The way various segments of the Australian media report on China’s COVID-19 experience reflects these media’s own fears and anxieties and their political, ideological, and cultural positions. More credible media outlets in Australia have mostly framed China’s efforts in political and ideological terms.
In comparison, the tabloid media have resorted to conspiratorial, racist, and Sino-phobic positions. Through my research, I found that the coverage of China’s experience is a continuation and embodiment of the “China threat” and “Chinese influence” discourses.
In February 2021, a New York Times (NYT) published a controversial article titled “On WHO Trip, China Refused to Hand Over Important Data”. The story, citing expert investigators who went to Wuhan, claims that ‘Chinese scientists refused to share raw data that might bring the world closer to understanding the origins of the coronavirus pandemic’. In response, Peter Daszak and Thea Kølsen Fischer, two members of the WHO expert team, lamented that the article intentionally misquoted or twisted their words.
The two experts’ repudiation of the article gave timely ammunition to the Global Times, China’s nationalistic state media outlet, which published an op-ed entitled: ‘WHO experts slam NYT for twisting, misquoting their words on virus origins probe’. In the article, Global Times quotes a Chinese professor, who says, ‘Throughout the WHO expert team’s trip in Wuhan, Western media’s goal had been to push their theories that China is guilty of causing the COVID-19 pandemic and hiding information’.
Media coverage of COVID-19 in China
The COVID-19 outbreak first started in January 2020 in China, a country ruled by the Chinese Communist Party. China exists in the imagination of the global West as diametrically different from ‘us’ in terms of ideology, political system, social and cultural practices, and cultural sensibility. The NYT controversy begs the question of whether there is indeed a pre-existing narrative framework in Western media’s coverage of COVID-19 related issues in China, and how prevalent this framework is.
To address these questions, I conducted a critical discourse analysis of major news stories, documentaries, opinions, and analyses published in Australia’s most influential media outlets between 1 January and 31 March 2020. I used three criteria to determine the suitability of material to be chosen for analysis: they must be (1) key media programs that are widely considered to be authoritative and trustworthy; (2) media stories written by journalists who enjoy the highest level of professional recognition in the field of journalism; or (3) media narratives that elicit the strongest responses from China, the Chinese-Australian community, and the English-speaking public in Australia.
In other words, rather than conducting a quantitative content analysis to gauge the accuracy of reporting, I wanted to identify the key themes, perspectives, and angles in these reports to understand the likely role that opinion leaders, high-impact media programs, news stories, and journalistic practices play in shaping public opinion of China and its handling of COVID-19. What I found is that the Australian media’s reporting on China’s COVID-19 experience says more about Australia’s own fears and anxieties and their political, ideological, and cultural positions than about the reality of how the Chinese government managed, and the Chinese people experienced, COVID-19.
Political climate and media landscape
Australia has had to reckon with the fact that its economic prosperity relies on China, a country that is not a liberal democracy. Australia does business with China but partners with the US on national security. In the past few years, there has been growing fear in Australia about China’s political and economic influence, paralleled by a noticeable shift in the media towards what I called ‘adversarial journalism’ in the coverage of China. An anti-Chinese public discourse in the ‘China influence’ narrative, which predated COVID-19, configures China as an external threat and a strategic enemy.
Australia has a bifurcated media landscape, featuring both a strong public broadcasting sector such as the Australian Broadcasting Corporation (ABC) and a competitive commercial sector. The ABC’s flagship programs include influential programs such as the weekly Four Corners, described by the ABC as ‘Australia’s premier investigative journalism program’ and Q+A, a high-profile panel discussion program that features politicians and opinion leaders. The commercial sector is much more complex, with some media outlets seeking to offer quality journalism on one end, and tabloid press offering less edifying content on the other.
Using the criteria outlined above, I sampled the entire array of Australian media, including both television and radio programs from the ABC, commercial media outlets such as Murdoch’s The Australian newspaper and Nine Entertainment’s The Sydney Morning Herald, and several tabloid papers (also backed by Murdoch).
Key Findings
One of my key findings is that there was a high level of unfavourable reporting about China in relation to COVID-19, regardless of whether it was the public or commercial media, liberal or conservative media. China’s success in controlling the virus was often simply left out. Despite the effectiveness of China’s strategy in reducing numbers of infections and deaths, the Australian media looked elsewhere — such as South Korea, Singapore and Taiwan — for lessons.
Notwithstanding the overall unfavourable tone of reporting on China, there were some differences between the media outlets. For instance, the ABC, informed by a liberal framework, focused on criticizing China’s lack of transparency and government control, and selected stories from the perspective of censorship, propaganda, and draconian public health measures.
The respectable end of the commercial press, such as Sydney Morning Herald, focused its reporting on the Chinese Australians’ two-way efforts in sourcing masks and medical supplies. In doing so, it continued its China influence narrative by framing Chinese Australians as objects of suspicion with questionable loyalty to Australia.
Meanwhile, the tabloid press and shock-jock radio consistently fanned anti-Chinese hatred, further fuelling the fear of the ‘yellow peril’, anxiety about ‘reds under the bed’, and the racist idea of the Chinese as an alien and repugnant people who eat bats.
The most significant finding was a conflation of political authoritarianism with normal public health measures — a key feature of the ABC’s reporting of China and COVID-19.
Of course, it could be argued that aspects of China’s authoritarian politics in some ways contributed to or exacerbated the pandemic. This view seems to be implicit in criticisms of the Hubei government’s failure to inform Beijing promptly, and its attempts to suppress individuals wanting to blow the whistle. The mistakes made by Hubei’s government were mostly framed as manifestations of China’s authoritarianism. This may indeed be the case. Yet in contrast, when similar mistakes were made in Australia at both federal and state government levels, they have typically been reported as bureaucratic bungles or administrative mishandlings.
When an entire range of coercive measures were put in place by the Australian governments — such as compulsory social distancing, mandatory quarantine, and hefty fines for refusal to wear masks — they were justified as extraordinary but necessary public health measures. But similar measures used in China were taken as evidence of China’s infringement of human rights, disrespect for civil liberty, and abuse of power typical of an authoritarian regime.
Despite the goal of producing ‘objective’ or ‘balanced’ media content, the frames, perspectives, and discursive positions that are adopted in such reporting are often pre-determined. The virus may know no boundaries, but media reporting on virus-related issues is profoundly bound up with ideology, politics, and the cultural identity of a nation.
