the only English-speaking multicultural country in the Asia-Pacific region with a Western democratic system, and it will also have to think about and redeploy strategies to protect its national security, foreign affairs, economy and trade, and social development. As a Chinese immigrant, who is an important ethnic group in Australian society, I believe that Australia has an important role to play in this new era. I will share my views with readers in this column.

Western countries give up their influence

Before World War II, the West dominated the development of many countries in the Americas, Africa and Asia through colonial expansion. During this period, Western countries dominated the world militarily. The invasion and bullying of China by the Western powers in modern Chinese history is a familiar part of modern Chinese history. The small European countries only sent a small number of expeditionary troops to China and easily defeated the corrupt Qing Dynasty government and seized a large amount of China’s resources. Hong Kong, as the Western countries’ entry point to China, developed into the richest free port in the world under the British rule, and became a strategic city for the Western countries to influence China.

During this period, Western missionaries followed the merchants to other parts of the world, but the Christian culture did not have a deep impact on these countries. However, in Hong Kong under British rule, the selfless contributions of many missionaries in the areas of education, medical and health care, and social development have influenced the people of Hong Kong today. This can also be seen as the influence of non-state institutions in western societies.

After the Second World War, the British Empire saw that the development of colonies did not bring long-term economic benefits to the British people, and on the contrary, the country had to spend a lot of military and economic power, so it implemented the decolonization policy. In order to maintain Britain’s image and influence as a great power, Britain also maintained contact and cooperation with these former colonial powers. In the beginning, the Commonwealth organizations played a role, and Australia also played an important role. However, as time passed and these countries focused on geopolitics and development, the Commonwealth is no longer as influential as it was decades ago. Countries that once valued cooperation with Western societies are no longer interested in Western culture and development.

Redistribution of Information Power

Undoubtedly, after the Second World War, information plays an important role in the development of any society, the direction of its economy, world politics and national defense strategies. Since the middle of the last century, radio and television broadcasting have become the most penetrating information media, and global broadcasting is regarded as the most influential information machine in propaganda and culture. Before World War II, the BBC broadcasted globally, symbolizing the promotion of British culture and values. After Britain’s post-war decolonization, the country’s power declined drastically, and the United States took advantage of the situation to rise, the Voice of America (VOA) broadcast in different languages to promote the United States’ views on world affairs through radio broadcasts in different countries around the world. In the 1990s, the U.S. established Radio Free Asia (RFA) to promote Western views on the development of democratic societies and values to Asian countries in the midst of political and economic growth.

During the Cold War, the BBC and VOA played an important role in the world. Through these media, people in totalitarian countries still have some opportunities to access information about democratic and free countries. When the people of these countries realize the progress and development of the western society, they would naturally ask the government to keep up with the development of the western society, culture and system. The phenomenon of globalization has been driven by the interaction of people from different countries and the development of the aviation industry. During the past few decades, many Asian countries have achieved rapid economic development through globalization, and the institutions of these countries have also tended to democratize to a certain extent.

However, there has been a decline in support in the United States and the United Kingdom for maintaining a media that influences other countries. For no other reason than that these media do not seem to be directly contributing to the lives of the people of the United States or the United Kingdom. And naturally, the messages they focus on are not relevant to the lives of the American and British people, so they are not taken seriously. It is easy for politicians who are trying to win votes through elections to feel that it is only natural for them to stop these ideological services in response to the demands of their constituents.

The situation is different in two totalitarian communist countries, China and Russia. Since China’s economic development took off, it has attached great importance to “grand foreign propaganda”, i.e., to publicize China’s development and the success of its social system to the whole world. The first step was to gain the recognition and support of the Chinese diaspora outside of China, and now it is to publicize the superiority of China’s system over Western democracies to the rest of the world. The aim is clearly to expand China’s influence in the world through media publicity.

Australia’s Information Influence

Australia has long been recognized as a major power in the Western Pacific region and has played an influential role as a leader in the region. For many years, Australia has provided a wide range of livelihood assistance and broadcasting information to Pacific Island countries. The Australian Broadcasting Corporation (ABC) has been providing regular information broadcasts in different languages to the Pacific Islands for many years, and through this, it has established economic, cultural and educational cooperation with the people of these countries. Obviously, because Australia maintains good communication and cooperation with the neighboring countries, the Western Pacific island countries maintain close relations with Australia, which makes Australians feel extremely safe. In recent years, Australia’s state support to this region has been drastically reduced, and ABC shortwave broadcasting stopped years ago in favor of providing services to local radio stations through the Internet. It can be argued that the Australian government has neglected the influence it has built up in these countries through the provision of information.

On the other hand, China’s “Great Outreach” has been bearing fruit in the region in recent years. The fact that China International Radio has been providing radio programs in the Western Pacific region is also reflected in the recent shift of these countries towards establishing diplomatic relations and economic cooperation with China. 2022, when Penny Wong became Minister for Foreign Affairs, she immediately travelled to the Pacific Island countries, indicating that the Australian government has become concerned that Australia’s influence on these countries is not what it used to be.

In order to maintain Australia’s influence in the region, the Australian government must not only re-establish cooperation, support and exchanges with the countries in the region, but it must also realize that there is a strong need to resume advocating Western values of freedom and democracy in the region. The establishment of a media that reflects these values in the Western Pacific region is on the government’s agenda again.

The Advantages of a Multicultural Society

Less than two months after taking office, President Trump has drastically halted the provision of information services to the world, citing a reduction in spending and the use of these organizations by other governments to infiltrate and exploit them. In the face of the decline of Western information influence, I believe the Australian government will reevaluate how it can strengthen its influence in the region.

Although Australia has a small population and is not in a position to establish a system such as the BBC or VOA, it still has a major advantage in that it has developed an ethnic broadcasting policy more than 50 years ago, encouraging ethnic minorities in Australia to broadcast in their own languages, and becoming a community force to maintain these ethnic communities. Nowadays, there are more than 800 ethnic radio broadcasting programs in cities and towns in Australia, and there are also many programs for the Western Pacific Island communities.

If the Australian government develops information channels for these ethnic communities, Australia could easily establish an information center in the region to promote the values of a western democratic society. However, whether this challenge can be met will depend on the foresight of Australia’s political leaders to see the benefits of such an investment for the Australian community.

Mr. Raymond Chow