Connect with us

Features

Taiwan’s accession to the United Nations has once again aroused controversy

Published

on

20 mins audio

Article/Blessing CALD Editorial;Photo/Internet

 

Fifty years ago, the People’s Republic of China (PRC) replaced the Republic of China (ROC) as China’s representative in the United Nations (UN) in accordance with UN General Assembly Resolution 2758. More than half a century after it was issued, this resolution, which involves the status of China and Taiwan in the United Nations, has once again become the focus of world public opinion.

What is this resolution? Let’s read its text first.

UN Resolution 2758 THE GENERAL ASSEMBLY.

Recalling the principles of the Charter of the United Nations.

Considering the restoration of the lawful rights of the People’s Republic of China is essential both for the protection of the Charter of the United Nations and for the cause that the United Nations must serve under the Charter.

Recognizing that the representatives of the Government of the People’s Republic of China are the only lawful representatives of China to the United Nations and that the People’s Republic of China is one of the five permanent members of the Security Council.

Decides to restore all its rights to the People’s Republic of China and to recognize the representatives of its Government as the only legitimate representatives of China to the United Nations, and to expel forthwith the representatives of Chiang Kai-shek from the place which they unlawfully occupy at the United Nations and in all the organizations related to it.

Recalling the principles of the Charter of the United Nations
Considering that the restoration of the legitimate rights of the People’s Republic of China is indispensable for the preservation of the Charter of the United Nations and for the causes which the United Nations organizations are called upon to pursue in accordance with that Charter

Recognizing that the representatives of the Government of the People’s Republic of China are the only legitimate representatives of China to the United Nations Organization and that the People’s Republic of China is one of the five permanent members of the Security Council

DECIDES: To restore all the rights of the People’s Republic of China, to recognize the representatives of her Government as the only lawful representatives of China to the United Nations Organization and to expel forthwith the representatives of Chiang Kai-shek from the seat which they unlawfully occupy in the United Nations Organization and in all the agencies of the Organization to which they belong.

October 25, 1971

Whose seat is it?
The Republic of China (ROC) was one of the five permanent members of the Security Council when the Charter of the United Nations was adopted by representatives of 46 nations meeting in San Francisco, U.S.A., in 1945, and on October 1, 1949, the Communist Party of China (CPC), which had won the Communist Civil War, established the People’s Republic of China (PRC) to fight against the Republic of China (ROC) which had retreated to Taiwan. After a period of time, the military forces of the People’s Republic of China were unable to land on Taiwan and gain control of the island. Under the rule of Chiang Kai-shek of the R.O.C., Taiwan could no longer maintain its control over the mainland, although it claimed to be “counterattacking the mainland”. As a result, the “two Chinas” were formed and the government of the People’s Republic of China (PRC) then tried in various ways to obtain the “China” seat in the United Nations held by the ROC government.

As the Sino-Soviet relationship broke down and a serious armed conflict broke out on the border, the “Jumbo Island Incident” provided a basis for negotiation between China and the U.S. In 1971, U.S. Assistant to the President for National Security Affairs, Kissinger, made a secret visit to China; meanwhile, U.S. envoy, Robert Murphy, traveled to Taiwan to discuss with Chiang Kai-shek about the “dual representation” at the United Nations, and Chiang secretly said that he would be able to work with the People’s Republic of China (R.O.C.) on the condition that it retained a seat at the R.O.C.’s Security Council. Chiang secretly indicated that under the condition of retaining the seat of the ROC in the Security Council, the ROC could exist in the United Nations together with the People’s Republic of China. On July 15 of the same year, Albania, Algeria and other countries submitted a draft resolution to the United Nations, the “Two Arabian Proposals”, which was later called Resolution 2758 and passed.

The U.S. attempted to allow the ROC to retain its seat in the United Nations on the basis of the “two-Arab proposal” by formally submitting a proposal on “dual representation” to the United Nations Secretary General, which was severely opposed by the Ministry of Foreign Affairs of the People’s Republic of China. The U.S. government also refused to commit itself to Taiwan’s demand that “the U.S. government will honor its commitment to guarantee the seat of the ROC since the Kennedy and Johnson administrations”. After the R.O.C. delegation had exhausted all means of blocking the resolution on the “two Arab states” proposal, Zhou Shucai (Minister of Foreign Affairs) of the R.O.C. delegation declared, “Because of the irrational sentiments and programs prevailing at the United Nations, the delegation of the R.O.C. will no longer take part in any United Nations meetings from now on. The beliefs of the founding of the United Nations have been betrayed”, and led all members of the delegation out of the meeting.

