What purpose does Senator Abetz’s questioning of Chinese Australians serve, other than to make them feel that they will never belong, no matter how long they have lived here or how hard they have tried?
Last year, on an episode of The Minefield, I discussed a tendency towards “internal othering” in Australia’s public discourse, with particular reference to Chinese communities in Australia. In my conversation with Waleed Aly and Scott Stephens, I posed these questions: “At what point can we say that this person of Chinese heritage has been here long enough to deserve our trust? What does this person of Chinese extraction have to do in order to prove that they’re one of us? Is it possible that this person can be loyal to Australia while at the same time still loving his or her motherland?”
Our discussion did not produce any answers; we left these questions dangling. More than a year later, it seems that we have clear answers to at least some of them.
In the Foreign Affairs, Defence and Trade References Committee’s inquiry into issues facing diaspora communities in Australia, Senator Eric Abetz asked each of three witnesses of Chinese heritage to tell him “whether they are willing to unconditionally condemn the Chinese Communist Party dictatorship.” All three were attending the hearing voluntarily at the invitation of the committee, to clarify and elaborate on their written submissions.
Apparently not happy with their answers, Senator Abetz went further:
There’s a difference between not supporting something and actively condemning a regime that engages in forced organ harvesting and having a million Uighers in concentration camps — the list goes on, and all we have is this limp statement that we don’t support it.
In the eyes of some, these three witnesses, with their different cultural backgrounds — one Australian-born (Osmond Chiu), one Hong Kong-born but raised in Australia (Wesa Chau), and one China-born but raised in Australia (Yun Jiang) — may have failed a loyalty test, and were found wanting as Australian citizens. Worse still, their inability to answer this question to Senator Abetz’s satisfaction could be taken as further evidence of their questionable allegiance to Australia.
The impression that this was a loyalty test seems hard to avoid, although it should be noted that Senator Abetz has since put out a statement denying that he was demanding proof of loyalty. Regardless of his intentions, the consequences have nevertheless been unfortunate.
Senator Abetz is certainly entitled to his views on China and his assumptions about Chinese Australians. But in his role as a committee member of a public senate hearing, he enters problematic territory when his personal views influence the committee’s line of inquiry.
All of a sudden, these three Chinese Australian witnesses came to suspect that this inquiry had, as former Prime Minister Kevin Rudd put it, “no interest in listening to [their] insights about the challenges faced by ethnic minorities in our country.” Instead, they were there as targets of investigation. Small wonder that Yun Jiang felt that the experience was “less like a public inquiry and more like a public witch-hunt.” The witness has become a suspect. Hearing has become inquisition.
I had also made a written submission to the inquiry because, as an academic in a public institution, I believe I have a duty to present evidence-based research to inform public policy-making. As a result of that submission, I too received an invitation to appear before the committee — my appearance was due towards the end of October. I initially accepted the invitation. While I didn’t expect the committee members necessarily to like or agree with the points I raised in my submission, I was nevertheless hoping that appearing before them would give me a chance to clarify, elaborate on, and further discuss these findings and the evidence on which they were based.
However, after reading about the experience of these three, it now seems there is little point to my appearing before the committee. The terms and conditions of the inquiry seem to have been changed. Is a public hearing still a public hearing if committee members don’t want to listen? And why should I subject myself to interrogation, since, as a migrant who came to Australia from the People’s Republic of China as a young adult, I would by default most likely score even fewer loyalty points than the other three, and be subject to an even more “rigorous” line of questioning and probing? Knowing how these other three were treated, I now have no intention of putting myself on trial in this way.
News of “the unfortunate three” has been met with much anguish, anger, and a disturbing level of sadness by those Chinese Australians I talk to on social media. Among many people in my WeChat groups, most of whom are first-generation migrants from mainland China, one question that keeps being asked is this: “Our Prime Minister and Foreign Minister do not openly condemn the Chinese Communist Party for fear of jeopardising Australia’s trade relationship with China. Why should we ordinary Australians be expected to do so, at the risk of our own personal safety?”
These WeChat users also question the motives behind this line of inquiry. What purpose does Senator Abetz’s questioning of Chinese Australians serve, other than to make them feel that they will never belong, no matter how long they have lived here or how hard they have tried?
Quite a few older Chinese Australians who lived through the 1960s and 1970s have reported feeling a chill down their spine at the news of Abetz’s questioning. Some commented that this “feels eerily similar to China’s Cultural Revolution.” During that era of political purges, people were demanded to denounce “enemies of the state” — even though those “enemies” may have been their own friends and family. Those refusing to “draw a clear line” were automatically put in the category of the politically untrustworthy.
I raised a number of issues in my written submission — including anti-Chinese racism, the demonisation of the Chinese community, suspicion of Chinese Australians’ political loyalties, and the lack of civic and citizenship education for new migrants. But now that I see some of these same issues being reproduced in Senator Abetz’s line of questioning, it makes me doubt whether this senate inquiry represents a genuine attempt to address them.
