The ‘Big Society’ & the Chinese Voluntary Sector

The Tory-led government’s cuts to the voluntary sector are ignorant, ideological and incompetent and will impact on those in most need in the Chinese community

Chinese communities have been resident in the UK since the latter part of the 1800s, and remain the third largest minority in the nation. Over this period an extensive Chinese voluntary sector has built up in the UK, with Chinese Associations, Schools and Women’s Groups across the country. These organisations provide a range of services to young people and older people (including lunch clubs, assistance with accessing public services, welfare services, advice and counselling) as well as promoting Chinese language education and Chinese culture.

As a community, the Chinese face some particular challenges, including language barriers, isolation and a lack of social support, so these services are vital. It has been estimated that 70–80 per cent of first generation Chinese immigrants do not speak English. Mainstream services tend to be underused due to language. Many carers cannot always communicate with service providers, and are not always aware of the services available. Moreover, the help that is available tends to be inadequate, and not specific enough to meet their needs.

The stereotype of Chinese people in the UK directly shapes the service provision services for them. Chinese families are seen as being hardworking, self-reliant, keeping themselves to themselves and preferring to ‘care for their own’. This is despite the reality of changing family structures. Geographical dispersal and lack of political organisation mean that few Chinese people deal with their problems on a community basis, or actively promote their interests as a community. Consequently, many first generation Chinese are not fully integrated into the social mainstream and require specialist support services provided by the Chinese voluntary sector.

The Tories have been rather unsuccessfully being trying to promote their vision of a ‘Big Society’ and to boost 'mutual responsibility' by supporting a new culture of volunteering and encouraging people to take an active role in their communities.

A recent ‘Big Society poll’ (conducted by social action network i-volunteer) of over 1,000 members of civil society has found that 42 per cent believed that ‘Big Society’ is ‘politically rebranding existing community action’. A further 21 per cent saw the Big Society as a ‘cover for cuts’. A recent Harris poll for the Financial Times shows that only 25 per cent of the British public believe they should be ‘encouraged to give up some of their time to help support public services’ compared to 42 per cent in the US.

However, it is clear that the ‘Big Society’ is playing second fiddle to Chancellor Osborne’s deficit fetish and the toxic mix of policy agendas is proving to be extremely risky with potentially disastrous consequences.

Planning for the ‘Big Society’ to fill the empty space left by the retreating state is hard at the best of times; trying to do it whilst urging them to innovate, to conduct structural reform and to oversee massive funding cuts is going to be impossible. Reductions in direct and infrastructure funding to the voluntary sector combined with cuts to local authority funding are threatening the survival of many these organisations. Even transferring services between providers is time consuming, costly and expensive.

Numerous service contracts between voluntary sector and public sector bodies will end in March 2011. Voluntary sector organisations are increasingly fearful of their future, uncertain about sources of future funding and on their ability to maintain staffing levels. They are being forced to draw on their reserves, limit or reduce service provision and delay plans to invest in projects. Partnerships are crumbling and experience is being lost.

Up and down the country as NHS trusts and local authorities are searching for rapid, unstrategic short term cuts. Provider organisations are being asked to renegotiate contracts mid-year; some have been asked to submit new funding bids to meet short deadlines, to rapidly reduce or increase provision, or to form new delivery partnerships in unrealistic timescales. The smaller, local voluntary sector providers such as Chinese Associations and their service users are directly in the firing line.

The voluntary sector is easily ignored, its commitment to its beneficiaries easily exploited. But at a time when demand for these vital services is increasing, it will be our most excluded people and communities that this Tory-led government will be putting at risk.

Alleged Chinese cyber-spies penetrate Foreign Office computers

Whislt I agree that c

yber-attacks

are on the increase I have to remind (16 pints )

William Hague that it is not just China alone that is using cyber-attacks what about the hard truths that all countries are in it togther.

William Hague speaks during the International Conference on Security Policy in Munich.

China has penetrated the Foreign Office's internal communications in the most audacious example yet of the growing threat posed by state-sponsored cyber-attacks, it emerged tonight.

William Hague told a security conference in Munich that the FO repelled the attack last month from "a hostile state intelligence agency". Although the foreign secretary did not name the country behind the attacks, intelligence sources familiar with the incidents made it clear he was referring to China. The sources did not want to be identified because of the sensitive nature of the issue.

In his speech Hague was reflecting growing anger and concern within the government about the increasing threat posed by cyber-espionage – states, as well as individuals, using cyberspace to steal defence, diplomatic and commercial secrets.

"It is a new development. The UK is prepared to admit the attacks were state-backed," said Alexander Neill, head of the Asia programme at the Royal United Services Institute thinktank.

The foreign secretary said the FO attack came in the form of an email sent to three of his staff "which claimed to be about a forthcoming visit to the region and looked quite innocent". "In fact it was from a hostile state intelligence agency and contained computer code embedded in the attached document that would have attacked their machine. Luckily, our systems identified it and stopped it from ever reaching my staff," Hague said.

In another attack last year, the foreign secretary said Britain's defence industry was "deliberately" targeted. "A malicious file posing as a report on a nuclear Trident missile was sent to a defence contractor by someone masquerading as an employee of another defence contractor," Hague told an audience of western officials and businessmen. "Security meant that the email was detected and blocked, but its purpose was undoubtedly to steal information relating to our most sensitive defence projects."

Hague admitted that a third attack, apparently criminal, had succeeded in evading Britain's defences, with a version of the Zeus malware widely used to extract banking information and other personal details from targeted computers.

"In late December a spoof email purporting to be from the White House was sent to a large number of international recipients who were directed to click on a link that then downloaded a variant of Zeus," Hague said. "The UK government was targeted in this attack and a large number of emails bypassed some of our filters. Our experts were able to clear up the infection, but more sophisticated attacks such as these are becoming more common."

The foreign secretary said government was spending £650m on its cyber defences against such attacks, and working with the private sector. But he added that the international response was "fragmented and lacks focus".

Speaking to journalists later, Hague said: "We're witnessing an exponential rise in the misuse of cyberspace. In a decade, this could be out of control, and we have to start to do the thinking now."

He said Britain was offering to host an international conference this year aimed at establishing global standards.

"Many countries do not share our view of the positive impact of the internet, and others are actively working against us in a hostile manner," he said.

"However as liberal democracies we also have a compelling interest in supporting democratic ideals in cyberspace, and working to convince others of this vision."

General Sir David Richards, chief of the defence staff, last month said the UK needsed its own Cyber Command, similar to that set by by the US defence department. He said that the advance of cyber technology would lead to a "cultural change" in warfare which the UK must be prepared for."We must learn to defend, delay, attack and manoeuvre in cyberspace, just as we might on the land, sea or air and all together at the same time".