Wanning Sun is a professor of media and cultural studies at the University of Technology, Sydney. She also serves as the deputy director of the UTS Australia-China Relations Institute. She is a fellow of the Australian Academy of the Humanities and a member of the Australian Research Council’s College of Experts (2020-23). She is best known in the field of China studies for her ethnography of rural-to-urban migration and social inequality in contemporary China. She writes about Chinese diaspora, diasporic Chinese media, and Australia-China relations.
Comments
64 responses to “Fear and Loathing: Australian media on China and Covid-19”
Interesting work, thank you for telling us about your work. I hope they encourage greater reflection among journalists on how parochialism affects their objectivity.
Go back further!
SARS and MERS will enlighten you about new forms of supposedly banned warfare. If war is not declared and is conducted by one segment of society against most of the others, is it war? The world is getting smaller.
Much money has been invested into viruses and vaccines. Time for dividends is now and the foreseeable future. Blame China as they have little profile in ‘our’ media. This is not a nations issue, it is one where the well prepared invest and reap rewards with the complicity of media and medical and Pharma establishment.
All the anti inflammatories exist in a sensible diet, including exposure to the Sun. But why allow science to spoil a good investment?
“What I found is that the Australian media’s reporting on China’s
COVID-19 experience says more about Australia’s own fears and anxieties
and their political, ideological, and cultural positions…”
“Australia’s own fears…” can be read as the fears promoted by a politically driven mainstream media in order to distract from the misdemeanours of the government which the media’s owners have under their collective thumbs.
Fear of the “other” is easy to generate in a generally ill educated and generally gullible public.
That’s brilliant, a very significant observation expressed in a very simple way.
Nigel: Isn’t it possible that ‘Australia’s own fears’ have more do with Australia having to face up to loss of American hegemony?
Australia has always sheltered under the military/diplomatic wing of a great and powerful friend. This friend was Britain until Singapore and the hard cold reality that the Brits were powerless to protect Australia was obvious. We then recalled our troops from the European war and seamlessly transferred our security allegiance to the USA who took us on as a useful compliant vassal state. There was no real drama as there was no split between our security and trading interests.
But now our security protector is not only unraveling but is also at odds with a rising power which will not compromise on its own sovereignty and which is our major trading partner. This is new and Australia has to chart an unfamiliar course. There is no doubt that our present nincompoop of a Prime Minister doesn’t have a clue what to do or how to protect our security and trading interests, but the fears that any rational Australian must have are not groundless or part of mere distraction ploy. In other words, our pisspoor COVID – 19 reporting was to please our security protector rather than start the scary business of truly becoming an independent Nation.
When you say “Australia’s fears” exactly which Australians are you referring to?
The majority of the hoi polloi are blissfully ignorant of the high level manipulations which govern their lives, so any fears that they may have are more personal and intimate, and it is those insecurities which the-powers-that-be ignite and stoke for profit and control.
We of the lesser orders are merely pawns in the power games which the psychopaths in governments, corporations and religions play.
I’m old, and have had a good education, both formally and in the many years of experience gained through the benefits of having a great deal of time on my hands due to the forced unemployment of physical infirmity; time in which I have watched, studied and learned.
Of course, rational Australians, given less dishonest education and ‘newspapers’ etc. might see through the gambits, but they have rarely had truthful information upon which to form sound opinions on international affairs. The old adage: “Bullshit Baffles Brains” was not not arrived at in a vaccuum. Try P.T. Barnum’s point regarding the “bunkum” with which he allured the public into his shows and circuses.
No Eliza, the fears that ordinary Australians are afflicted by are much more parochial, tribal and personal and it is upon those fears and insecurities that the wealthy and priviledged continue to prey and prosper from.
Two weeks after Mr. Trump lost the election, thirty-four CDC scientists announced that Covid-19 was endemic in the USA in 2019, which did not surprise NIH Director Francis Collins who said, “The virus might have been spreading quietly in humans for years, or even decades, without causing a detectable outbreak.”
Six weeks later the WHO found no evidence of Covid in China before December 2019.
Now the WHO wants access to CDC records.
If he grants access, Biden will destroy Trump’s chances for 2024–but also destroy what remains of America’s credibility.
The smart money is on Options 1.
I like the ‘God free’ implication. 😉
The concept put forward by many epidemiologists that such diseases must have a starting point is itself fallacious in as much that a virus can be present in a population long before it reaches a critical mass, infectiousness and/or ubiquity.
Dr. Robert Redfield of CDC pretty much confirmed that Covid was already in the US weeks/months before: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Y_dU2RCqWs4
Notice, only 100k hits on this video. Thanks to Google algorithms!
The ABC’s anti-China adversarial journalism is the most interesting. In the ABC, we see journalistic vanity at its purest, because work at the ABC is freer from the exigencies of money-making than in the commercial media. ABC journalistic vanity is centred on the power of journalists to make or break the government, especially to break it. Government can be broken by an accumulation of slanted reporting, hostile interviews, sympathetic interviews with those hostile to the government, videos of people screaming abuse about the government, etc.. We see or read it every day whatever the government in Australia. The personal political power of journalists is very significant in Australia. They tried the same tactics in China and were treated like virus particles. The truth hurt their vanity so much that they are on the war-path against it.
“
Governmentopposition can be broken by an accumulation of slanted reporting,hostile interviews, sympathetic interviews with those hostile to the
governmentgeneral public…” getting elected to Government in a “Miracle” of popular gullibilty.I don’t mean “government” or “opposition” in the debating sense. I mean it in the sense of “administration”. I despise debating.
Nor I – I’m using it in a parliamentry sense.
Professor Sun,
Thank you for a very well written article. Your arguments are sound, well reasoned and supported by evidence. I truly look forward to a more detailed account of your analysis.
The problem with getting across a well reasoned and evidenced based argument to the general populace is that they do not make good or easy bedtime reading. In the battle between an argument based on fact and one based on rhetoric and propaganda, the one based on rhetoric/propaganda wins every time. In order to obtained a truthful, reasoned and nuanced understanding, one has to commit oneself to the due diligence of extensive and cognitively demanding reading. One good example is the article today by retired HK judge Henry Litton: Australia to welcome Hong Kong ‘democrats’: are they a proxy for others? It is a thought provoking article that deals with legal and political issues.