On October 25, the General Assembly of the United Nations passed draft resolution A/L.630 and its addenda 1 and 2 on “Restoration of the lawful rights of the People’s Republic of China in the United Nations”, which was jointly proposed by Albania, Algeria and 23 other countries, with 76 votes in favor, 35 votes against and 17 abstentions. According to the Charter of the United Nations and the Rules of Procedure of the General Assembly of the United Nations, this proposal became an official resolution of the General Assembly of the United Nations immediately after its adoption. Since then, the People’s Republic of China became the sole legal representative of the United Nations, while the Republic of China government under the leadership of the Kuomintang lost its right of representation.

It can be said that when the United Nations was founded, the People’s Republic of China did not exist, and the United Nations was founded by the Republic of China, which governed the mainland at that time. However, when the United Nations was founded on October 24, 1945, the ROC did not rule Taiwan Island, but on the next day, October 25, the Japanese soldiers on Taiwan Island surrendered to the ROC. In other words, the ROC formally took over the administration of Taiwan Island from Japan after the Second World War. Until today, the ROC is still governing Taiwan Island. In other words, the People’s Republic of China has never exercised its right to govern Taiwan Island. Obviously, UN Resolution 2578 discusses the rights and interests of the People’s Republic of China in the United Nations, rather than making a judgment on the sovereignty of Taiwan Island. It is not the content of this resolution to draw a conclusion about the sovereignty of Taiwan, and this is precisely why this resolution has once again become the center of attention in the world today.

Taiwan’s Accession to the United Nations Surpasses Previous Years
Since the passage of United Nations General Assembly Resolution 2758, Taiwan’s international status and its seat in the United Nations has been a hot topic from time to time over the past half-century, especially this year. Civil society organizations and New York’s overseas Chinese community held a march for Taiwan’s accession to the United Nations in downtown New York City, which attracted many young Taiwanese and international students to join, with more than 500 people taking part, making the march more powerful than in previous years. This year’s highlight was the High Level Delegates’ General Debate held on the 24th, the theme of which was “Leaving No One Behind: Working Together to Promote Peace, Sustainable Development and Human Dignity for Current and Future Generations”.

Although the Chinese government has repeatedly stated that UN Resolution 2758 cannot be misinterpreted or challenged, there has been a significant shift in the international community’s support for Taiwan’s membership in the United Nations. The U.S. government, Europe, and Japan all support Taiwan’s participation in the relevant United Nations organizations, and last month the Australian Senate even passed a motion emphasizing that Resolution 2758 does not recognize the People’s Republic of China’s sovereignty over Taiwan, and that even though China does not like this development, the 23 million people of Taiwan enjoy the same basic human rights that are enjoyed by all the people of the world. Immediately afterwards, the House of Representatives of the Dutch Parliament also passed a motion with an “overwhelming vote” stating that UN General Assembly Resolution 2758 does not determine China’s sovereignty over Taiwan, nor does it exclude Taiwan’s participation in the United Nations or other international organizations, and that it considers that China has distorted the resolution and blocked Taiwan’s international participation. The motion reiterates that Taiwan’s participation in international organizations such as the International Civil Aviation Organization (ICAO) and the World Health Organization (WHO) is in the interests of the Netherlands.

It is also important to note that, in addition to the Netherlands, other European countries such as the Czech Republic and Lithuania have already shown their support for Taiwan, and these countries may follow the Netherlands in pushing for more similar pro-Taiwan motions in the future. As the U.S. becomes more and more assertive on the Taiwan issue, European countries may show more support for Taiwan out of diplomatic consistency with the United States. However, not all countries will follow this trend, as many are still dependent on China’s market and economic cooperation and do not want to offend China on the Taiwan issue. Therefore, although the Congressional Taiwan Friendship Motion has had a positive impact on some countries, it is still challenging to create a large-scale supportive action for Taiwan on a global scale.

In addition, after the motion was passed in the Dutch parliament, some Taiwanese people said that the relevant messages were suspected to be restricted by Facebook. Eugene Du, founder of Taiwan AI Labs, a nonprofit organization that uses technology tools to study information warfare, told BBC Chinese that he used an online issue voice measurement tool and found that news of the Dutch parliament’s discussion of Resolution 2758 was widely reported in the Taiwanese media but rarely seen on Facebook, and that he could not be sure of the reason for this, but believed the ratio to be grossly disproportionate. independently verify the veracity of this claim and has made enquiries with the public relations department of Meta, the parent company of Facebook, and had not received a response by press time.

Can’t be shut out again
A few days ago, the Permanent Representatives of Taiwan’s nine diplomatic states to the United Nations sent a joint letter to UN Secretary General Antonio Guterres calling on the UN to accept Taiwan, refuting China’s misinterpretation and misapplication of UN Resolution 2758 over the years, and stating outright that the matter “jeopardizes the status quo in the Taiwan Strait as well as the peace and stability of the Indo-Pacific region”. The nine countries that signed the letter are Belize, Swaziland, Guatemala, Marshall Islands, Palau, Tuvalu, St. Kitts and Nevis, St. Lucia, St. Vincent and the Grenadines.

