
Does Standing up to the CCP Cost Votes?
News Analysis
The recent federal election saw substantial swings to the centre-left Labor Party in electorates with major Chinese-Australian populations.
They include the Melbourne seats of Menzies, Aston, and Chisholm, Brisbane's Moreton, as well as the Sydney seats of Bennelong, Reid, and Banks.
In the northern Sydney seat of Bennelong, which encompasses the suburbs of Chatswood and Eastwood—where 40 percent of residents are of Chinese heritage—Labor MP Jerome Laxale gained a 9.2 percent swing after preferences against Liberal Party candidate Scott Yung, who himself is of Chinese ancestry. About 90.9 percent of votes have been counted for that seat.
However, upon deeper examination, some candidates like the Liberal's Keith Wolahan in Menzies actually saw their primary vote hold firm, which may be attributed to his strong Chinese social media presence.
Yet one conclusion propagated is that Chinese-Australian voters were concerned about the state of official ties between Canberra and Beijing, with the subtext that calling out the Chinese Communist Party (CCP) for its human rights abuses or military aggression could damage ties and as a result, cost votes.
It's also a view shared by a 2022 Liberal Party internal review.
Liberals Stayed Quiet on Policies That Could Resonate With Chinese Voters
Some argue the results should be looked at more holistically.
'Many Chinese people—especially those who have already become citizens here—actually identify strongly with the values of Australia,' said Feng Chongyi, a China studies associate professor at the University of Technology Sydney, in an interview with The Epoch Times.
'But the [former] Liberal Party leader [Peter Dutton's campaign] was too weak—he tried to please everyone, and didn't actually offer a real alternative [to Labor].'
He said the Coalition's entire election campaign was 'very passive' and failed to champion a conservative agenda, such as freedom of speech and religion, smaller government, pro-business policies, pro-education, and opposing net zero.
Feng also pointed out that Dutton's inability to discipline the party's moderate faction damaged his campaign, meaning the Liberal Party did not promote the policies that normally resonate with Chinese-Asians.
In turn, this also allowed alternative messages to run free—on Chinese social media platforms like RedNote and WeChat—particularly when Liberal Senator Jane Hume's comment about '
National Security Argument Not Prosecuted Hard Enough: Professor
The professor also said the Liberal Party did not emphasise the importance of Australia's national security.
'The Liberal Party was supposed to show that if they came to power, they would prioritise national security and not profit from unjust means [through trading with the CCP],' said Feng.
'In fact, after so many years, the Australian public is already well aware of the Chinese communist regime's malicious nature and the threat it poses to Australia.'
Feng was critical of the shift in tone from the opposition leader, who softened his hardline stance to appease Chinese-Australian voters
'The relationship with China will be much stronger than it is under the Albanese government,' Dutton said in January.
While both sides of politics used more restrained rhetoric when discussing China, the CCP had other ideas.
In March, three Chinese warships appeared with no prior notice along the east coast of Australia, conducted a weapons exercise in international waters between Australia and New Zealand, and
Others Say National Security May Not Have Been a Big Concern
Graham Young, executive director of the Australian Institute for Progress, said appeasement for the sake of votes had little value, noting that national security was not a major concern for voters this time.
'In this election, most voters were not attuned to the issue,' he told The Epoch Times in an email.
Rowan Callick, an expert associate at the National Security College of the Australian National University and an industry fellow at the Griffith Asia Institute, said there was not enough hard evidence to support the findings of a 2022 Liberal Party review that suggested Chinese voters did not like the former Morrison government's tough stance on the CCP.
'Too much of this concern is anecdotal, and sometimes presumes that people of Chinese ethnicity are all or mostly from the PRC [People's Republic of China],' he
Callick said that despite lacking empirical evidence, the party naturally connected the voting patterns in those electorates, with Australia-China ties, and had adopted a more 'disciplined' approach to discussing the Chinese regime.
'One can understand, therefore, the current response. But this results in a distorted policy-making process on China relations.'
Australian Prime Minister Anthony Albanese (L) and CCP Premier Li Qiang leave after their visit to Kaarta Gar-up Lookout in Kings Park in Perth, Australia on June 18, 2024.
Richard Wainwright/Pool/AFP via Getty Images
The Loyalty Factor
Chin Jin, a PhD in social sciences and the Australia-based global chair of the Federation for a Democratic China, believes old loyalties may have been a factor.
He said many older Chinese immigrants came after the 1989 Tiananmen Square Massacre and may have fled gratitude towards late Labor Prime Minister Bob Hawke, a similar dynamic plays out in Vietnamese communities.
Hawke approved 42,000 permanent residency visas for Chinese students in Australia at the time.
