China
Australia’s Chinese diaspora faces a representation deficit
Author: Osmond Chiu, Per Capita
Australia’s 2022 federal election marked a turning point in the country’s politics. For the first time, the shifting voting patterns of non-European ethnic minorities — specifically Chinese–Australians — were pivotal to the overall result, as post-election reviews from the centre-left Labor Party and the conservative Liberal Party both acknowledged. While the possibility of a significant swing in the voting patterns of Chinese–Australians was canvassed pre-election, its impact was only taken seriously after the vote.
Yet this increasing focus has not translated into a serious discussion about representation — an important issue for a multicultural society such as Australia, where ongoing underrepresentation signals that structural barriers to equality remain.
Despite having the proportionally largest Chinese diaspora in the Western world, Chinese–Australian representation remains low in Australian politics. While representation at the federal level has improved, it does not mirror the 5.5 per cent of the population who have Chinese ancestry.
This issue is not unique to Australia — similar underrepresentation issues exist in New Zealand and Canada. Many potential explanations have been suggested, such as language, lower levels of political participation and racial bias.
Underrepresentation has consequences for Australia’s policy settings, especially as US–China tensions escalate. Greater diversity delivers better decision-making because ‘group think’ is less likely, different perspectives are included and it forces a more careful consideration of information.
The complexity of issues facing the Chinese diaspora make the perspectives drawn from lived experiences and personal knowledge even more valuable. While those from mainland China constitute a plurality of the Chinese Australian community, this community is far from homogenous. There is a range of opinions — shaped by migration journeys, history, and personal experiences — that reflect the breadth and diversity of the Chinese diaspora in Australia.
A lack of diverse representation leads to one-dimensional perspectives where policy issues associated with China come to be seen simply through the lens of national security and defence. This ignores the potential impacts of a strained Australia–China relationship on Australia’s Chinese diaspora and other unintended domestic consequences. This should not be misconstrued as a suggestion to excuse or downplay the seriousness of human rights abuses by China, surveillance and harassment of diaspora communities on Australian soil and foreign interference concerns.
Attempts to dismiss concerns about the impact of these issues on the Chinese diaspora as ‘hurt feelings’ rather than understanding the genuine fear many Chinese–Australians have has been counterproductive. Their fear arises out of the perceived risk of being the target of distrust and exclusion, or seen as a potential vector of foreign influence simply due to their cultural background or family ties.
It also fuels the perception that Chinese–Australians would be acceptable collateral damage in a conflict. Efforts to deny claims of growing racism during the COVID-19 pandemic by some politicians — because it was seen as a geopolitical tactic by China — was an example of this. Such actions undermine community confidence that Australia genuinely believes in equality and can undermine soft power attempts to emphasise the importance of democratic values internationally.
Research shows that growing racism is far from imagined. The Lowy Institute revealed that over a third of Chinese–Australians were treated differently or less favourably because of their Chinese heritage in 2020 and 2021. Quantitative surveying by the University of Melbourne comparing Australian and US attitudes also found that perceptions of China led to stronger negative feelings towards permanent residents of Chinese heritage in Australia. Polling conducted by the Australia–China Relations Institute in 2022 found that over four in ten respondents thought Australians of Chinese origin could be mobilised by China to undermine Australia’s interests and social cohesion.
No doubt these are complex and challenging issues to navigate, and Australia is not alone in trying to work through them. Comparable Western countries with sizeable Chinese diasporas such as Canada, the United States and New Zealand are experiencing similar debates. But navigating these issues requires a sober focus on policy solutions that are…
Business
Russia’s Booming Economy is Straining a Vital Trading Route with China
Russia’s railway industry is experiencing a significant downturn, with a nearly 30% investment cut and a 5% freight volume decline, complicating trade with China amidst the economic impacts of the Ukraine war.
Downward Trend in Russia’s Railway Industry
Russia’s railway industry is currently experiencing a significant downturn, largely due to the impacts of the ongoing conflict in Ukraine. According to MMI Research, this sector is facing its biggest slowdown since the Great Financial Crisis, with freight volumes dropping by 5% in the first 11 months of 2024. The war-driven economy has hindered trade, particularly with China, which heavily relies on rail transport.
Investment Cuts and Economic Consequences
Investment in Russia’s railways is set to decrease by almost 30% next year, dropping to 890 billion rubles (approximately $8.5 billion). This reduction is attributed to high interest rates, currently at a record 21%, which further complicate financing options. The state-owned Russian Railways is reconsidering future investments, indicating potential cuts by another third through 2030.
