In my opening statement to the Senate Committee, I talked about the toxic environment for Chinese-Australians who engage in public policy debates right now. In particular, I mentioned that one of the reasons Chinese-Australians are choosing to remain silent is because they don’t want their loyalties to be questioned constantly in the public arena.
I concluded my opening statement with “it is not fair to force them to take positions or political actions, such as critiquing Beijing, when similar requests are not made to other Australians”.
So it is extremely egregious that despite the concerns I raised, Senator Abetz chose to go down this exact road. This is an inquiry on issues facing diaspora communities in Australia. Yet instead of addressing the issues raised by the three witnesses, Senator Abetz proceeded to interrogate each of us on our views of the Chinese Communist Party, as some sort of loyalty test.
Senate Abetz, by his very questioning, demonstrated exactly the many points I have raised in my submission and my opening statement.
To me, this felt less like a public inquiry and more like a public witch-hunt. And the target is Chinese-Australians who are deemed not sufficiently critical enough of the Chinese Government.
Let’s be clear about this: similar requests were not made to Australians of other background or heritage. Other witnesses were not subject to the same interrogation. This is targeted purely at Chinese-Australians.
Senator Abetz, by his own admission, said he received terrible trolling due to his heritage. So it was disappointing that he subjected me to the same treatment.
It made me wonder why I was called to appear in the public hearing in the first place. It’s clear that my submission and my opening statement made no impression. Was I called to the public hearing just so I can be questioned about my views of the Chinese Communist Party, and implicitly, my loyalty to Australia?
This episode is just the latest demonstration of the difficulties Chinese-Australians have to face when they choose to engage in politics or public policy.
Yun Jiang is the inaugural AIIA China Matters Fellow.
Comments
22 responses to “Why are the loyalties of Chinese- Australians questioned constantly in the public arena?”
I suspect there are many Chinese who would be happy to say they support the CCP and Xi Jinping, but are reluctant (or even afraid) to do so under the current environment.
Suppose a Catholic were interrogated about her loyalties to Vatican vs Australia. Or even more generally, suppose a Christian were interrogated about her loyalties to Jesus vs Australia. Recall that Christians consider Jesus to be the rightful Lord of all, and (in theory at least), their goal is to achieve this vision.
If support for the CCP is construed as disloyalty to Australia, shouldn’t this apply equally to support for the Vatican and to Jesus?
Ms. Jiang, thank you for speaking up and speaking out, especially in these times of our leaders claiming to be seizing the Australian values mantle. Please stay the course. We need voices like yours in the public discussion. Australia is a remarkably successful multi-cultural society despite these ignorant digressions by people in positions of authority.
The attempted interrogation by Abetz of Australians appearing before a Senate Committee was in character and reflects badly on him. It is no more than what we have come to expect. He is a crude and none to bright individual who can lay claim to having done nothing constructive in his public life.
The LNP is home to such individuals.
Abetz represents a particularly nasty version of the white men making a last stand in defence of their entitlement and position at the top of the pecking order in Australia. Howard kicked it off, followed by Abbott and now Morrison. Dutton, Kelly, Canavan et al.
The Anzac narrative does not provide a useful framework for Australia to face an asian future. It is intellectually limiting, race oriented, exclusively male and war embracing. Australia needs to refocus, if not redefine it’s national narrative.
To Peter Graves. Good luck to Beijing trying to control people who have put down roots elsewhere. Coercion, if attempted, is a double edged sword. It didn’t work for the British.
Heinrich Otto Abetz (26 March 1903 – 5 May 1958), Senator Abetz’ great uncle, was the German ambassador to Vichy France during the Hitler era and a convicted war criminal. He was a Francophile, but both German and French nationalists lay claim to the Franks, who probably originated in what is now central Germany. Like the other Nazis he was a racist and fanatical anti-communist.
Thanks Alan Behm and our the good fellow citizens for coming to our rescue like this occasion. Yesterday I took a piece out of Ian Cunliffe’s article “Australian values for new citizens” as follows:
“Australian Values Statement” which the Department of Home Affairs has been espousing since 2013: respect for the freedom and dignity of the individual, freedom of religion, commitment to the rule of law, Parliamentary democracy, gender equality, egalitarianism, mutual respect, tolerance, fair play and compassion for those in need, and equality of opportunity. ” All THE good stuff is equally applied to all existing Australian citizens first and they should show by example, starting I suppose, by our Government Ministers down. Great article Ian, for Governments at all levels to set a good example of governing for the people, of the people and by the people.”
Both Senator Abetz and Fierravanti-Wells should look at the mirror and see if they are better citizens as true Aussies before they judge their fellow Aussies in this manner. Shame on them. We will debate the issue anytime with our Ministers and MPs on equal footing.
It’s a bit odd that when Anglo-Saxons want to spread their influence and ‘values’ around the world we are progressive globalists, but when some other group wants to do the same to us, we become ardent nationalists.
