ANTHONY PUN. The Chinese Australian community’s reaction to the passing of Australia’s new package of national security laws.

Letter from Dr Anthony Pun, OAM, National President, Chinese Community Council of Australia and Chairman of the Multicultural Communities Council of New South Wales.  

We are indebted to Tony Kevin for giving us a good overview of the proposed legislation, and in particular, the areas of concern. (Turning a sow’s ear into a silk purse? Maybe. Australia’s new package of national security laws. 27 June 2018.)

The Chinese Australian community rate this issue with high significance and equivalent to the White Australia Policy of our past. When that policy was put into effect, the pioneering Chinese immigrants were not in a position to debate, articulate or make critical comments in the media. One of the main reasons was a lack of critical mass in the population to make their voices heard.

Today, we wish to present a different picture of the 1.2 million Chinese diaspora in Australia and the pioneering immigrants of the early 19th century. Chinese Australians today are mostly educated in English, understand and support democracy, freedom of speech and rule of law – despite their families’ countries of origin (ASEAN countries or China) and the political systems of those countries.

The majority of Chinese Australian families would have at least three generations in Australia. Their lifestyle is not different from any mainstream Australian families. The second and third generations are mostly English speaking, respect core Australian values of democracy and rule of law. They also love barbecues, cricket, football and beer.

The majority of Chinese Australians have moderate views and are not opposed to any security measures that are necessary to protect Australia and our lifestyle. Their public views are formed independently and generally free from any foreign interference. Their views (including those of the author) have been formed and matured in Australia where there is healthy political discussion and no restriction or censorship of political literature.

The SMH article This Labor MP has been cultivated by Chinese Intelligence (27 June 2018), raises serious concern about how the media projects the image of the Chinese Australian community to the general public. Despite its adverse perception, it does give us an opportunity to further our voice in the matter of political preselection and political fund raising.

The Chinese Australian community is seriously concerned with the reported reasons for sidelining Mr Ernest Wong MLC. The reported remarks regard him as a political liability and ineffective parliamentary performer. What did Mr Wong screw up? He has done nothing illegal and he has served his party well.

Or perhaps, when politicians reach their use-by date, they can be discarded without acknowledging their contributions to the Party. A bit cruel, I reckon – but “reality” in political life.

The SMH article also gave Chinese Australians the impression that politicians of Chinese descent are regarded as great “milking cows” by the Labor party. The perception that both parties have “milking cows” is much closer to the truth.

Attending political fund-raising dinners/parties on both sides of the political fence over the last 30 years led me to believe that the modus operandi of political fund-raising in the Chinese Australian community has not changed.

It is a well-known fact that Chinese people love to have a photo opportunity with an Australian politician and some of them are willing to pay for it. Nothing harmful to Australian security or illegal in this innocent pastime.

However, the perception that a person is nominated to stand for public office, based on fundraising activity alone, remains prevalent today. Previous concerns regarding this issue raised with political parties by the Chinese Australian community have fallen on deaf ears.

Our objection has nothing to do with national security. We wish to raise the question – why can’t major political parties nominate Chinese Australians because they have suitable qualifications other than fund-raising ability? Or to be cynical, do political parties select candidates who are more easily controllable?

The quest for money for political donations seems to be the trigger for introducing foreign interference and transparency bills. Their introduction has caused tension in the Chinese Australian community particularly when the media portrayed a perception that Chinese are all linked to the Chinese Communist Party and generated xenophobic responses from the general public. This has caused unnecessarily stress in the Chinese Australian community.

However there is a good side to the foreign interference and transparency bills. Firstly, they could curb political donations from foreigners. Such action will produce a level playing field for all political parties and I guess, this is one of the main reasons why Labor consented to bi-partisan support for the bills. In this context, the national security consideration is secondary. Tony Kevin’s article provides further insight into whether the security concerns are real or imaginary.

Secondly, in particular regard to the Chinese Australian community, it will stop the current fund raising modus operandi and put the “milking cows” to rest.

It is time for Chinese Australian political activities to align with the mainstream and to be just as successful as the Greek-Australian, Italian-Australian and Lebanese-Australian communities.

Hence, it is the wish of the Chinese Australian community to start afresh, focussing on the talents of Australian-born Chinese (ABC) based on their education background (particularly legal), knowledge of party philosophy and properly schooled as Young Liberals, Young Labor, Young Nationals etc. to take up political office in the near future.

Chinese Australians are not against the bills, but the rush to get the bills through means there could be some unintended consequences that may be problematic to resolve in the future.

The Chinese Australian community is a law-abiding community and would be compliant with the new legislation when it is passed. We appeal to the Commonwealth government to ensure when the bills have passed, the matter of Chinese espionage, spies and other adverse perceptions be put to rest so Chinese Australians can concentrate their efforts into making Australia a great place to live for all future Australians. Divisive domestic issues will create instability and would fracture the current peaceful, cohesive and harmonious multicultural society we live in.


Dr Anthony Pun, after graduating in 1978 with a PhD from the University of NSW, began his career at St Vincent’s Hospital, Sydney and retired as Chief Medical Scientist, Blood Transfusion Service, Haematology Department. He was an author and co-author of 31 publications on blood transfusion, clinical laboratory computing and bone marrow transplantation.

 He served 5 years as a Member of the Immigration Review Tribunal (Sydney Registry 1994/99) and 3 years as a Member of the NSW Administrative Decisions Tribunal in the General and Equal Opportunity Divisions (2001/2004). Dr Pun has also worked as a consultant in the financial sector until his retirement.