Challenges Affecting Trade with China
The decline in rail capacity poses significant challenges for Russia’s trade with China. As Western sanctions push Russia to diversify its trade routes, rail transport has become increasingly vital for moving goods. However, supply bottlenecks, exacerbated by the need to transport war-related materials, threaten to disrupt this crucial trading relationship further.
Source : Russia’s overheated economy is squeezing one of Moscow’s key trading channels with China
Business
Democrat Claims Musk is Undermining Spending Bill Due to China Restrictions – The Hill
A Democrat claims Elon Musk influenced the reduction of a spending bill due to its restrictions on China, suggesting his actions impacted the legislation’s progress and funding allocation.
Allegations Against Musk
A prominent Democrat has accused Elon Musk of deliberately sabotaging a significant spending bill in response to China-related restrictions. This accusation comes amid ongoing tensions between the U.S. and China, particularly regarding technology and trade policies. The claims suggest that Musk’s influence is affecting critical legislative processes, raising concerns among lawmakers about foreign influence in American politics.
Implications for Legislation
The potential ramifications of Musk’s alleged actions could be significant. As a major player in the tech industry, his decisions can sway public opinion and impact the economy. Lawmakers fear that if influential figures like Musk oppose necessary legislation, it might hinder efforts to address vital issues such as national security and economic stability.
Political Reactions
The controversy has sparked debates among both Democrats and Republicans, highlighting the intersection of technology and politics. Many are demanding greater transparency and accountability from tech giants. As the situation unfolds, lawmakers may need to reassess their strategies to ensure that essential legislation moves forward uninterrupted.
Source : Democrat accuses Musk of tanking spending bill over China restrictions – The Hill
China
Dissolving a Company in China: A Comparison of General Deregistration and Simplified Deregistration
China promotes simplified deregistration to enhance its business environment, offering a faster process requiring fewer documents than general deregistration. Companies must meet eligibility criteria, resolve issues, and can choose procedures based on their situation, ensuring compliance for both options.
In addition to the general deregistration procedures, China has been promoting simplified deregistration as one of the key measures to enhance its business environment. This article highlights the differences between the general and simplified procedures, explains the eligibility criteria, and clarifies common misunderstandings about these processes.
Foreign investors may decide to close their business for multiple reasons. To legally wind up a business, investors must complete a series of procedures involving multiple government agencies, such as market regulatory bureaus, foreign exchange administrations, customs, tax authorities, banking regulators, and others. In this article, we outline the company deregistration process overseen by the local Administration for Market Regulation (AMR), comparing the general and simplified procedures.
Before 2016, companies could only deregister through the general procedure. However, on December 26, 2016, the Guidance on Fully Promoting the Reform of Simplified Company Deregistration Procedures was released. Effective March 1, 2017, simplified deregistration procedures were implemented nationwide. Since then, there have been two options: general procedures and simplified procedures.
Companies must follow the general deregistration process if any of the following conditions apply (hereinafter referred to as “existing issues”):
Companies not facing the above issues may choose either the general or simplified deregistration process.
In summary, simplified deregistration is a faster process and requires fewer documents compared to general deregistration. Companies that meet the criteria typically would typically opt for simplified deregistration. Those that do not meet the criteria may choose this route after resolving outstanding issues. For companies with unresolved issues but seeking urgent closure, they can first publish a deregistration announcement. Once the announcement period ends and all issues are addressed, they can proceed with general deregistration. Some companies may question the legitimacy and compliance of simplified deregistration. This is a misconception. “Simplified” does not mean non-compliant, just as “general” does not imply greater legitimacy. Both processes are lawful and compliant. The AMR provides these options to enable companies ready for closure to complete the process efficiently while granting those with unsolved issues the necessary time to address them after publishing the deregistration announcement. Companies can select the most suitable process based on their specific circumstances.
| This article was first published by China Briefing , which is produced by Dezan Shira & Associates. The firm assists foreign investors throughout Asia from offices across the world, including in in China, Hong Kong, Vietnam, Singapore, and India . Readers may write to info@dezshira.com for more support. |
Read the rest of the original article.
- Russia’s Booming Economy is Straining a Vital Trading Route with China
- Democrat Claims Musk is Undermining Spending Bill Due to China Restrictions – The Hill
- Dissolving a Company in China: A Comparison of General Deregistration and Simplified Deregistration
- China’s influence grows at COP29 climate talks as US leadership fades
- HSBC Chairman to Head Key UK Business Delegation to China
- China’s November 2024 Economy: Navigating Mixed Signals and Ongoing Challenges
