Our biggest trading partner is China, alias the CCP.

We can support this brave Artist in a limited and diplomatic way, behind closed doors and over a convivial cup of tea.

The propaganda and political interference is real, along with the abominable human rights record of the CCP.

For heaven's sake, even some harmless piano music seems to have offended some very sensitive CCP members.

Artists beware? They seem to have ears and influence everywhere? And so hugely easy to offend.

Offend away, and never ever kowtow to CCP bullies.

Lastly, and I've said this for years, we need to end our singular reliance on a ruthless China. Whose ability to enslave, imprison and massively defile human rights, seems to know no bounds for brutality nor dehumanisation.
Alan B.

Thanks Lionel Te-Chen Chiou for the article.

Please allow me to extend my gratitude to Canem Malum for your generous remarks, and to Alan B. for your supplementary comments. I appreciate that Alan highlights the pervasive nature of CCP propaganda. I want to use this opportunity to recommend some important books on the matter: Clive Hamilton's "Hidden Hand" and "Silent Invasion," along with Alex Joske's "Spies and Lies."

Please also allow me to share some more comments on the CCP propaganda campaign in Australia.

What is noteworthy is that the CCP’s objectives extend beyond presenting the PRC's government favourably. It indeed seeks to compromise Australian democratic systems. The CCP's "united front" strategy is designed to exert narrative control abroad, including Australia.

Contrary to championing freedom of expression, the CCP aims to manipulate the spectrum of public opinions, aligning political, economic, cultural, and artistic discourses with its own agenda. The infiltration of individuals, knowingly or unknowingly aiding the CCP, is widespread, with many oblivious to the impact of their actions.

Engaging in dialogues with 'China,' unfortunately co-opted by the CCP, becomes a tool for advancing their narrative. Those involved may perceive their interactions as innocent exchanges, unaware that they are inadvertently furthering the CCP's agenda.

As these engagements proliferate (fueled by resources injected by the CCP and its allies) and in contrast critical voices against the regime are marginalized, it raises concerns.

Democracies must exercise caution and remain vigilant against the manipulative tactics employed by the CCP's United Front.

Furthermore, democracies should actively engage in dialogues with advocates for freedom, such as Xiao Lu and countless others. By fostering connections with these champions of liberty, democracies can counterbalance the influence of the CCP and uphold the principles that safeguard democratic values.

"Furthermore, democracies should actively engage in dialogues with advocates for freedom, such as Xiao Lu and countless others. By fostering connections with these champions of liberty, democracies can counterbalance the influence of the CCP and uphold the principles that safeguard democratic values."

I'm not sure I agree with this.
I tend to think more in simple and practical terms,

- Mind Your Own Business
'You stay out of my business and I'll stay out of yours'.
But we can't say that if we're poking our noses in their business first can we?

You say 'democracies should actively engage in dialogues with advocates for freedom'
- The problem is that once we do that, then that dissident in a foreign country is now aligned with our country and effectively an 'agent of the west' - we've gone and gotten ourselves involved in their business, - we've moved our piece on the chessboard - which now prompts them to have to move one of their pieces on the chess board - to counter our move.

Ultimately, if the issue is 'China should stay out of our nations internal affairs'.
Then fine, the solution to that problem is 'We should similarly stay out of their internal affairs.'

Finally, I must also say that I don't like immigrants using our country as a safe-space to conduct operations intended to cause trouble with their former country.

If the "Sydney art scene is perilously close to becoming a playground for CCP propaganda is no exaggeration" as the author states, then it's because the CCP are trying to counter the trouble the author and the related artist Xiao Lu are trying to stir up, by using the Sydney art scene as a place from which they can attack the CCP through provocative art.

I appreciate Armchair Critic's chess metaphor because it somewhat mirrors reality (I will later explain why it's somewhat rather than fully accurate). The part that makes sense is acknowledging that the game is already happening; democracies like Australia can't just back out.

Here's the thing: democracies can't easily step away because they're already tangled up in the CCP's plans. Don't underestimate the CCP's expansionism. Looking back at history, we've seen the CCP's territorial ambitions grow from the Jiangxi Soviet in the 1930s to areas beyond the Shanhaiguan Pass in the 1940s. Then the CCP invaded the Central Plains, Southern China, East Turkistan, Tibet, and Hong Kong. Currently, their focus is on Taiwan and the South China Sea. You think the CCP will stop? Good luck.

If we view this as a chess game, the CCP has been making strategic moves for decades, gaining control. It's now up to the democracies to decide how to respond or whether to respond at all. However, ignoring the CCP's actions would be a mistake. If democracies choose to remain passive, they'll inevitably face the consequences.

It's crucial not to overlook the CCP's activities on Australian soil—they're working to mold Australia in their image. They are compromising Australia’s freedom of expression, limiting artistic expression by stifling dissent against the CCP in Australia. This strategy, known as the United Front, originated in the 1910s in the USSR and was later adopted by the CCP. For more information, refer to "Spies and Lies" by Joske.

Ignoring the situation and hoping for the best echoes the mistakes made by the Dalai Lama in the 1950s and the people of Hong Kong in the 2000s.

Returning to the chess metaphor, Garry Kasparov, a former multiple-time chess world champion, expert in history and current affairs in the USSR and Russia, and a human rights advocate, provides a valuable perspective. According to Kasparov, chess is not a game for dictators because it operates transparently, with full knowledge of each opponent's resources. Dictators, however, engage in games more akin to poker, marked by secrecy and deception.

"Update: Xiao Lu's artwork in question, currently showcased at the National Art School until March 2024, has been officially rectified as 'Open Fire' by the institution as of late January. The correction comes nearly two weeks after Radio Free Asia's reporter raised the issue with the collector during the exhibition opening in mid-January (or days after the release of this article on On Line Opinion)."