 Dr Pun, a former President of the Australian Chinese Community Association (1989/92), is a prominent member of the Chinese Australian community and is actively involved in a number of community organizations. For his services to the Chinese Australian community, he received two NSW Premiers Awards for Community Services (1991 & 1996) and the Medal of the Order of Australia in 1997.   In February 2010, Dr Pun was awarded a third NSW Premier’s Award, the “Jack Wong Sue award for services beyond the Chinese community in the field of anti-racism and multiculturalism”.

 Dr Pun served twice as Chairman of the Ethnic Communities’ Council of NSW (1997/98 and 2001/2003). He also served as Chair of the Drug and Alcohol Multicultural Education Centre (1996/99) and President of the Canterbury Multicultural Aged & Disability Support Services (CMADSS 1999/2003).

 Dr Pun was a Member of the Australian Pharmaceutical Advisory Council (under Health Minister Tony Abbott), the NSW Ministerial Advisory Committee on Hearing and the NSW Education Department’s Sydney Region Multicultural Committee. He also served for 9 years, as an Ambassador of the Australia Day Council of NSW. He was also the Overseas Director for Australia for the Shanghai International Culture Association.

 In recognition of his continued community service, the NSW Parliament unanimously passed a resolution in the Legislative Council paying a tribute to Dr Pun’s 25 years to the Australian community.   The resolution was moved by the Hon Maria Ficarra, MLC, and Parliamentary Secretary to the Premier of NSW. For Parliamentary Tribute to Anthony Pun,  See:

Dr Pun is currently the National President of the Chinese Community Council of Australia and current Chairman of the Multicultural Communities Council of New South Wales.


John Laurence Menadue is the publisher of Pearls & Irritations. He has had a distinguished career both in the private sector and in the Public Service.

This entry was posted in Politics. Bookmark the permalink.

4 Responses to ANTHONY PUN. The Chinese Australian community’s reaction to the passing of Australia’s new package of national security laws.

  1. Avatar Evan Hadkins says:

    “It is a well-known fact that Chinese people love to have a photo opportunity with an Australian politician and some of them are willing to pay for it. Nothing harmful to Australian security or illegal in this innocent pastime.”
    That rather depends on how much and if anything is expected in return.

    I don’t see any possibility of the risk of espionage by a rising (soon to be dominant) power put to rest.

  2. Avatar Malcolm Crout says:

    Sorry, but I don’t share the sense of unfairness promoted in this article.Politics is a filthy game and parties will utilise anything to gain an advantage. If the current mood of society is anti any particular group then political parties will be sensitive to this and preferences accordingly. The sole interest is to get their candidates elected. People buying photo ops with politicians is a bad look, so maybe anyone aspiring to politics needs to get a grip and realise that their public perception will be judged on their behaviour.
    There is more urgency regarding gender diversity among politicians than racial representation. Why the insistence on identifying as Chinese/Australian anyway? Italian, Scottish, English, Greek, German second generation rarely refer to themselves in this fashion, so I don’t understand why Chinese have this need to amplify the obvious. We after all are all supposed to be Australians front and foremost, so why not leave one’s racial identity as an issue of quiet personal pride rather than shoving it down people’s throats.

    • Avatar Wang Xiaochuan says:

      “Why the insistence on identifying as Chinese/Australian anyway? Italian, Scottish, English, Greek, German second generation rarely refer to themselves in this fashion, so I don’t understand why Chinese have this need to amplify the obvious. ”

      I agree with what you say about gender, and understand the welcoming nature of “Australian-identity first” however the reality I have experienced is that many Chinese Australian and other ethnic-minority groups more strongly identify with their ethnicity not out only out of self choice; rather, a it is a historical product of ethnic policy in Australia state.

      Take for instance migrants with Chinese origin who are living in Southeast Asian countries – they seem to be able to embrace their new identifies in many cases – such as in Singapore, Thailand, and the Philippines. But countries that have installed more discriminative, exclusionary policies towards ethnic-Chinese in recent decades seem to reenforce the Chinese identification among the ethnic groups, such as Indonesia and Malaysia.

      Based on the rough thought experiment noted above, I would like to argue that the reason for Chinese Australians to claim their “Chineseness” as part of the political identify shares roots in a reaction towards a historical tradition that constructs a version of political reality that often discriminates.

      The Chinese Australian experienced a high degree of racist-oriented policy throughout the modern Australian history until WWII (such as the “White Australian Policy” and the Immigration Restriction Act). With this historical White Australian Policy, that makes it so that white immigrants are automatically included as Australians. So, I believe the identification is not necessarily a self-identification process, but a reaction towards a construction of political identity which is fueled by a poisonous historical tradition of Sinophobic sentiments.

  3. Avatar Nick Agocs says:

    Dr Pun makes a number of relevant points which are very true.

    In view of these points do W.A. and Federal members have to worry about the “influence” of Indians in this State as one of the largest number of migrants in W.A. are of Indian origin? India, who is a serious military power in the Indian Ocean region, will use these people as a sources of “espionage agents” through out W.A. and then eventually through out Australia as they spread to other parts of Australia?

    As for the matter of “milking cows” – I find the attitude of both major political parties interesting – if I recruit 20/30 new members to my local branch whose names happen to be Smith or Jones I am given credit for “building” up my local branch but the moment I recruit the same number with Indian, Chinese or other East/Southern European names I am accused of “branch staking “. But all political parties are very happy to accept the money that I may have collected and donated as fund raising. No worries about possible “political” influence in spite of the fact that all the three major political groups have their fixed sources of funds.

Comments are closed.