On the other hand, we have mainstream media presentations that are shallow (not always but most of the time) and easy quick fixes with a MacDonalds-like appeal. They reinforce the efficacy of their journalism with spin and conspiracy theories that capitalise on the fears, insecurities and prejudices of their audience. Often they plant the fears at the same time. This is an unfortunate truth that reasonable people in this country face. If we draw a graph of people who carry out due diligence and population numbers on an x/y scale, I bet we will get the normal or bell curve. The mainstream media are pitched at the top of the bell for audience while articles like yours and Henry Litton’s cater for the distant end or thin end of the curve. I even suspect that a huge number of the readers of P&I are grey haired men and women who are better informed, well educated and experienced members of our society.
Sincerely,
Teow Loon Ti
Thanks Wanning Sun, it is very interesting and very revealing work you have done.
Media coverage over China and Coronavirus has been appalling in Australia but it is only part of the wider picture of negative media commentary that has been served out to China for a number of years now at continuous play and full volume. Any dirt file will do, and much of it is fake news, or cast in a way that is patronising and treating China like a child. When Coronavirus started it simply became another opportunity to lay the boot in. Scientific fact was invalidated in the haste to associate Chinese people as spreaders of the virus, and Trump with his utter racism had to call it “Kung Floo” or “Chinavirus”. Morrison led the charge with pushing for special inquiries in Wuhan, ‘Chinese people can never be trusted’ being the subtle meme.
In my experience which goes back to the war in Vietnam, I have never seen such a concerted campaign of bad mouthing directed at only one country for such a prolonged period of time. It’s a stunner, even worse than the case that was made for the illegal invasion of Iraq. It’s the most prominent example by far that I have ever witnessed of Noam Chomsky’s ‘manufacturing consent’. The consent in this case is for hot war, or a continued conspiratorial trade war by 5 Eyes countries designed to choke China’s ability to do business. This is brought on by the world’s biggest bully called the US. Its a campaign of hate. No one can else can be number one in the world it appears.
Ironically the mistrust shown to China seems to be driven by Western fears that are based on what Western countries have traditionally done themselves. They interpret everything through their own lens. The US is so caught up in the notion that there can only be one superior player in the world, it cannot accept any other rival players. It’s alpha-male stuff. Surprisingly it hasn’t crossed their minds that multipolarity is possible and necessary in the world and that we all need to work together much more in facing the problems we have in the future on Earth; they have gotten far too used to pushing and having their way for unsustainable dreams. So they cast China in the same light revealing their own bad habits. Even Biden thinks multipolarity means forming a posse of like minded lackeys; another ‘coalition of the willing’ to contain or repress China.
Multipolarity, sure, … just so long as America dominates.
As China becomes increasingly prosperous, which of course translates into power, they misjudge what China intends, based on what they would do themselves, and that is usually to dominate and suppress. Suppression and repression are synonyms for ‘contain’, a euphemism par excellence like ‘collateral damage’. But the US have now confirmed this as the name of the game. They denied it before.
Australia having no independence in the least, just follows orders, as any vassal state should. I have often wondered whether elements of the media are now being paid by the CIA to write psyops stories. Or is the media so bad here that it has become like a cult where everyone speeds to out race journalist’s views? Out do each other over a common vector? Or just making money out of another elaborate profit scheme based on promulgating extreme fear?
Fear sells, we all know that. It rates above sex, drugs, violence, and even the Royal Family.
There has been a great effort way beyond fair criticism of China and much of it fits modern definitions of racism. This in particular due to the concentration of negative articles and a mono-focus on just one country. While China does not do things perfectly, it is absurd that there has been resurrection of old issues such as Tibet for some strange reason given Mao’s force’s moved in there in 1949, and that the British had previously endorsed China to accept Tibet as its protectorate. At that time the idea of the Russians getting the ‘ear of Tibet’ was far more threatening. The ‘Great Game’ it was called: keeping Russia out of India. It is still going on today. The Uyghur issue going back to the 1920s is now so clouded with false information that it is absurd, non sequitur. Who to believe? And what makes Australia or the US, such superior custodians of human rights righteousness?
There are members of the current government and in their ‘run to’ media who are also members, or have been members, of the IPA (Institute of Public Affairs). When Abbott was elected, they gave out a list of 150 directives for Abbott’s new Liberal Government to achieve. One of the directives said: “Abolish the Australian Human Rights Commission.”
A couple of short definitions of racism from the Australian Human Rights website:
Racism takes many forms and can happen in many places. It includes prejudice, discrimination or hatred directed at someone because of their colour, ethnicity or national origin.
That is well manifested in Australia for reasons I have already cited, and also the effect in Australia which has led to significant percentages of people of Chinese and Asian ethnicities being racially abused. Trump used racism to appeal to his base over and over again. No one said a word in the main stream media. It was just ‘robust diplomacy’.
Racist crimes against Asian people are now happening in the USA as well.
Much hate has been pushed by the media in very subtle sometimes subliminal ways, but the constant berating about one country works a treat. Most people in Australia know very little about China, and it is not the first time Chinese people have been singled out. It was the basis of White Australia Policy that finally was ended by Whitlam. Whenever images of China are presented it is often of the Chinese military, as the ABC did last week when covering Linda Reynolds’ absence. While mentioning her hospital stay, subtly they had to make out that this was something to fear given we are living in dangerous times, this being accompanied with images of Chinese soldiers marching during the coverage. Such blatant yet subtle propaganda from Auntie would have impressed Goebbels.
Racism is more than just words, beliefs and actions. It includes all the barriers that prevent people from enjoying dignity and equality because of their race.
Well if there is no racism in Australia then why are Chinese people having to face racist attacks? The media and government’s anti-Chinese wrath is certainly stopping many here ” from enjoying dignity and equality because of their race”.
Well said, and one would add a potential cause, the issue of media and its HR cohort of baby boomers in the production background. They are mostly white European men and women in a hollowed out and under resourced sector, too close to political power populated by those similar to themselves, and a mutually beneficial relationship with power, mostly (ex. black swan events then it’s panic).
The same media class becomes compromised (unwittingly) by spouting consistent themes, messages and talking points provided by MPs (based upon pollsters) and/or think tanks’ ‘research’ so that they become captive to the same words and themes (formally known as ‘connectivity’ theory in learning); in a ‘bubble’ that takes heuristic shortcuts vs. understanding issues (the latter through long standing focus upon a sector, vs. the former more about generalist knowledge).
For example, on one hand we have (data illiterate) journalists spouting obsessively the ‘population growth’, NOM, ‘immigration’ and refugee ‘issues’ as negative, via proxy issues, hence, ‘dog whistling’ directly imported from US GOP and related, on the other positive immigrant or refugee stories have been disappeared from media for the past two decades…..
