MUNGO MACCALLUM. How good is Gladys?

According to Scott Morrison, Gladys Liu is the most innocent of innocent bystanders — a naïve and trusting immigrant, embroiled in a brutal conspiracy engineered by the evil inquisitors of the Labor Party. The worst that can be said is that she slipped (or more likely was entrapped) over an interview in which she was a little clumsy about her relationship with communist Chinese controlled bodies working in Australia. But she has issued a statement (or had it issued for her) clearing all that up, so nothing to see here.

What’s more, she used to run restaurants and even learned to play the trombone. And she survived domestic violence. Gladys Liu is a great Australia, almost a holy martyr. So all together now, once more with feeling – how good is Gladys Liu?

Well, not quite as good as ScoMo’s fulsome tribute suggests. Far from being a hapless victim, Liu is a savvy and experienced political operative and has been for the best part of thirty years. She sought Liberal preselection a number of times, and perhaps more importantly has been an energetic and highly successful bagwoman, reportedly delivering as much as a million dollars to her grateful party, even if some of that was apparently not properly disclosed.

As chairperson of the Victorian Liberal Party’s Eastern Multicultural Branch, she sought to ease investment rules to allow more scope for foreigners to buy up Australian agriculture. There have been reports, which have not been denied, that ASIO had investigated her links with Beijing.

None of this makes her in any way disloyal, but it does prompt legitimate queries over her suitability to become a member of the federal parliament – after all, others have faced similar scrutiny and in some cases have been forced to step down. And initially at least, all Labor sought to do was to get her to give a coherent explanation to the House of her position.

Morrison would have none of it, and when he could not brush the problem away, played the race card: Liu was being subjected to a grubby smear, it wouldn’t have happened if she had not been born Chinese, and as a result Labor’s campaign was an attack on the entire Chinese-Australian community.

Unsurprisingly, Labor hit back: it was Morrison who invoked race, just as he had characterised their own Sam Dastyari when he got into trouble and eventually resigned. Morrison, as is his wont, denied both of these easily demonstrable facts that he had done either.

Diversion, distraction, prevarication – of course. But it worked. By biting back, by being lured into Morrison’s chosen ground, Labor had lost the argument. If Morrison is good at anything (and there is not much, but one thing’s enough) he is the undisputed master of marketeering spin, the great manipulator of evasion and deception.

The debate is no longer about what Liu may or may not have done; it is about whether her interrogators are xenophobic, even racist. They are not, and even some of Morrison’s closest allies – think Andrew Bolt – believe that Liu still has questions that should be answered.

But they won’t be: Morrison has the numbers. How good is that?


This entry was posted in Politics. Bookmark the permalink.

6 Responses to MUNGO MACCALLUM. How good is Gladys?

  1. Anthony Pun says:

    The China Panic in Australia has shown the LNP to be partisan to US-China relations that it supports the containment of China. It was the LNP who introduced the FITS legislation and making loud rhetoric about a red under every bed. This sequence of events have now returned to haunt one of their own kind. I support Marise Payne and PM Morrison in defending the loyalty of Gladys Liu but the irony of it, that all this China bashing is a real folly. In supporting Gladys, the LNP contradicted all its previous China Panic policies about spies everywhere. Gladys is innocent, so is Dr Ven Tan, who appeared in the SMH recently, and both are loyal Australian citizens. The moral of the story – you can’t have the cake and eat it at the same time! see:Story: Gladys Liu reduced to tears as Morrison hits back at China ‘smear’ – SMH comment –

  2. Rhona Eastment says:

    How in the World could Labor be xenophobic, or racist – Jenny Yang a TaiwaneseChinese was their candidate in Chisolm! I cannot understand why no journalist, or commentator, or Labor person has not brought this point up.

  3. Sandra says:

    My previous business dealing with Hong Kong Chinese, Mainland Chinese and Singaporean Chinese lead me to personally be aware of the big difference in business acumen, professionalism and integrity. The Hong Kong Chinese as a result of living under British rule since 1841 rated 3rd on my list as to integrity. The scenes currently being played out in Hong Kong of violence perpetrated by the Pro-democracy are violating their own democracy and the rule of law. The violence is all about the scourge of greed and corruption that has plagued Hong Kong for years and it is naive in my opinion to continually blame Xi Jinping. Democracy is in decline all over the world.

  4. Ailsa Cowan says:

    “As chairperson of the Victorian Liberal Party’s Eastern Multicultural Branch, she sought to ease investment rules to allow more scope for foreigners to buy up Australian agriculture. ” This statement bears further investigation. Was Gladys working on behalf of China when she made these efforts?

    I wonder why Labor does not make the point that, when the misbehaviour of an Australian born Aussie is questioned, this is not considered to be an”attack on the whole Australian born community.” There will be some bad operators in every segment of the community, totally regardless of ethnicity! Not that I am suggesting that Gladys is a “bad operator” but there are grounds for the question to be asked and investigated.

  5. As was stated somewhere FauxMo is playing straight out of the CCP propaganda handbook by using their tactic of denouncing any criticism of China’s or Chinese individual’s suspect behaviour as racism.

    How good is FauxMo?

  6. Jim KABLE says:

    Questions need to be asked about Morrison’s boss in any case. Which particular version of God is that? Is it the one of Catholics or Anglicans or of Uniting Church or of any of the fundamentalist sects – of Islam (its own variety of sects) – or of the versions fitting Jains, Sikhs, Hindus, Daoists – Buddhists (and the myriad of sects within that umbrella).

    He serves that god – whichever one it is – and we need to be quite clear about exactly which one – but make no mistake about it – it is a God unknown to most Australians – and little blustery shouty Scottie is treading on dangerously treasonous ground if he is not serving Australia first – as Gladys Liu is, too – when clearly not first serving Australia!

Comments are closed.