Report: Chinese students at UK universities 'pressured to spy on classmates'
Chinese students are being pressured to 'spy on classmates' by officials back home, a new report claims. The UK-China Transparency (UKCT) think tank suggested the Chinese Communist Party (CCP) is monitoring discussions on British campuses via students.
It is thought the move is intended to suppress discourse on issues which are sensitive to the Chinese government. UKCT researchers questioned 50 academics working in the Chinese studies field and found many were concerned about the influence of Beijing .
One lecturer said their Chinese students had 'confided' that they had been asked to spy on campus events by Chinese police. Another scholar said they were told by Chinese students that 'surveillance is omnipresent' and that they are 'interviewed by officials' when they return to China .
The report also claimed Chinese government officials had warned lecturers to avoid discussing certain topics in their classes. It comes days after a new law came into force placing more responsibility on universities to uphold academic freedom and free speech.
However, UKCT said some universities are reluctant to address the issue of Chinese interference because of their financial reliance on Chinese student fees. The report alleged that some Chinese academics involved in sensitive research had been denied visas by the Chinese government. Meanwhile others said family members back in China had been harassed or threatened because of their work in the UK.
These sensitive topics included the alleged ethnic cleansing in China's Xinjiang region, the outbreak of Covid or the rise of Chinese technology companies, according to the report. Some academics reported intimidation by visiting scholars or other Chinese officials, as well as by staff at Confucius Institutes.
These are partnership organizations operating at several UK universities, working with institutions in China. They promote Chinese culture and language on UK campuses, but have been criticized over alleged ties to the CCP.
A Chinese Embassy spokesman said the country had always adhered to its policy of not interfering with other countries' internal affairs. They told the BBC the report was 'groundless and absurd', adding that China respects freedom of speech in the UK and elsewhere. A spokesman for Universities UK, which represents 141 institutions, said: 'Anyone working or studying at our universities should know that their rights to personal and academic freedom are protected when they are on British soil.'
Hashtags
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
The Sun
7 minutes ago
- The Sun
Was it Starmer's plan all along to make us so subservient to the EU that we'd be better off back in?
WERE we fooled too easily by Sir Keir Starmer's assurances that he had no intention of taking Britain back into the EU? With the publication of the EU's draft documents for the 'reset' in relations between Britain and the bloc, it is tempting to wonder whether there has been a scheme in the PM's mind all along: to make Britain so subservient to the EU that eventually a return to full membership becomes a less-worse option. 3 3 As announced by Starmer and EU Commission President Ursula von der Leyen at their summit in London in May, a new 'common sanitary and phyto-sanitary' area will be created. That should mean the end of checks on food imports and exports — as well as petty customs officers confiscating sandwiches from lorry drivers. Needless to say, it comes at a price. In order to escape the border checks, Britain will have to agree to full alignment with EU food standards. And it is becoming increasingly clear what this means in practice: Britain simply agreeing to enact EU standards. French farmers In contrast to when we were members of the EU, however, we will have little say in what those standards should be. We may be consulted, but it is the EU which will make the rules and Britain which is forced to accept them. It is obvious from past experience what is going to happen. EU legislators, heavily lobbied by French farmers and the like, will pass laws which are designed to discriminate against UK-made produce, in order to keep it out of EU markets. We will have no power to stop them. To take an example, Britain spent 27 years fighting the EU for the right to sell our chocolate bars across the Continent. Keir Starmer- hopes for reset with EU do not mean 'reversing Brexit' The EU, under pressure from French and Belgian manufacturers, wanted to impose a limit on the milk content and vegetable fat content of chocolate bars — which just happened to permit products made in France and Belgium but exclude those which were popular in Britain. In a typical piece of EU-style bureaucratic invention, officials tried to come up with a compromise: where UK-made bars would be labelled 'vegelate' — presumably to make them sound so unappetising that no one would want to buy them anyway. Britain eventually won that battle — in 2000, after nearly three decades of bruising political and legal battle. But in future? Britain will have no