Yet, how many journalists are conscious of this bias, let alone able to analyse and discuss? Apart from some exceptions at TG, Crikey and here, none?
The biggest issue with this article is it still discusses China under the Anglo context of “good vs. evil”. Good = they become like us (liberal democracy!!!), evil = they are not like us (teh commies!!!!). While it’s useful as a framework for domestic propaganda for the plebs, being a “professor” with lots of credentials, I would have expected Ms Sun to be a bit more enlightened?
– It’s never about good vs evil, it’s always about can the US keep control of the world through military and dollar hegemony. China just so happens to be the one that can challenge US and likely to succeed.
– Remember Vietnam was all praised by Trump to take some manufacturing away from China and is Vietnam a “liberal democracy”, how about Saudi Arabia?
– China accidentally provides an alternative to the neo-lib agenda. If China succeeds, it may destabilise all countries with neo-lib populous voting political systems that actually benefit the elite class.
– Knowing the above, it gives motivation for China to be demonised at all cost to preserve the current neo-lib capitalist system which benefits the capital class at the expense of the labour class (asset price inflation outstripping wage inflation)
– Meanwhile, the current “democractic” system is slowly crumbling. Why? Because it’s a really sh.t political system that doesn’t solve societal issues. While it was fine when the West was receiving colonialist dividends, whole society was being lifted post WWII, those dividends have dried up and society have been stagnant, the internal social problems are getting worse and worse which is why Trump was elected.
– Australia is just having a delayed reckoning mainly due to dividend received from the China resource boom
– China bashing not only preserve current corrupt politcal systems, but also serves as a useful distraction to the current western political system’s failure. As the Anglo’s way is to solve domestic problems internationally and to solve economic problems militarily.
“Of course, it could be argued that aspects of China’s authoritarian politics in some ways contributed to or exacerbated the pandemic. This view seems to be implicit in criticisms of the Hubei government’s failure to inform Beijing promptly, and its attempts to suppress individuals wanting to blow the whistle.”
Again Ms Sun falls into the I believe whatever crap MSM spews out as long as they repeat it enough times. There was NO cover up, China informed WHO about the outbreak on December 31st 2019 (it’s on the f.cking WHO webpage FFS) Even with hindsight, I believe China could not have done any better. The fact that Ms Sun even suggest this garbage tells me she’s really just part of the establishment or just an amateur with lots of useless credentials.
https://www.who.int/csr/don/05-january-2020-pneumonia-of-unkown-cause-china/en/
Excellent points, Meeple! I assume Ms Sun does her research within some terms of reference. Perhaps she can’t say the bleeding obvious. Or does not want to do so.
The one point I would add is that the world is lucky that it was China that had to deal with it, and to provide the gene sequence by 11th January 2020. Western countries should be freaking grateful, instead of throwing stones at China!
The alternative hypothesis is censorship at ANU. You have to say certain key phrases to get things past the editorial board. The China coverup COVID story is so easily dismissed, I find it hard that Ms Sun can be THIS ignorant.
I don’t have high regards for CIW (where this article was first published), If you read their coverage on HK in the China Yearbook, it’s the same MSM shit but with more detail. https://www.thechinastory.org/yearbooks/yearbook-2019-china-dreams/chapter-2-hong-kongs-reckoning/
They also tend to analyse every utterance of Xi in the lens of propaganda and ulterior motive like you would if some elected unaccountable leader in the West tends be analysed.
“Escalating violence in Hong Kong, the ongoing suppression of Uyghurs in Xinjiang and deteriorating Sino-US relations dominated the headlines.” I like how academia and MSM point at each other as source of truth recursively. You have this BS year book pointing to all the propaganda headlines as source, and then you have MSM pointing to these “China expert organisations” for the same arguments, You really can’t make this sh.t up.
You are actually dumber if you read the ANU China year book, it’s 100% Anglo lens version of China. BIt ironic given their mission statement “The Centre is an initiative of the Australian Government in collaboration with the ANU, a university with the most significant concentration of dedicated Chinese Studies expertise in the world.”
I’m leaning towards this is more ANU censorship and propaganda. A bunch of yes men for the establishment.
I reckon you’re being a bit harsh, Meeps.
After reading some of the criticisms, I went back and read it again.
My initial take was Ms Sun had written it from a ‘dispassionate observer’s’ perspective, with a clear analytical background in the field.
Reading it, again, didn’t alter that assessment.
A couple of key phrases/terms she used, which I think exemplify the perspective she employed;
“…media programs that are widely considered to be authoritative and trustworthy…”
“…journalists who enjoy the highest level of professional recognition in the field of journalism…”
“…China exists in the imagination of the global West as diametrically different from ‘us’ in terms of ideology, political system, social and cultural practices, and cultural sensibility….
Ms Sun is not reflecting on merit, just local perceptions – which is I think reasonable, given what she set out to do.
And, I think it’s tough to say fairer than this, as she did;”
“..What I found is that the Australian media’s reporting on China’s COVID-19 experience says more about Australia’s own fears and anxieties and their political, ideological, and cultural positions than about the reality of how the Chinese government managed, and the Chinese people experienced, COVID-19…
Sure a lot of the article does provide good analysis BUT…..
“Of course, it could be argued that aspects of China’s authoritarian politics in some ways contributed to or exacerbated the pandemic. This view seems to be implicit in criticisms of the Hubei government’s failure to inform Beijing promptly, and its attempts to suppress individuals wanting to blow the whistle. The mistakes made by Hubei’s government were mostly framed as manifestations of China’s authoritarianism. This may indeed be the case.”
Repeating lies, giving it some glimmer of credibility to BS while not refuting them with a simple fact check on WHO’s homepage suggest to me something is not right. I still stand by either there’s censorship involved or she’s more ignorant than meets the eye. You can’t be this incompetent as a “China expert”.
In terms of the whole pandemic show, and the plethora of ínvestigations into WTF happened, I shall now invoke the words of Zhou EnLai, to explain how I interpreted the paragraph you’ve quoted (and that interpretation noted many a “may”, “seems”, “could”, “implicit” – not “inferred” in that paragraph);
In 1972, Chinese premier Zhou Enlai was asked about the impact of the French Revolution. “Too early to say,” he replied. Given that the French Revolution of 1789 had occurred nearly 200 years before””.
Now, before anyone leaps up to explain Zhuo wasn’t referring to the French Revolution, but the ’68 student and labour unrest in France, note he was saying it was too early to conclude what the effect might be, 4 years after it happened.
