On Saturday, a graffitied wall along London’s Brick Lane was whitewashed and daubed with the Chinese characters for the 12 “core socialist values” promoted by the Chinese Communist Party (CCP).
The stark red words in simplified Chinese on the whitewashed background served as a perfect metaphor for the CCP’s approach — which is not to allow any room for dissent or diversity while promoting a simplistic, ideological code that bears little resemblance to how it actually governs China.
It is unclear what residents and visitors who do not read Chinese thought of it: They might have seen it mainly as an unwanted intrusion from overseas by propaganda that rudely covered up original artwork.
The work was carried out by a group of Chinese students. One member said that the slogans “did not carry a strong political message,” which seems disingenuous, because they clearly do, within the context of their presence in the UK’s capital or as propaganda splayed throughout communist China.
However, a statement by the group said it was an “adamant display of freedom of expression ... the characters stand as a silent reminder of the oppression of thought, press freedom and to free speech that is still rampant in China in 2023,” apparently contradicting the position of the aforementioned member.
By the end of the weekend, the local council had erased the words, together with the comments that people had added.
Whatever one thinks about the manner in which it was done, or what the original intent of the group of artists was, as a piece of installation art it was brilliant, because of the conversation it elicited and that it was done on a platform the CCP authorities could not trace. It is a shame the local council did not leave it up for a few more days.
If nothing else, the conversation allowed for scrutiny of the CCP’s supposed “core socialist values.” To the characters for “patriotism” (愛國), someone added the prefix “fake/hypocritical” (偽) and the suffix “does not love me” (不愛我), turning the message into: “I fake my love for my country because my country does not love me.”
The characters “rule of law” (法治) were also modified to “fake rule of law” (偽法治), and the lower right quadrant of the final character was pierced by a question mark, as if questioning whether the claim of rule of law in communist China was legitimate.
The character for “fake/hypocritical” appeared next to many of the “core socialist values.”
By “equality” (平等) somebody had written, in English, “but some are more equal than others,” a reference to George Orwell’s Animal Farm. By “justice” (公正), a “no” (不) was added, making it “no justice.” Next to this there was a sticker showing a Hong Kong protester with the slogan “Stay strong Hong Kong,” while other stickers showed a cartoon of Chinese President Xi Jinping (習近平), looking remarkably similar to Winnie the Pooh, annotated with the legend “Jinpingie the Pooh,” and another with Xi above the text “Free re-education camps,” a satirical reference to the Uighur concentration camps.
President Tsai Ing-wen (蔡英文) often talks about shared values aligning Taiwan with like-minded democracies in opposition to autocratic regimes, and there is little to dislike about the listed values: Who would find fault with prosperity, democracy, civilization, harmony, freedom, equality, justice, rule of law, patriotism, dedication, integrity and friendliness? It is just that, as the Brick Lane commentators so eloquently pointed out, the CCP’s adherence to most of these values is a lie.
Maybe this artwork would work admirably on the streets of Taipei, where it is far more relevant than in London, and especially during a presidential election campaign, when, as always, China looms large.
On Sunday, 13 new urgent care centers (UCC) officially began operations across the six special municipalities. The purpose of the centers — which are open from 8am to midnight on Sundays and national holidays — is to reduce congestion in hospital emergency rooms, especially during the nine-day Lunar New Year holiday next year. It remains to be seen how effective these centers would be. For one, it is difficult for people to judge for themselves whether their condition warrants visiting a major hospital or a UCC — long-term public education and health promotions are necessary. Second, many emergency departments acknowledge
US President Donald Trump’s seemingly throwaway “Taiwan is Taiwan” statement has been appearing in headlines all over the media. Although it appears to have been made in passing, the comment nevertheless reveals something about Trump’s views and his understanding of Taiwan’s situation. In line with the Taiwan Relations Act, the US and Taiwan enjoy unofficial, but close economic, cultural and national defense ties. They lack official diplomatic relations, but maintain a partnership based on shared democratic values and strategic alignment. Excluding China, Taiwan maintains a level of diplomatic relations, official or otherwise, with many nations worldwide. It can be said that
Victory in conflict requires mastery of two “balances”: First, the balance of power, and second, the balance of error, or making sure that you do not make the most mistakes, thus helping your enemy’s victory. The Chinese Communist Party (CCP) has made a decisive and potentially fatal error by making an enemy of the Jewish Nation, centered today in the State of Israel but historically one of the great civilizations extending back at least 3,000 years. Mind you, no Israeli leader has ever publicly declared that “China is our enemy,” but on October 28, 2025, self-described Chinese People’s Armed Police (PAP) propaganda
Chinese Nationalist Party (KMT) Chairwoman Cheng Li-wun (鄭麗文) made the astonishing assertion during an interview with Germany’s Deutsche Welle, published on Friday last week, that Russian President Vladimir Putin is not a dictator. She also essentially absolved Putin of blame for initiating the war in Ukraine. Commentators have since listed the reasons that Cheng’s assertion was not only absurd, but bordered on dangerous. Her claim is certainly absurd to the extent that there is no need to discuss the substance of it: It would be far more useful to assess what drove her to make the point and stick so
RSS