Why I will not appear before the inquiry
I have several reasons for reversing my original decision to speak to the committee. First, although I am impressed with how the other three responded to this line of inquiry with dignity and eloquence, I fear that I may become too emotional and lose my cool, given the high likelihood that I too would be confronted with a similar level of aggressiveness. I would find it difficult to “front up” to the inquiry, knowing full well that, as one Australian colleague not of Chinese background warned me, “they will come for you.” As a result, I believe that it would take a toll on my mental health.
Second, my appearance is most likely useless. Since the hearing is clearly not a hearing, it seems that my original wish to help shed light on a very misunderstood diaspora community, in the hope of injecting some nuance and complexity into the debate, now seems rather quixotic.
Third, I have to think about the potential repercussions. What should I say if I’m asked to condemn the Chinese government unconditionally, as the other three were? If I do as asked, I may satisfy Senator Abetz, but I may thereby put myself and my family in China at risk. But if I refuse to do as he asks, my refusal may be interpreted as evidence that my allegiances lie with China rather than with Australia. This may also leave me open to public abuse and trolling, or to misreporting by hawkish journalists keen to flush out “Commie sympathisers.” So I would be damned if I do, and damned if I don’t.
My fourth reason is based as much on strategy as it is on principle. I believe that by withdrawing from the process, I may send a stronger and more effective public message than I would by appearing. I also see withdrawing as a more potent way of standing in solidarity with Osmond Chiu, Yun Jiang, and Wesa Chau. Were I to appear, my contribution would quickly be absorbed into the mass of other submissions, most of which will likely end up being ignored by the committee, the parliament, and the media. By making a point of not appearing, some of the concerns I’ve expressed in my submission may stand a better chance of being heard.
Finally, and perhaps most importantly, it seems that the implementation of this senate inquiry has been politicised — perhaps not along party lines, but politicised nonetheless. As a result, I suspect that its outcomes are already more or less predetermined.
There’s an ancient Chinese saying that goes, “When a scholar meets a soldier, the scholar with an argument to make doesn’t stand a chance.” At this moment, I also feel I don’t stand a chance of getting my message across in front of those politicians who come to the inquiry with closed minds and blocked ears, and with a bagful of preconceptions and assumptions that they freely — but perhaps unconsciously — reveal in the questions they ask and the answers they refuse to accept.
What’s more, based on the experience of the three Chinese Australians who went before me, it’s most likely that, in the eyes of Senator Abetz, my Chinese background would trump my scholarly credentials, as a result of which I probably wouldn’t be treated as a credible researcher capable of producing independent research in the first place. Worse still, he may think that my ethnic Chinese background itself would preclude me from any claim to independence and credibility. Without wanting to grandstand, I now see no reason, as a self-respecting academic researcher, for wanting to be associated with such an exercise.
Wanning Sun is a professor of media and cultural studies at the University of Technology, Sydney. She also serves as the deputy director of the UTS Australia-China Relations Institute. She is a fellow of the Australian Academy of the Humanities and a member of the Australian Research Council’s College of Experts (2020-23). She is best known in the field of China studies for her ethnography of rural-to-urban migration and social inequality in contemporary China. She writes about Chinese diaspora, diasporic Chinese media, and Australia-China relations.
Comments
13 responses to ““When a scholar meets a soldier …”: Why I’ve decided not to speak to the senate inquiry on diaspora communities in Australia (ABC Oct 21, 2020)”
Congratulations for speaking up for all Australians in particular Chinese Australians so eloquently. Those two Senators especially Abetz unfortunately fall into the category of bigoted few as prescribed by Minister Alan Tudge as the 1% of Australians with extreme views. “Senator Abetz is certainly entitled to his views on China and his assumptions about Chinese Australians. But in his role as a committee member of a public senate hearing, he enters problematic territory when his personal views influence the committee’s line of inquiry.”.
Judging from many adverse comments on the behaviour of these two Senators especially Abetz since the incident, it would be fair that they be stood aside in the Parliamentary Enquiring Committee. If they apologize and admit their mistakes publicly, we may consider to forgive them for their unholy, un-Australian behaviour as a Federal Parliamentarian who should have known better.
It’s not just Chinese nor a recent phenomenon but these nativist narratives emerged in the mainstream (media) post Tampa during PM Howard’s ‘leadership’ decades ago; common ideological and political PR thread shared by ageing monocultural conservatives and parties in the US, UK and Australia
If one has an interest in discourse whether verbal or written, the clock turned back to describe anyone non WASP or non Anglo/Catholic or non white as ‘Australian’ decades ago, while the third generation of descendents of e.g. immigrants from Italy can be deemed to be still ‘immigrants’ but not Australian?