I’ve still got 3 years up my sleeve.
Agree.
Ms Sun was giving us a qualitative assessment of mainstream media coverage of China’s handling of COVID – 19 in Australia rather than reflecting on merit or otherwise of the Chinese and/or Australian response.
The most interesting part of her appraisal was of the coverage by the ABC which tallies very much with my impressions. The ABC did portray the public health measures China undertook as instances of its inherent authoritarianism, but the same measures undertaken within Australia, especially during the Melbourne/Vic lockdown, were reported as sensible public health measures which worked.
We heard very little of the voluntary compliance of the Chinese to the restrictions on their daily lives or support by the government and its officials; it was all measures imposed by an authoritarian government on an oppressed people. The same measures within Australia where lauded as examples of our citizens’ commitment to the public good.
The ABC can do some good stuff but not with anything that touches on the US alliance or Australia’s dilemma re the split between our economic and trading interests with China and our security reliance on the US. OT but while the US may have rid itself of Trump and his winning ways, it now has a President that just called Putin ‘a killer’ who is not in possession of a soul. Time to become a little more non-aligned.
Find the Russian coverage of the exchange b/w Biden and Putin, Eliza.
Example, the Moscow correspondent for the Financial Times (now Japanese owned, and mostly edited in Lebanon – I kid you not!), Max Seddon – he’s the one who said Putin’s response was ‘takes one to know one’, re Biden’s reference to him being a “killer”. That then became the Western media’s major take on what Putin said.
Utter nonsense – what Putin said was Biden was “projecting” on to him, what Biden inherently knew himself to be.
And, as I’ve just suggested to Meeple further down, find Maxim A. Suchkov’s twitter feed, for more of what Putin actually said.
Now, it won’t play in Western media (never does), but it will, and always does, in the non-Western ‘Rest of the World’, particularly the Global South, and most of Eurasia east of Ukraine.
It didn’t take me long to figure out chinastory.org is often just a propaganda tool. https://www.thechinastory.org/china-neican-15-march-2021/ . Since it is the ANU, perhaps it is part of the ‘truth management’ by our government. Don’t know about these professors, but I read that a Chinese professor at UTS that they regularly wheel out to talk about China works for ASIO too!
I take what they write at face value. But you are right to be critical. Lots of B/S out there claimed by China-born ‘specialists’ who do exactly what Uighur exiles do! (I do make an exception for those who have suffered terribly from the Cultural Revolution- they are justified to be bitter but they would be people who are quite old by now).
Checkout the most recent fascist development as we speak:
https://www.canberratimes.com.au/story/7174107/follow-foreign-influence-rules-or-be-turned-off-anu-head-warns/?cs=14350
Many Chinese people are very hesitant to speak out, it is characteristic behaviour, especially when no one here gives a toss about what they say. At the moment any person of Chinese heritage that works in a university could be selected for a ‘burn the witch/warlock hunt’.
“The inquiry was launched following concerns raised by researchers over the influence foreign countries, including China…”
lol but excluding US or anyone part of the Western hegemony. Maybe Australia is already owned by the US so it can’t be considered a foreign entity? Truely astounding stuff.
In the meantime:
The CIA’s investment fund is stalking Australian tech startups and has opened a local office
https://www.smh.com.au/business/banking-and-finance/the-cia-s-investment-fund-is-stalking-australian-tech-startups-and-has-opened-a-local-office-20190610-p51w3r.html
History is so much more demented than even the most deranged work of fiction.
I totally agree
“Truth is stranger than fiction.” I’ve heard it often said.
Not just Chinese, but anyone visible in the community with China-friendly views. Shaoquett Moselmane told me that it was ‘tough experience (him being picked up by the AFP), media manipulation and beat up inflamed hate to another level’.
US-China talks in Anchorage meeting began with a very unfriendly start. We could be entering really dangerous times. Maybe I should prepare for a stint in the internment camp!
From the SMH
… talks between top US and China officials since Joe Biden’s inauguration have got off to a fiery start, with America’s top diplomat warning his counterparts that China will create “a far more violent world” unless it respects global rules.
Such bullshit posturing and typical finger pointing. Look over there not at us.
Nobody can out do the US for violence, even within their own country.
unless it respects global rules.
Yeah like illegal wars in Iraq, Diego Garcia, interference in Hong Kong, and abuse of any country’s sovereignty.
Violent Crime Rates by Country 2021:
United States 5.35 per 100,000
China 0.62 per 100,000
https://worldpopulationreview.com/country-rankings/violent-crime-rates-by-country
Even worse are the frothing plebs reading this garbage. Top comment with most likes:
“Bravo USA.
For China to try and avoid criticism by telling others to get their house in order before criticising China is ridiculous. Free and democratic countries like Australia and USA are fully open and transparent about past atrocities and injustices and are actively and sincerely trying to improve the plight of all their citizens. This is in stark contrast to China who is actively and sincerely trying to remove individual rights and freedoms as we speak.
The CCP is the most disgraceful, hypocritical and dangerous organisation in the world today.”
Laughable. The propaganda is so thick
Already crashed on both Russia and China in 24 hrs.
Conclusion from David Goldman piece in Asiatimes today:
**** Just what do the Louis Napoleons of the US national security establishment have in mind? Victoria Nuland, that is, Robert Kagan, wrote in the March/April issue of Foreign Affairs:
“The time has come to tell Americans that there is no escape from global responsibility, that they have to think beyond the protection of the homeland. They need to understand that the purpose of NATO and other alliances is to defend not against direct threats to US interests but against a breakdown of the order that best serves those interests. They need to be told honestly that the task of maintaining a world order is unending and fraught with costs but preferable to the alternative.
A failure to be square with the American people has led the country to its current predicament, with a confused and angry public convinced that its leaders are betraying American interests for their own nefarious, “globalist” purposes. The antidote to this is not scaring the hell out of them about China and other threats but trying to explain, again, why the world order they created still matters. This is a job for Joe Biden and his new administration”.
There is no way to parse out of Kagan’s peroration what sort of policy he has in mind. As matters stand, Joe Biden will stand godfather to a Chinese-Russian-European coalescence that will dominate Eurasia and the world economy. ****
Tells me that the masters-of-the-universe are not so secure these days. Worried about China and Russia, and the Germans finally breaking off to better secure their own interests by linking up with them (China and Russia).
Here I reversed part of the article on the Alaska meeting so that China replaces America etc etc. You get to see the bias that way, and what it would be like if China said the same things.