'I believe many within this group continue to be deeply appreciative of Bob Hawke and the Labor Party, and they certainly had an impact in this election,' Chin, a beneficiary of Hawke's decision himself, told The Epoch Times.
Nothing to Fear With Standing Up to the CCP
Meanwhile, Feng referred to 2022
Beijing imposed trade barriers across several Australian exports, including lobster and wine, in retaliation for what the CCP called Australia's 'misguided government policies'—including calling for an independent inquiry into the origins of COVID-19, and banning Huawei from its 5G network.
'The myth that Australia's economy is dependent on the Chinese market has been debunked by facts. Australia's exports as a whole rose during period of economic coercion by the CCP regime, partly because China depended on Australia for the supply of iron ore or metallurgical coal and partly because alternative markets could be found for Australia's other goods,' Feng said.
'That's why the Liberal absolutely should speak out and say: we don't have to rely on the Chinese regime — they simply can't be trusted. If you rely on them, they'll use that dependence to blackmail you again.'
Related Stories
4/4/2025
4/29/2025
Hashtags

Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
Yahoo
an hour ago
- Yahoo
Tesla Stock Falls Amid Musk Vs Trump Feud
Tesla TSLA shares had their worst day since March, falling 14% on Thursday as the feud between Elon Musk and President Trump continues to heat up, and is making international headlines. In the aftermath of his 130-day term ending as a special government employee, Musk has publicly criticized the Trump administration's budget reconciliation bill after previously heading the Department of Government Efficiency (DOGE). Despite losing favoritism in the White House, Tesla shareholders have previously called on Musk to focus his attention back on the leading EV maker amid declining sales. Underlying this is that having a CEO push a political agenda had disrupted public sentiment, with Tesla facing significant losses of more than $100 million this year regarding vandalism at its dealerships and EV charging stations, which spilled over from nationwide protests targeting Elon Musk. This also created a somewhat unnecessary way for General Motors GM and Ford F to potentially take more share of the domestic EV market, with the public outcry of the 'Tesla Takedown' movement coming as the DOGE cut thousands of federal jobs at the discretion of the world's wealthiest person. Adding fury to Musk's frustration with President Trump's budget reconciliation bill is that it will eliminate tax credits for electric vehicles that have benefited Tesla and other EV manufacturers, while undermining his cost-cutting efforts as head of the DOGE. However, harsh criticism and a personal vendetta against the Trump administration could, of course, make Tesla the target of harsher EV regulations in the U.S., with the President threatening to take away the company's government contracts. Furthermore, this comes on the heels of recent reports that Tesla's sales have continued to decline in Europe, as sales in May fell 45% year over year in the U.K. and 36% in Germany amid rising competition from Chinese EV brands such as BYD and XPeng XPEV. Notably, BYD has surpassed Tesla as the top-selling EV brand in Europe. Most concerning to technical traders is that TSLA has fallen below its 50-day simple moving average (Green Line) of $292 a share, which is lower than its 200-day SMA (Red Line) of $310 due to the recent volatility in the stock. Generally, the 200-day SMA is lower than the 50-day SMA when a stock is in an uptrend and higher than the 50-day SMA when a stock is in a downtrend, as in Tesla's case. Image Source: Zacks Investment Research Also suggesting more risk ahead for Tesla stock, and correlating with news of declining sales in Europe, is that fiscal 2025 and FY26 EPS estimates are noticeably lower in the last month and have now dropped 25% and 18% over the last 60 days, respectively. Image Source: Zacks Investment Research Considering the short-selling strategy has paid off with TSLA of late, with it noteworthy that Tesla has led the Zacks Short Sale List with +20% gains after borrowing shares at $358.91 on Tuesday, May 27. Image Source: Zacks Investment Research The back-and-forth spat between Elon Musk and President Trump won't do any favors for Tesla's outlook. Unfortunately, TSLA lands a Zacks Rank #5 (Strong Sell) at the moment in correlation with the trend of declining earnings estimate revisions. Eventually, this could end up being a lucrative buying opportunity for TSLA down the road, but a dispute between the world's most powerful and wealthiest person could drag down the broader market as well, with Tesla dragging the Nasdaq down roughly 1% on Thursday. Want the latest recommendations from Zacks Investment Research? Today, you can download 7 Best Stocks for the Next 30 Days. Click to get this free report Tesla, Inc. (TSLA) : Free Stock Analysis Report Ford Motor Company (F) : Free Stock Analysis Report General Motors Company (GM) : Free Stock Analysis Report XPeng Inc. Sponsored ADR (XPEV) : Free Stock Analysis Report This article originally published on Zacks Investment Research ( Zacks Investment Research


Business Insider
an hour ago
- Business Insider
U.S. Trade Officials to Meet with China on June 9
Yesterday, President Trump said that his phone call with Chinese President Xi Jinping resulted in a ' very positive conclusion ' with plans for representatives from both sides to hold another round of trade talks. That conversation will come sooner than later. Confident Investing Starts Here: Today, Trump announced that Secretary of the Treasury Scott Bessent, Secretary of Commerce Howard Lutnick, and U.S. Trade Representative Jamieson Greer will meet with Chinese representatives on Monday, June 9 in London. 'The meeting should go very well,' said Trump in a Truth Social post. U.S.-China Tensions Ease ahead of Talks Last month, both the U.S. and China agreed to lower their tariffs on each other by 115% in a preliminary trade deal, among other measures. A few weeks later, Trump accused China of violating the deal, with accusations such as continuing to restrict the flow of rare earth elements.