say. The European Commission will be able to pass a law banning British chocolate bars and there will be little we can do about it. British food manufacturers could, perhaps, appeal to the new 'independent arbitrary tribunal' which will be set up to judge trade disputes, but it won't really be worthy of the name 'independent'. As the EU draft documents make clear, the EU's Court of Justice will become 'the ultimate authority for all questions of EU law'. Needless to say, the EU wants Britain to pay for the privilege of joining its common sanitary area. We will also be under obligation to align our carbon levies with the EU, making it more difficult for a future UK government to escape the straitjacket of Net Zero. Both Britain and the EU are in the process of imposing carbon border taxes — levies on imports according to their embedded carbon emissions. Under the reset, Britain will be expected to align its own system with the EU's. It was exactly these kinds of arrangement which Theresa May and Boris Johnson's governments fought so hard to avoid — not very satisfactorily, it has to be said. We actually ended up with an arrangement which created an internal UK border between Britain and Northern Ireland. But the system which will come about as a result of Starmer's reset will be far worse. It will take us close to being the 'vassal state' that Jacob Rees-Mogg warned about — a vassal state being the name given to states in medieval Europe which were notionally independent but in practice were under the control of, and under obligation to pay taxes to, a much larger empire. No UK PM ever really tried to play the EU at its game — even though they ought to have been in the driving seat in negotiations At the moment, the reset will cover food, animal and plant products as well as a number of high-carbon materials such as steel and cement. Second referendum But this will almost certainly mark just a beginning. Under a Starmer government we will be sucked further and further into the EU's orbit until it becomes a mere tidying-up exercise to rejoin the bloc in full. Donald Trump has just shown what you can do if you negotiate hard with the EU — European Commission president Von der Leyen ended up agreeing to 15 per cent tariffs on EU exports to the US, as well as a commitment to buy more US oil and gas — all for very little in return. Yet no UK PM ever really tried to play the EU at its game — even though they ought to have been in the driving seat in negotiations with the EU because they sell more to us than we sell to them. While Conservatives were trying and failing to get a good deal, Starmer, you might remember, was campaigning for a second Brexit referendum in which — he hoped — Britons would vote to reverse the result of the first. He didn't get his way on that, of course. But that doesn't mean he has given up on trying to reinstate Britain in the EU. To judge by his actions, that may very well be his undeclared ambition.
The Sun
7 minutes ago
- The Sun
Immigration piling ‘unsustainable' pressure on public services, warns top UK financial watchdog
IMMIGRATION is creating a strain on public services, a top official at the UK's fiscal watchdog has warned. Economist David Miles said the country's reliance on overseas workers 'could not be sustained'. 2 The Office for Budget Responsibility official urged Labour to target worklessness at home rather than relying on mass migration. Mr Miles wrote: ' Immigration, which primarily involves those of working age, delays the impact of the ageing of the population and is the driver of population growth. 'Some conclude a faster rise in the population will be beneficial in alleviating acute underlying fiscal pressures. 'But there are serious problems with that idea.' He argued migrants still use schools, hospitals and other services and eventually become eligible for benefits. Mr Miles said the answer lies in tackling the post-Covid — which was mainly driven by Brits. He wrote: 'The fiscal benefits of helping people, especially young people, back into employment are substantial.' It comes as Labour faces a backlash over Britain's soaring benefits bill after caving to backbench rebels and watering down reforms. Mr Miles' comments mark a major intervention from a senior figure at the OBR, which has long treated immigration as an economic good. The OBR has admitted low-paid migrants are a net drain — costing taxpayers £150,000 each by the time they hit state pension age. Data shows immigration fuelled England and Wales' population growth by 700,000 in a year to June 2024. 2 The Sun watches as hundreds of illegal migrants arrive at Dover
The Independent
36 minutes ago
- The Independent
Nigel Farage should do his bit to keep the peace