Beijing: The first in-person talks between top Chinese and US officials since Joe Biden’s inauguration have got off to a fiery start, with China’s top diplomat warning his counterparts that the US will create “a far more violent world” unless it respects global rules.
Director of the Central Foreign Affairs Yang Jiechi and China’s State Councillor Wang Yi made a point of abandoning traditional niceties by inviting CCTV cameras and reporters back into the meeting room to capture them trading barbs with their American counterparts in Shaoshan village, Hunan, on Friday (早上 九 点 半 ).
The meeting was supposed to begin with two-minute (二分钟) statements from each side before the media departed but the opening exchanges extended well beyond that as rival American diplomats tried to have the last word.
American officials said it was hypocritical of China to complain about America’s human rights record and accuse it of cyber espionage, given the US’s complete denial of racism against African Americans. China also accused the US of being a global “champion of cyber attacks”.
At the outset of the two-day summit in 中国, Yang Jiechi said the Chinese team would “discuss our deep concerns with actions by America , including in Diego Garcia, the illegal war in Iraq, meddling in Taiwan, cyber attacks, and economic coercion to contain our country”…
“Each of these actions threaten the rules-based order that maintains global stability,” Yang said.
Very good, George. Shows again who the real bully is!
(Foreign Minister Wang Yi was also not happy about how they were being treated. “Not the way to treat your guests..”. I think the tension is escalating fast. Scary times ahead)
Well setting up the cameras is a dead giveaway. Putting on a show for the folks back home. Why didn’t they put on boxing gloves?
The whole thing appears to be a set up to make Biden look like a tough guy.
It’s disappointing that in the last 24 hrs Russia and China have copped Biden’s shirtfronting. So the traditional cold war enemies are back. What a dumb way to start.
Is it possible that male world leaders can discuss anything without it being a competition and a punch up to start with.
I made a few updates. Hope you like.
What’s more disturbing is that even sections that are typically apolitical is now a political opinion piece.
Traveller, a fairfax travel website already under represent China and way over represent Japan, but now has an entire article on how scary Urumqi is cuz the guy had his baggage X-rayed and there were police around the place! Like nobody has their sh.t x-rayed at customs before with custom officers everywhere.
The whole article didn’t even talk about what he actually did there, or where he visited. Just a complete piece on how sh.t scared he is going through customs in a TRAVEL Magazine.
Well done Fairfax.
https://www.traveller.com.au/urumqi-china-the-home-of-the-uighurs-is-one-of-the-scariest-places-on-earth-h1m2t6
“Forget Colombia or Iran or the DRC. Xinjiang is the scariest place I’ve ever been.”
Psyops cyclopes !
You gonna love this.
The budget for western propaganda is razor thin these days. Still remember that Kwait actor “Nayirah” who was full of sh.t. Well we have a Nayirah version 2.0. Meet Tursunay Ziawudun, the latest from CNN is that she is claiming rape in Xinjiang! Oh no! bring the tissue boxes.
Allegations of shackled students and gang rape inside China’s detention camps
https://edition.cnn.com/2021/02/18/asia/china-xinjiang-teacher-abuse-allegations-intl-hnk-dst/index.html
“‘Then I was gang raped’”
The thing is if you gonna make up a BS story, you need to make sure you use someone who hasn’t been interviewed before in a prior propaganda campaign. The reasons are OBVIOUS.
Alas she is 2nd hand goods when it comes to propaganda, as she was interviewed 2 years prior by RFA and yet she didn’t claim she was gang raped then! lol
https://www.rfa.org/english/news/uyghur/abuse-10302019142433.html
“Ziyawudun said that of all the women in the cell, only she and one elderly lady were spared from allegations of crimes committed, adding that she believes officials were afraid to charge her because her husband is a Kazakh national.”
FFS guys, this is really bad propaganda.
As Goebbels demonstrated, it doesn’t have to be good or logical. It’s about emotions, images of the targeted people looking and behaving in evil ways, and projecting hate. Simple.
Orwell was also spot on with the 2 minutes of hate in 1984. Once they are primed up and yelling with venom at the baddies on the screen, you can even switch from enemy to ally as the target, and they don’t even notice.
They just love it- the frothing! Anything that helps affirm their prejudice, and 19th Century colonialist thinking!
“affirm their prejudice”, you are not talking about Barney are you?
I shall let Barney confirm!
Uncle Sam is the only developed nation that dropped a freaking BOMB on their OWN CIVILIAN population during peacetime!
Hey just a bunch of African slaves so who cares.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/1985_MOVE_bombing
“The MOVE Commission issued its report on March 6, 1986. The report denounced the actions of the city government, stating that “Dropping a bomb on an occupied row house was unconscionable.”[15] Following the release of the report, Goode made a formal public apology.[16] No one from the city government was criminally charged in the attack.”
So much accountability. Keep voting morons.
Ah, Meeps, My Man!! Go and find the twitter feed of one Maxim A. Suchkov, and read the extract he used from Vladimir Putin’s speech to the Crimeans, on the 7th anniversary of them voting to remain Russian.
A root and branch deconstruction of Amerikan, and European, colonial bastardry in 3 or 4 paragraphs – brilliant, as always.
And, then to quote, in part;
“… we are different people, we have a different genetic, cultural and moral code, but we know how to defend our own interests…..They will have to reckon with this, despite all attempts to stall our development, despite all the sanctions, insults, they will have to reckon with this”.
In the years since my study of political science, and modern political history, I seem to have missed the memo, updating the definition of democracy to include the word ‘liberal.’ Generally speaking, a liberal democracy is one that includes multiple political parties, something that earlier definitions of democracy omitted and often opposed.
Political parties pollute the process of democracy, or so went the arguments I read as a youth, and it takes little scrutiny to realise this is largely true. Beyond that point, it is often argued that even the small amount of democratic participation the people as a whole have, is merely a sop to reinforce the illusion of choice.
Most people dont like the implications of the previous two paragraphs, but I note that Chris Hedges, the celebrated critic of US political norms, has, over the last few years, abandoned the idea of changing the system via the ballot box, because in his reading of things, the political establishment as it is presently configured, will simply not allow the necessary changes to manifest. And while we imagine as voters we are choosing our governments, it is worth also noting that over the past two and a half centuries, the US has always chosen between the Democrats and the Republicans, and here in Australia we have always had the Labour Party on one side, and the conservative forces, under various guises on the other. In the UK, it was for much of the time a choice between Whigs and Tories. This changed at the end of the 19th century when the Whigs lost out to the Labour Party. Not much change there.