Suggestion of the ‘great replacement theory’ that had been promoted widely till the Christchurch tragedy then blamed upon the ‘internet’.
Same yardstick is applied to temporary residents caught up in the nebulous and confusingly named NOM net overseas migration, which is purely about border ‘movements’ not formal ‘immigration’ then blamed for spiking population; no suprise the population movement is joined at the hip with the old Anglo eugenics movement (using the population-immigration nexus to dog whistle and split the centre left).
Conversely, other examples are how British, Irish or European immigrants neither attract political and/or media attention, nor have to reach any particular ‘values’ bar set by MPs and media; they fly under the radar while (too many British) don’t even describe themselves as Australian (while complaining that Australians are dumb and there are too many other ‘brown immigrants’).
Regarding the Senate Inquiry, what was Labor doing to respond to Abetz, or doing another Tampa and shrinking from the promotion of ethical values for all citizens including immigrants and MPs?
I want to say something…. mostly to cry because I was born in Australia in 1942 to parents that worked in the the First and Second World Wars as conscientious objectors as stretcher bearer in France and matron of a country hospital in Victoria …. and they took me along to secret commemorations of the US atom bombs dropped on Japan
Over the years I have cherished Evatt and many others mostly in the Australian Labor Party that have striven to improve Australia as an civilising force in the world
but sadly I see Australian political representatives regressing their lack of civilisation
A bit of perspective that may not be so readily apparent. Eric is one of those politicians famous for almost complete lack of achievement and wit. He has been widely reviled by many Australians for decades. He’s a Senator and every state regardless of population gets ten with five elected each regular election. The majors can count on two each so it’s always a matter of doing what it takes not to get relegated to third spot on your party’s ballot. Eric is dead wood and knows it. So he takes every chance to do the hack routine of getting his name in the paper and making everything he can about him. He had a dismal gaffe prone ministerial record even by LNP standards so he can’t stand on that record.
He’s also I suspect an interesting case study of the effects of childhood migrant persecution. He was born in Austria and migrated in the early 60s as a child and with his thick accent was almost certainly badly treated at school. As he grew he bore a remarkable similarity to a famous German comic TV character which probably made things worse. Should he challenge me I’d be tempted to retort by asking him to refute the Nazism of his heritage. I couldn’t do it though knowing what he’s almost certainly suffered.
He’s not dangerous in himself but the media forces always ready to jump on the bigotry bandwagon in Australia are. These types of Senate committees are mostly about grandstanding. The list of Senators on committee suggest this is totally the case in this instance.
A question for Prof Sun and commentators: If a Chinese Australian is called before this Senate inquiryn would it be proper for the person to seek infornation about the presence of Senator Abetz before making a decision to appear before the Senate?
秀才遇著兵；有理講不清 Xiùcái yùzhe bīng; yǒulǐ jiǎng bù qīng!！
when a scholar meets a soldier, even the clearest logic cannot be explained
The observation that Abetz is like one of the bigots of the Cultural Revolution is an eye-opener.
It is likely that this crusade against the Chinese Communist Party will peter out through lack of funding. In the days when world communism was a threat to rich people’s money everywhere, anti-communism could always expect to be well funded. Far from losing it, the rich of the West are now more likely to make money by investing in China than in the West. They are not so stupid that they can’t see through all this bullshit, which is funded only by arms companies looking for another war. Wars devastate the non-arms sector.
Senator, at the outset let me thank you for the opportunity to show my abject loyalty to the Australian Herrenvolk. I appreciate that coming as I do from a lesser race, it is entirely necessary and right that my loyalty should be doubly suspect.
Let me say I utterly and unequivocally condemn the appalling treatment meted out to the captive people; the indiscriminate use of white phosphorous munitions against unarmed civilians, the use of starvation as a means of control, the wanton and deliberate destruction of crops and orchards, the use of snipers to target paramedics trying to bring relief to injured people, the deliberate pollution of scarce water supplies with sewage, the imprisonment of children as young as eight years old for extended period in solitary confinement, the killing of fishermen trying to feed their families.
Let me also say I utterly condemn the subversive practice of influencing elections by making donations through supposedly local organisations, of influencing our elected representatives with free trips and lucrative speaking engagements, of suborning our media with threats and bribes to ensure the truth of their behaviour is suppressed or diffused.
Now I shall turn my remarks towards China…
As an aside, it is the people who voted that German – Eric Abetz – into government.
“Otherism” lives on strong and proud in Australian socety, whether it is based on race, religion, politics or intellect.
A hive mentality exists here as strongly as it does everywhere else in human communities.
My own brother suffered from “otherism” when the Chinese born parents of his intended wife refused permission for her to marry a person not of their race and culture.
I have been acquainted with similar cases from a raft of culture/race/religion based prohibitions.