The questioning directed at Ms Yun Jiang and her colleagues by Senators Abetz and Fierravanti-Wells was arrogant, appalling and totally un-Australian. The continued disrespect and stigmatisation accorded to non-European immigrants to Australia – regardless of how many generations they might have been here – is symptomatic of the deep racism that Australia seems unable to shake off. I hope that Ms Yun takes comfort from the fact that so many of us Europe-origin immigrants to this fabulous country stand one hundred percent behind her.
Allan, such are some of our Australian Values.
Perhaps in the interest of balance we can ask Eric that those of German birth renounce the Nazi Party and Hitler?
And renounce his particularly weird form of narrow right wing Christian belief which unfortunately programs his mind to the detriment of many others.
What a heartless interpretation of the teachings of Jesus that is.
I’m not sure this really achieves “balance”. For all its faults, the CCP is not equivalent to the Nazi Party, nor is Xi Jinping equivalent to Hitler.
I suspect there are many Chinese who would be happy to say they support the CCP and Xi Jinping, but are reluctant (or even afraid) to do so under the current environment. Whereas I doubt there are any Germans who would support Hitler and the Nazi Party.
The CCP is more like the Catholic Church. Suppose a Catholic were interrogated about her loyalties to Vatican vs Australia. Or even more generally, suppose a Christian were interrogated about her loyalties to Jesus vs Australia. Recall that Christians consider Jesus to be the rightful Lord of all, and (in theory at least), their goal is to achieve this vision.
The side of politics that carries on this continued attack on China and thus indirectly on Chinese people living here (and by default many Asian people out of ignorance) happens to be the federal Liberals backed by their media mates within News Corp, and Nine Entertainment’s Sydney Morning Herald, and the Melbourne Age.
Yet when it is uncovered that Daryl Maguire was running a secretive immigration service to help mainland Chinese business people obtain visas, and also make favourable business contacts with Australian politicians – at the same time as Scott Morrison followed by Peter Dutton were ministers for immigration – the federal government is as quiet as a mouse and the same media sources don’t seem to notice. Hypocrisy at its highest levels I would say.
Meanwhile people like Shaoquett Moselmane (Labor NSW) become the focus of a media invited AFP and ASIO raid,and four other Chinese people were targets as well. As I understand, charges have been not been laid on any of these people. So in my view it was all for show.
I very much feel for Chinese people living here because the same players I mention above, know full well they are using racism and hatred to turn minds against Chinese-Australians and Chinese visa holders for the sake of a foreign power called the USA.
What Abetz did is appalling
Well said. People of Chinese background have every bit as much right to say what they think as those of Irish Greek or American background. It seems that in Australia some believe that only China, Russia or some of the middle eastern states try to improperly exert “foreign influence.” In fact the worst foreign influence in this country is that which goes unnoticed — the foreign influence of the United States and US companies.
100% agree.
US foreign interference is extremely entrenched. Just look at the imbalance of the news service. The Australian reprints articles from Washington Post. How often really newsworthy articles from China Daily?. Look at the sheer volume of USA news in radio TV and print – even our BC – compared to our nearer and more populous neighbours. The funding of the “Australian Strategic Policy Institute” partly by USA arms manufacturers and the bombarding of our strategic policy makers with the aggressive confrontational, interfering views of USA via the ‘5 eyes’ collaborations!
Ms Jiang,
Please let me say this to you and other young Chinese living in Australia that no matter how much invectives types like Eric Abetz hurl at you and other Chinese Australians, we have survived and thrived outside the mainland for generations. My Australian born (and proudly so) grandchildren are now 5th generation “overseas Chinese”. We are proof of what that great German philosopher Nietzsche said of people who have to put up with abuse that: that which does not kill you makes you stronger. Keep going. I am proud of you.
Remember that as a Chinese migrant, you will always be described as a member of the “diaspora”. Mainstream members of countries like the United States, Canada, Australia or New Zealand are never given this label although they too came from countries in Europe, as far away or further than China. Discrimination has always been embedded in language. Even the word “China” used pejoratively by Donald Trump and others like him frequently enough becomes a word of derogation.
There are innumerable example of the good that we bring to the countries of our adoption either in South East Asia or the Americas. For this I will use just one example: the building of the transcontinental American railway in the 1860s. A good reading source is in Simon Schama’s book “The American Future” published by Harper Collins (2009). Efforts to build this railway using mainstream labour failed because the work was hard and hazardous. With reluctance, they used Chinese labour and the result described by Schama was “With every job escalating in difficulty, the Chinese exceeded his expectations” (“his” meaning the supervisor of the works, Strobridge). When the railway was finally built, Strobridge acknowledged that “… the transcontinental American railroad would never have been built without Chinese toil and labour” (Schama, 2009, p.275).