None of this is to argue that these forms of government dont work, but to call them ‘democratic’, as opposed to the ‘authoritarian’ one party state of China is a bit of a stretch. Wanning Sun writes that China is ‘ruled’ by the Chinese Communist Party, but while the CCP makes the rules, it doesnt administer them. This is done by provincial parties elected by the people. So, democracy of some kind is included in the political mix.
And incidentally, this means that the so called delays, that the west accuses Beijing of in the early days of covid, was not caused by the CCP but by the elected administration in Hubei.
The whole definition of democracy have been corrupted at the dictionary level. It’s turned into partisan politics with a side show of pleb voting. This political system will never work as it is rigid, stale, resistant to any reform and will collapse like it has in the past. It does not solve societal problems.
The only reason why it lasted so long are due to colonial dividends which was growing the pie. During good times, ANY system will work. This has now ran out and you can see slowly US tearing itself apart.
Democracy is an outcome, not a political system defined by Oxford. Partisan politics doesn’t achieve democracy. It just service the oligarchs who are born again nobels after they successfully toppled the monarchs while giving plebs the hope of change, not any actual change (Obama anyone?). Remember that phrase, hope springs eternal, it can last a long time before the pitchforks come out.
The joke is China has 1 name with many parties, the West has 1 party with many names.
Obama ‘Yes We Can” was the darling of Wall Street and the Pentagon. Gave blank cheques to rescue his banker mates, 1 trillion dollars to upgrade nuclear bombs. Many said he did less for blacks compared to Bush or Trump. Also famously killed many via drones over the mountains of Pakistan and Pashtun. He was a black man serving his white patrons. They gave him many millions for his book. For the trillions that he gave them!
The West has 1 party… and behind the many names is the Deep State! (And the Deep State was happy with Obama too!)
Mr Harrison, your comment reminds me that a long time ago, the British were aware of the problems of a democracy dominated by two parties. I remember in 1964, when I sat for my Cambridge School Certificate examinations, one of the essay questions for my English paper was “A two party government does not ensure democracy” (or something of that nature, I can’t remember the exact wording). That stuck indelibly in my mind. Of course I chose another question for my essay because I was not well enough informed in politics. As in all human undertakings, no systems of government work perfectly. Democracy is as much an ideal as socialism. They shine only when they are run by competent, honest and forward looking governments. Singapore is a good example. Beside China, it is one other country that has been very successful in catching up with the developed world, minus many of the social problems in these other countries. Of course it is not an ideal society. The peace and prosperity comes at a cost to some personal freedoms; which many in the West would ascribe to what they call a “nanny” state. The point is, reality has it that one can’t have the cake and eat it as well.
Singapore is a good example. And as you say democracy and socialism shine ‘only when they are run by competent, honest and forward looking governments’. Actually this is true for all forms of government. Without honesty and competence, all forms of governments eventually fail. This is not the fault of the political ideology, it is always the fault of corrupt and inept politicians, i.e. those who are neither honest nor competent.
The role of the governing class is to serve the governed not themselves, but as we all know this is too rarely the case. Instead they too often only serve their own interests. It’s an old problem, and Lao Tzu once wrote that if the agents of the state need to be showered with honours in order to keep them honest then the state is already in trouble. Honesty goes with the job, and should not be purchased as some kind of extra add-on or app.
Malcolm, “while the CCP makes the rules, it doesn’t administer them. This is done by provincial parties elected by the people.”
Could you please expand?
Well actually that was a bit of a typo. I should have said ‘provincial governments elected by the people.’
China has about 34 provinces and they have elected administrative governments, who serve for a term and then come up for re-election. elections are conducted much as they are in the west with bunting, sausages sizzles or their local equivalent, and a general air of festivity.
Laws emanate from the CCP, and are then communicated to the provincial governors, who administer them. If you, as a citizen of a province, are not happy with your local government’s performance, you can complain, first to your local government, and if that brings no satisfaction, to the central government in Beijing, which is happy to pursue your complaint, since this is a way for Beijing to keep tabs on what local governments are up to.
My understanding of how those who run the CCP and the central government are elected is sketchy at present, but it seems that elections begin at the bottom of the pyramid, where the mass of party membership (there are about 90 million of them) elect representatives to a higher body, which in turn repeats this process, and so on, until you end with a smallish group (still in the hundreds) who are instrumental in choosing the Central Committee. I have yet to get my hands on any written account of how all this plays out in practice, and so my account here is very simplistic.
That’s been my simple understanding also.
I actually respect China and Chinese people (unlike what some P & I contributors have previously asserted). I also respect effective constitutions.
My underlying concern is that the inevitable arrogance and hubris of powerful administrators has no effective balance – either from a constitutionally supreme (yes – so often nominal) elected Parliament, nor an independent Judiciary.
The “West’ has not fought for more than 1000 years (since Alfred the Great in Britain) for our constitutional system without reason. For the lifetime dictator Xi Jinping to assert that China’s governmental system is “better” simply describes the depth and dimensionality of his Dark Triadism, not to mention his chronic anger. I trust Uncle Joe will tell him so – and then tell all of us that he has.
‘My underlying concern is that the inevitable arrogance and hubris of powerful administrators has no effective balance’
Believe me, Charles, this is everybody’s underlying concern, including the members of the Chinese politburo and the communist party as a whole, and Xi himself. Xi has not seized absolute power, there is simply a process in place to allow an extension of his presidency. This is not something he is enforcing. The concern you have is the concern everybody has when a single person is invested with so much authority. Since this is a a very long term problem that has been with us for a few thousand years at least, there are innumerable checks and balances in places in any responsible governing system, to prevent that from happening. Personally, he never seems angry. He always seem calm and collected to me. And I’m fairly certain he has never described the Chinese political system as ‘better’, although I’m not quite sure what you mean. Better than what?
Malcolm, several queries, if I may.
Firstly, how would anyone outside of the CCP know of ‘its’ (all 90M members of it?) – not to mention the Politbureau and Xi himself – ‘underlying concern’? Do we simply believe their assurances?
Secondly, Xi has the power to enforce his ‘term for life’. I hear your assertion but I wouldn’t trust it in the proverbial pink fit.
Thirdly, do Russia’s Putin, Brazil’s Bolsonaro and Turkey’s Erdogan govern within “innumerable checks and balances in…[their] responsible governing system[s]”? How many ‘checks and balances’ actually stopped Trump from inciting a riot in the U. S. Capitol building?