Yahoo
an hour ago
- Yahoo
America the Fortress
The Atlantic Daily, a newsletter that guides you through the biggest stories of the day, helps you discover new ideas, and recommends the best in culture. Sign up for it here. This is an edition of The Atlantic Daily, a newsletter that guides you through the biggest stories of the day, helps you discover new ideas, and recommends the best in culture. Sign up for it here. Past leaders have imagined the United States as a 'shining city upon a hill,' a melting pot, a 'beacon to the world.' Donald Trump is working toward a different vision: the United States as a fortress. Late Wednesday, the White House announced a new version of the travel bans that it had imposed during Trump's first term, barring people from 12 countries—Afghanistan, Myanmar, Chad, the Republic of Congo, Equatorial Guinea, Eritrea, Haiti, Iran, Libya, Somalia, Sudan, and Yemen—from coming to the U.S., and restricting entry from seven others: Burundi, Cuba, Laos, Sierra Leone, Togo, Turkmenistan, and Venezuela. (The ban has some exceptions.) Shortly after, he issued a proclamation that bars foreign nationals from entering the country to attend Harvard University—though not other universities, for reasons that are not satisfactorily explained but seem to boil down to Trump's animus toward the school. A judge promptly issued a temporary block on the new rule. (Trump had made the move after she temporarily blocked his previous attempt to prohibit Harvard from enrolling foreign students.) The new travel ban is, if you're keeping score, Trump's fifth, and the widest ranging. The first came on January 27, 2017. In line with his campaign promise to prevent Muslims from entering the United States, it barred entry to people from Iran, Iraq, Libya, Somalia, Sudan, Syria, and Yemen for 90 days; suspended refugee admission for 120 days; indefinitely blocked refugees from Syria; and lowered the overall annual cap on refugees. When a federal judge temporarily blocked the order, Trump replaced it with a somewhat narrower one, again running for 90 days, which covered the same countries minus Iraq. Federal courts initially blocked the core parts of that order too, though the Supreme Court allowed it to mostly go forward. Trump issued additional bans in fall 2017 and January 2020, with various changes to the countries covered. Joe Biden rescinded the bans on January 20, 2021. In a video about the new ban, Trump cited 'the entry of foreign nationals who are not properly vetted, as well as those who come here as temporary visitors and overstay their visas,' and said: 'We don't want them.' That message is loud and clear—even to those who aren't formally banned. Horror stories about foreign nationals visiting the U.S. have begun to circulate: Two German teens claimed that they were detained, strip-searched, and deported from Hawaii (U.S. Customs and Border Protection denied their account and alleged that they had entered the country under false pretenses); an Australian ex–police officer said she was locked up while trying to visit her American husband; New Zealand's biggest newspaper ran an article in which an anonymous 'travel industry staffer' encouraged Kiwis not to visit the United States. These anecdotes could exact a cost. The World Travel & Tourism Council, an industry trade group, released a report last month forecasting a $12.5 billion decline in tourist spending in the United States this year. That is not the product of global factors: Out of 184 countries the group studied, the U.S. is the only one expected to see a drop. Other forecasts see a smaller but still huge decline, though so far the data show a major decline only in travel to the U.S. from Canada. The Trump administration's reputation as a host has taken a hit in other ways too. A visit to the White House was once a desirable prize for any foreign leader; now even allies are approaching them with trepidation. After the president ambushed Ukraine's Volodymyr Zelensky and South Africa's Cyril Ramaphosa in Oval Office meetings—showing a racist and misleading clip, in the latter case—German Chancellor Friedrich Merz reportedly prepared for yesterday's meeting by seeking tips from other world leaders on how to handle Trump. (The encounter was still bumpy at times.) This hostility to foreigners of all sorts is neither an accident nor collateral damage. It's the policy. Trump's xenophobia is long-standing and well documented, but some of his aides have developed this into more than just a reflex of disgust. Vice President J. D. Vance has championed ideas aligned with the 'Great Replacement' theory that Democrats are trying to dilute the existing demographic and cultural mix of the United States with immigrants. 'America is not just an idea,' he said last July. 