More than 1,200 Chinese died building the railroad. “The bones were carried west to San Francisco along the tracts that the Chinese had laid, to be shipped home to rest among their ancestors” (Schama, 2009, p.275).
Yet soon afterwards, their reward was persecution with the help of the media. Their presence was considered a threat to morality and jobs. They were dismissed from their jobs, evicted and their town burned. Chinese exclusion laws followed. With the help of the media, verses were composed that “… played to the grotesque stereotype of the slant-eyed, crackling, pigtailed Asiatic.” One of the verses goes like this:
“Which I wish to remark
And my language is plain
That for ways that are dark
And for the tricks that are vain
The heathen Chinese is peculiar
Which the same I would rise to explain.” (Schama, 2009, p.277)
If Eric Abetz’s stereotyping bothers you, there is an Arab saying that lends strength: “Dogs may bark but the caravan moves on.”
Sincerely,
Teow Loon Ti
Could someone please address the claims by Beijing to have interests in all Chinese – overseas born, throughout the world. No matter what their current citizenship:
https://www.lowyinstitute.org/the-interpreter/loyalty-through-links-and-control-long-history-chinese-diaspora-diplomacy
And perhaps here too – https://www.ejinsight.com/eji/article/id/1297732/20160503-beijing-seeks-loyalty-from-ethnic-chinese-with-foreign-passports
And this is The Straits Times of 2017 (with an emphasis on Singaporeans of Chinese background):
“China’s recent embracing of every foreigner of Chinese descent as one of its own is particularly problematic for Singapore, says Professor Wang Gungwu.
In 2000, Beijing apparently abandoned its long-entrenched policy of distancing itself from the ethnic Chinese born – or those long settled – overseas. That abandonment became particularly pronounced from 2011. In fact, in 1955, he notes that China’s then Premier Zhou Enlai urged such Chinese to integrate fully with the societies and cultures of the countries in which they had chosen to settle.
This current change in policy means that Beijing considers every ethnic Chinese outside China – which, for this purpose, includes Hong Kong, Macau and Taiwan – just about on a par with mainland Chinese.”
https://www.straitstimes.com/asia/east-asia/a-challenge-to-test-loyalty
You seem confused. The Nationality Law of the People’s Republic of China,does not recognise dual citizenship, and provides for automatic loss of PRC citizenship when a former PRC citizen settles in another country and acquires foreign citizenship. The policy you are attempting to describe is encapsuated in the Nationality Law of the Republic of China, (Taiwan) which recognises dual nationality. Swing and a miss champ.
Please – do read my references, especially that at The Straits Times
And this: “Oscar Almén. The Chinese Communist Party and the Diaspora
Beijing’s extraterritorial authoritarian rule
This report examines the Chinese Communist Party’s (CCP) policy towards the
Chinese diaspora and its security consequences. Because China does not accept
dual nationality, most of the Chinese diaspora are foreign nationals. However, the
Chinese leadership continuously uses ethnic and racial references such as
bloodline and heritage when discussing the Chinese people. According to this
view, all foreign nationals with Chinese heritage can potentially be included in the
Chinese nation.”
No mention of the RoC – at all.
I prefer to read the prevailing law rather than a newspaper article. Almen works for the Swedish military. Silly old me .
Zhou Enlai calls for increased cooperation between the countries of Asia and Africa at the Bandung. Conference 1955. During that era, Communist acitivities were present in SE Asia (Red domino theory was prominent) and ethnic Chinese were seen as “communist sympathesizers; and the host countries then have incidence of raical violence & hatred and burning of Chinese businesses. Many ethnic Chinese appealed for help from China, but China then, was too weak and poor to assist their overseas settled people. Hence Zhou made the pronouncement that they be loyal to their hosts countries. Those who were unable to withstand the “heat” returned to China and some joined the local communist guerilla units. However, most of 99% overseas Chinese remained. Today China is stronger and richer and can afford to resettle overseas “compatriots” and she opened the door for SE Asian ethnic Chinese to return to the motherland for retirement or set up businesses. Westerners may have other thoughts about this offer whereas overseas Chinese thought it is pleasing to see the motherland has risen once again, but may not take up the offer as they have established their roots elsewhere taking the 1955 advice.
Sir,
Have you considered what it means to be a football when geopolitical games are played? Would you liked to be judged by the colour of your skin? Didn’t Martin Luther King say that he had a dream that one day, his children will be judged, not by the colour of their skin but by the content of their character? Do you think that we are inanimate and brainless objects that can be claimed by any country for whatever purpose? Does our Australian citizenship indicate that we are not “on par” with the rest of the Australian population but only “on par” with mainland Chinese? If your ancestors are from the UK would you like to be constantly reminded that you are part of the UK regardless of how many generations you and your immediate ancestors have lived away from Britain? Are African Americans still Africans by ethnicity? Would you like to be discussed as if you are an object of competing claims?
Sincerely,
Teow Loon Ti