Fourthly, while I certainly accept your observation that Xi does not present as angry in public, I base my accusation on the hysterical outpourings of his most frequent Governmental spokesperson. I simply assume that the emotional tone of his remarks mirrors how China’s Great Dictator feels.
Fifthly, I can’t quote chapter and verse but the tag ‘better’ refers to a quantum jump in alleged efficiency of the Chinese Government as compared with those of the West.
Malcolm, please look around you. Just how much power does any ordinary person have to effectively address those actual and foreseeable problems resolvable through an effective governance? Anywhere?
Mind you, I’d rather live in a Parliamentary democracy than in the above-mentioned nations; at least – after some 1300 years of constitutional evolution – we are further progressed to that outcome than China, Russia, Brazil and Turkey, not to mention far too many other effective dictatorships.
I do remember talking with you once before, Charles. This time is going much like the other time. Charles, I tried to answer you questions, clearly unsatisfactorily. Let me try again on a couple of points. When I say that your concern is everybody’s concern, I am trying to suggest that your concern is so obvious, has been obvious for centuries, and everybody’s aware of it. it is in fact the instinctive concern of everybody making that choice, So stop worrying about it because everybody is aware of it.
Regimes have various methods of checks and balances. Xi for example is surrounded by them, as is Putin. Erdogan, who recently (about four years ago) suppressed a coup d’etat, or so he said, and has in many people’s opinion stepped across a line that suggest he is trying to operate outside constraints, although he is still constrained by outside forces, which in Turkey’s case are plentiful.
Bolsonaro is a special case, and Sth American politics has special features, not least it has America breathing down their necks all the time and organising regime operations at will, so it is a place where many norms dont function as they should. None-the-less, Brazil is a constitutional democracy, and the government is constrained by the constitution, and by the need to seek a mandate at the next election. However in my opinion, Bolsonaro’s government is barely legitimate, having managed to win the last election partly by having his main opponent jailed on trumped up charges of fraud, charges that have recently been overturned by courts in Brazil.
Xi does not have the power to enforce his ‘term for life’. It’s not in doubt. He simply does not have that power. And as for your concern that ordinary people have little or no power to affect their own destiny, this of course is true, has always been true, and will continue to be true, because there really is no example in the past to give any hope that it might happen in the future. Parliamentary democracy was seen as such a path, but in the west at present, it is very corrupted. On your last point about constitutional evolution, I am at a loss. We have had some forms of parliamentary democracy for the past 350 years, only, beginning in England in 17th century. So I have no idea what you are referring to when you write about ‘some 1300 years of constitutional evolution.
Thank you, Malcolm, for the depth and detail of your reply. That heartens me to continue our conversation. I must trust that other readers find it interesting; I certainly hope so.
I disagree with your accusation of “unsatisfactorily”. Discussions on this site are (usually) informative and can promote revised thinking. But they do not necessitate manifest agreement. For example, personalities – or other (often undisclosed) information – may preclude agreement.
On that point, I cannot stop ‘worrying about it [, “the inevitable arrogance and hubris of powerful administrators”]’. Perhaps you have elucidated that this is a central – a critical – concern of mine. As I’ve mentioned elsewhere on this blog, I continue to research the depth, the dimensionality, of this psychosocial syndrome. One to which all too scant attention has been paid – especially by the academics who this culture expects to inform us objectively and richly. Including the many contributors to this otherwise enlightened blog.
Yes – to functional folk, this is “obvious”. Our problem is that up to 97% of people are simply not fully functional. As well as those few who might find their lives easier by assuming that most other people are too!
It is a huge worry for all of us because of the interdependency of deep – and wicked – psychosocial dysfunction with those social roles which are particularly powerful or of high status or are generative of significant personal wealth &/ income. This perspective became specific only in 2003; it is now clinically addressable but very, very few people appreciate that it is.
I do appreciate that the editors wish our contributions to be brief – and the above words address only your first paragraph. So let me simply observe, in relation to your subsequent points, that sociological (legal/political/cultural) redress has recently and broadly been proving to be increasingly inadequate. We now need psychosocial redress, however novel and trail-blazing that may prove to be.
(BTW – my assertion re 1300 years takes us back to Alfred the Great, arguably the first English Monarch to institute a structured provision of governmental advice through the “Hundreds”.)
Charles, we are wandering deep into the quagmire, and if this were a private conversation, I might continue it. But we are drifting a long way from the intentions of the P&I blog. Now you have raised Alfred the Great, a distinctly controversial figure from my perspective, who was instrumental in inadvertently consolidating Viking rule of Britain, which began in the ninth century and was consolidated under William the Conqueror. I’m sure that many of your concerns are real for you, and I am not disputing them. What I have been intent on is trying to convince you that the specific concern you express about power limits on authority, has been well and truly debated and discussed for at least two and a half thousand years in the west. Much has been written on the subject. Nothing is fool proof or fail safe, but it is a concern that is well and truly understood. Dont forget that the people most vulnerable to the abuse of power by chosen individuals are the very people who have put them in power. So, if you must worry about it, know also that you are by no means alone. For the moment, I wish you well, but I must conclude here. Cheers, m.
Excellent paper and says much about our irrational Sino-Phobia.
I firmly believe we in the so-called democratic west (something of an oxymoron) find it impossible to believe that a Communist State can achieve the growth and advancements made by China over the past 40 years.
Correction, they don’t like the fact that China is not sticking with just making socks for West controlled multinationals but instead try to establish it’s own technology eco-system, move up the value chain to improve their lives. How DARE THEY!
The whole communist vs us is just a BS distraction to rally up the domestic gullible plebs. Oh and China isn’t communist.
“…and China isn’t communist.”
…any more than the Nazis were socialist.
…or Scott Morrison “Christian”.
“The thought that a country could make continuous advancement for a considerable time is impossible”,
That is part of a thought process in a so called democratic country where progressives, improve lifestyles and living standards for the average person (Eg NBN, initiatives on renewable energy, better working conditions , assistance for the under privileged, aged and those with disabilities) only to watch the regressives’ slowly tear it all apart for the sake of THE BUDGET.
5 years forward (progressives) and 10 years backward. for the budget ( regressives)
The Chinese people are a great people; they are industrious and brave, and they never pause in pursuit of progress.
… Xi Jinping
Note : Pursuit of progress (development towards an improved or more advanced condition) ,( not regress ,return to a former or less developed state).