There is no situation where an intervention by Nigel Farage won't make things worse. He has, after all, made a career out of detecting, exploiting and exacerbating people's grievances and fears, a grim cycle that has delivered electoral success. The man is gifted in his insidious trade, if nothing else. Nowhere is this strategy more dangerously deployed than in issues of migration, race and crime, so often shamelessly conflated by the Reform UK leader with a studied and long-experienced hand. It is done almost instinctively. Once, he even blamed being late for a 'meet-the-Ukip leader' event in Wales on traffic jams on the M4 caused by immigration, rather than, say, the infamous bottleneck at Newport. Rather more grievously, his actions in the aftermath of the horrific Southport murders a year ago did nothing to calm tempers and stop the wild social media speculation that the person responsible was a Muslim asylum seeker who'd more or less just arrived in Britain, via a small boat. He plainly has no regrets and is approaching the disclosure of details concerning the rape of a 12-year-old girl in Nuneaton in the same reckless manner. He and his Reform UK colleagues on Warwickshire County Council are demanding, as Mr Farage did last year, that the immigration status of those involved be released by the police. The justification, once again, is that there is a 'cover-up' – a serious allegation made without foundation – and people are being denied the truth, presumably through some sense of misguided political correctness. Mr Farage implies, as he did last year, that this 'cover-up' – which he presumably sees as a deliberate attempt to deceive the public – only serves to create confusion and inflame feelings. In fact, of course, it is he who is creating additional tension, adding to a sense of injustice and the fear that the police are more interested in defending perpetrators than defending victims, despite the obvious truth that those accused have been caught and taken into custody by those same police, doing their duty. It is difficult to see why the migration status of everyone arrested on a serious offence should be automatically released, as Mr Farage suggests, even when it is immediately known for sure. If the person involved is a refugee, for example, accepted for indefinite leave to remain, then that does not make them 'more guilty' or their offence 'more serious' simply by the fact that they may have escaped from torture or some war zone. There is a strong probability that migration status will be equated to race, which is even less relevant. The only possible valid use of immigration status in the criminal justice system is if the person is convicted. At that point, the question of deportation does arise. The fact is that someone's immigration status can affect the feelings of many perfectly law-abiding and worried people demonstrating outside 'migrant hotels' (real or imagined) up and down the country on legitimate grounds. They are not all fascists or racists, still less pathologically violent. They are angry and fearful at what they learn from the news and the speculation on social media, and they deserve to be told the facts. But there is just the suspicion that immigration status can, in some grotesque, emotionally-charged way, lead to violence and mob rule. It is, quite simply, wrong and criminally so, to attempt arson on a hotel with human beings inside, whatever the circumstances. It doesn't help anyone or solve anything. If a rapist comes from a family that can trace its English origins to Anglo-Saxon times, that should make people no more or less angry than if the criminal has only lived here for a matter of weeks and is from some country in Africa or the Middle East. Race should play no part in justice, even mob justice. It would be refreshing, statesmanlike and a genuinely great public service if Mr Farage and those like him used their public platform to call for calm and peaceful protest, and not display so much apparent tacit support for angry, violent reactions in tense demonstrations. His warnings sound too much like self-fulfilling prophecies, as when he declared a few weeks ago: 'I don't think anybody in London understands just how close we are to civil disobedience on a vast scale in this country.' Given what happened last July and early August, the opposite is surely true: ministers and police chiefs are all too well aware of such a possibility. The difference is that, unlike Mr Farage, they don't seem to be talking it up. It would make a useful change if Mr Farage didn't make everything into a 'cover-up' and accept that, in many cases, details are withheld for sound legal reasons concerning a fair trial and the provisions of the Contempt of Court Act 1981. The police should not have to break the law and risk upsetting a trial and letting the guilty go free simply because of the threat of a riot if they don't, or accusations of 'two-tier policing'. What's more, Mr Farage shouldn't call for the resignation of chief constables, or any other officers, who are trying to keep the oaths they took to uphold the laws set down by parliament and the King's peace. Standing up for the police, defending the independent judiciary, condemning violence and respecting human rights are, in fact, the patriotic British things to do at times such as these. If he cares about the cohesion of communities and the rule of law as deeply as he claims, Mr Farage should do his bit to keep the peace as well.