'It is a group of people with a shared history and a common future.' Stephen Miller and the Project 2025 crew, each of whom exerts a great deal of influence over Trump's policies, have pushed not just for stopping illegal immigration and deporting migrants but also for limiting legal immigration. The rare exception that Trump and his aides allow helps make the implied racism in these ideas explicit. The administration has moved to dramatically reduce refugee admissions, but last month, it welcomed a few dozen white Afrikaners from South Africa, whom the White House claims were victims of racial discrimination at home. The administration even seems eager to discourage people from leaving the country. Green-card holders are being arrested and detained while reentering the U.S.; immigration lawyers say the safest course for legal permanent residents is to stay in the country. Trump has also repeatedly expressed a desire to weaken the dollar, which would make it more expensive for Americans to vacation overseas. North Korea is frequently described as a hermit kingdom for its willingness to wall itself off from the rest of the world. Trump has expressed his admiration for and personal bond with Kim Jong Un before, but now he seems eager to emulate Kim's seclusion too. Related: Trump's campaign to scare off foreign students How the Trump administration learned to obscure the truth in court Here are four new stories from The Atlantic. What happens when people don't understand how AI works Trump is wearing America down. Inside the Trump-Musk breakup The Super Bowl of internet beefs Today's News The Supreme Court ruled that DOGE members can have access to the Social Security Administration's sensitive records. The Labor Department released numbers showing that job growth was strong but did slow last month amid uncertainty about Donald Trump's tariff policies. The unemployment rate held steady. Five leaders of the Proud Boys, four of whom had been found guilty of seditious conspiracy due to their actions on January 6, 2021, sued the government for $100 million, claiming that their constitutional rights had been violated. More From The Atlantic Juliette Kayyem: The new Gaza relief effort was bound to fail. Every election is now existential. As America steps back, others step in. Evening Read Fast Times and Mean Girls By Hillary Kelly In the early spring, I caught a preview at my local Alamo Drafthouse Cinema for its forthcoming stoner-classics retrospective: snippets of Monty Python's Life of Brian; Tommy Boy; a few Dada-esque cartoons perfect for zonking out on, post-edible. The audience watched quietly until Matthew McConaughey, sporting a parted blond bowl cut and ferrying students to some end-of-year fun, delivered a signature bit of dialogue. 'Say, man, you got a joint?' he asked the kid in the back seat. 'Uhhh, no, not on me, man.' 'It'd be a lot cooler if you did,' he drawled. The crowd, including me, went wild. Richard Linklater's Dazed and Confused, in which a fresh-faced McConaughey appears as Wooderson, the guy who graduated years back but still hangs with the high-school kids, is that kind of teen movie: eternally jubilance-inspiring. Set in 1976 and released in 1993, it's a paean to the let-loose ethos of a certain decade of American high school. And boy do these kids let loose. Read the full article. Culture Break Watch. The Phoenician Scheme, in theaters, is the latest Wes Anderson film to let modern life seep into a high-concept world. Read. Check out our summer reading guide to find a book for every mood. Play our daily crossword. P.S. In other immigration news, ABC News broke the story this afternoon that Kilmar Abrego Garcia, the Maryland resident and Salvadoran citizen whom the Trump administration deported to a Salvadoran Gulag, has been returned to the United States to face criminal charges. The Justice Department acknowledged in court that Abrego Garcia's removal was an 'administrative error,' as my colleague Nick Miroff reported, before resorting to ever more absurd claims that he was a member of the gang MS-13. Now Abrego Garcia has been indicted for alleged involvement in a scheme to traffic migrants within the United States. I have no idea if these charges are true; the indictment is relatively brief, and the administration's earlier desperation to pin charges on him is worrying. (The investigation that led to the criminal charges reportedly began only after his removal.) Nevertheless, if the government believes that he committed these crimes, he should be tried in court with due process. As I wrote in April, 'If the people who are getting arrested are really the cold-blooded criminals the executive branch insists they are, saying so in a court of law should be relatively easy.' Now the administration will have a chance to do that, and Abrego Garcia will have a chance to defend himself. — David Isabel Fattal contributed to this newsletter. When you buy a book using a link in this newsletter, we receive a commission. Thank you for supporting The Atlantic. Article originally published at The Atlantic