In this matter, though it is likely to be as much a point of political maneouvring as a matter of “otherism”, the said Senator having frequently displayed a capacity for manipulation and distraction to suit his particular aims: His lack of moral responsibility clearly on view in Parliamentary discussions.
Tasmania’s combination of low educational standards and Senate over-representation has blighted the Commonwealth for generations.
Some near-synonyms of your “otherism” are “xenophobia” and “conservatism”. The people who gave your brother heartache were Chinese conservatives. But if the West declines into a moral backwater full of Eric Abetzes, that attitude is more likely to be correct.
Wise decision, Prof!
Great to see your will and capacity to speak up with equanimity and acuity.
It is such a shame that the Chinese in Oz still do not have a public voice.
In the 50 years of multiculturalism the huayi community leaders failed to discard their inherited compardor outlook. And in the last 20 years the PRC emigres often fail to sufficiently accultruate themselves before launching into the fray. The native born and the near-native born, often outstandingly able, unfortuantely are treated by the old guards of White Australia as upstarts – to be chided for not being like the Chinese community leaders they are used to: usable compradors; suspect commie agents.
Abetz is morally suspect – minimising captial gains tax through a cosy arrangement with a developer. So Chinese Aussies would be mere colateral demage if bugling national security in preparation for an early election next year is urgent. No doubt he is shoring up his own position at the peak of the conservatives in Tasmania as well.
I am still waiting to be invited to appear! As a non-mendicant who pointed out, amongst others, that the Remains of the Whtie Australia Dream is a significant barrier to the unfettered participation in our national affairs by the Chinese in Oz.
I also stand with you and those many fine and decent Aussies disgracefully and contemptibly being hounded by Herr Abetz. As one of the Irish diaspora
What a stunning rebuttal of the ugliness of Erich Abetz. I stand with you and the other three in your articulate response here to the McCarthyist witch-hunt style he has unleashed. I am not of Chinese background though within my family here and in other lands where they are diaspora-style scattered – there are marriage links to those of Chinese origin – this is the nature of our world. And colleagues and friends – here and abroad – of Chinese background. What are Erich Abetz’s links – might we ask for a full disclosure from him first? At any rate – thanks for this response, Wanning Sun.
Professor Sun,
Allow me to stand with you and the three young Chinese Australians. I am particularly concerned by developments in recent years over the demonisation of the Chinese government and Australians of Chinese descent. As we all know, this situation is not new in the countries where minority migrants have settled. Whenever turmoil arises in the adopted countries, those responsible would attempt to externalise blame and the usual targets are the weaker and most conspicuously different (in appearance and behaviour) minorities. We have little defence when history moves against us. We are not responsible for the rising animosity between Australia and China. Many of us try to mend the differences by explaining what we understand of difficult situations from a Chinese cultural and historical perspective. Yet when some explanations need to paint the Chinese in positive light, which is normal because no race on earth are complete and abject demons, we are accused of taking the side of the CCP.
My concern arose when I saw that the use of the word “diaspora” becoming more commonly used in the news media. I see it as a form of branding to distinguish the Chinese from other Chinese looking peoples. I see the rising spectre of the type of branding and labelling akin to the “Star of David” used on the Jews by the Nazis. Since this country is still a democracy, such acts of racism will not be allowed. Therefore, a more subtle way by the closet bigots is to use words that distinguish or categorise. It is little surprise that the word “diaspora” is chosen by people who have little understanding of history beyond their little bubble.
This word, by its semantic means the scattering or exile of Jews from their homeland Jerusalem. If my memory does not fail me, there were two great diasporas in Jewish history, once in the sixth century BC when their temple was sacked by the Babylonians and the other by the Romans in the 8th century AD. The whole nation (with a few exceptions) was scattered throughout the Middle East and later throughout Europe. Jewish diaspora had religious, political and social implications. It gave rise to the Zionist movement, a movement to give the Jews a homeland. It is not an appropriate word to use on a handful of Chinese that migrated at various times in history. We were not exiled. China had always been there and still is. Our migration has no religious implications. Like the Jews, Chinese in Southeast Asia were regularly murdered when there was social unrest and a change of government. I hesitate to name the countries for fear that it would jeopardise the people there, including friends and relatives. Not much attention was paid to human rights when these happened several times in recent history. So the claims of “human rights” is to me no more than cattle droppings with a political agenda. It is a shame that the politicians of Jewish descent in Australia turn a blind eye to the political tide that took so many of their people in history.
So, please let us not brand ourselves with the word “diaspora”. So, as a minority, we can’t do much about what is happening in recent years. We still have our Chinese-ness to fall upon, value of self-reliance, care for our children, love for education, thrift and other universal values, a selection of those that help us survive in an unpredictable and oftentimes hostile world.
Sincerely,
Teow Loon Ti