Last week, Taiwan, the United States, Japan, Australia and Canada co-organized the International Symposium on “Global Cooperation and Training Framework – Promoting Sustainable Development through Global Partnerships and Youth Participation in the Use of Science and Technology” in New York. According to the Ministry of Foreign Affairs (MOFA), the symposium was attended by government officials and experts from more than 10 countries, effectively demonstrating that Taiwan is an indispensable partner in realizing the United Nations’ Sustainable Development Goals (SDGs). Ironically, while the theme of this year’s UN General Assembly emphasizes “leaving no one behind,” the UN has allowed China to distort UN General Assembly Resolution 2758 to exclude Taiwan’s 23.5 million people, which is really unfair and unjust. It is also ridiculous that Taiwan, which produces more than 90% of the world’s advanced chips, was excluded from the “Future Summit” organized by the UN this year to discuss how the world can cooperate in the use of science and technology to enhance the well-being of future generations.

In the dispute over China’s representation in the United Nations General Assembly half a century ago, the focus of the controversy was only on who is the legitimate central government of China, and never on whether or not Taiwan is a part of China. When Albania brought up the case, they did not mention Taiwan only because they thought that “Taiwan is part of China” is beyond doubt, so of course they did not need to mention it. However, this resolution does not mean that Taiwan was excluded from the UNGA. If we seriously study the UN General Assembly Resolution 2758 adopted in 1971, we cannot ignore its temporal and spatial background. The resolution only decided the issue of China’s representation in the United Nations, but did not authorize the People’s Republic of China to represent the people of Taiwan in the United Nations system.

For more than half a century, all aspects of Taiwanese society have been promoting Taiwan’s participation in other international organizations such as the World Health Organization and the United Nations. In recent years, the international situation has become more chaotic, and China’s strong rise has added intangible political pressure on the United Nations. However, as the confrontation between democracy and authoritarianism becomes more and more intense, and as the international community’s support for Taiwan grows, Taiwan’s will to promote meaningful participation in the United Nations has become stronger.

However, politics is based on reality, not theory. The estrangement of Taiwan from the rest of the world brought about by UN Resolution 2578 for more than 50 years will be changed by the change of geopolitical reality, and it is expected that there will be further changes in the future.

Continue Reading

Features

Monocultural, Multicultural, and Intercultural Society

Published

on

Liberal Party fails to recognize multiculturalism

The Liberal Party suffered a massive defeat in the federal election, with Leader Dutton losing the Dickson seat he held for 24 years. The Liberal Party elected Sussan Ley as leader and Ted O’Brien as deputy. Ted O’Brien, who has lived in Taiwan for many years to learn Chinese and managed his family’s business in China, is one of the few Liberal leaders who is familiar with Chinese culture. After his election, Ted said that the Liberal Party needed to renew itself and propose policies that would meet the needs of modern Australia, including rethinking its policies on youth, women, migrants and the environment, or else the Liberal Party would be unable to build a relationship with the Australian electorate and its survival would be in doubt.

The Labor Party, which aims to reform the society, regards migrants, especially those from poor countries, as a disadvantaged group. Therefore, the Labor Party’s policies occasionally help migrants to adapt, and most of the leaders of the Labor Party have a more open attitude towards supporting migrants. The Liberal Party has always emphasized on small government and fairness of the system, and its leadership has little experience with immigrant communities, and basically has little understanding of the difficulties migrants encounter in adapting and integrating into the society, and therefore is not enthusiastic in supporting migrants in its policies.

Over the past two decades, Australia has absorbed more than 200,000 immigrants every year. These new migrants have found that the Labor Party has more policies that benefit migrants, and this has been reflected in the fact that migrants have been more supportive of the Labor Party’s governing in the past elections. In this year’s federal election, the Liberal Party’s Dutton blamed migrants for Australia’s economic pressures and housing shortages, and demanded a drastic reduction in the number of migrants, and senior Senator Jane Hume called Chinese Australians “spies”, which made many migrants detest the Liberal Party. If the Liberal Party still fails to recognize and respond to the reality that Australia has become a multicultural society, we can foresee that the Liberal Party is likely to disappear from the Australian political scene.

 

Lack of multicultural experience among societal and political leaders

Before the abolition of the White Australia Policy in the 1970s, Australia was a white society, and even the Aboriginal people, who were the owners of the land, were denied and ignored. The Chinese used to make up more than 15% of Australia’s population during the Gold Rush era, but under the White Australia Policy, less than 1% of Chinese Australians remained in the 1970s. In terms of today’s universal values, the Australian government had implemented a “non-violent” policy of genocide. In fact, the Stolen Generation’s policy of handing over Aboriginal babies to white people for upbringing and education was similar. The Racial Discrimination Act of the 1970s officially ended this phase of Australia’s history, but it did not mean that Australia immediately entered a multicultural society.

Australians born before the 1990s grew up with very little contact with people of other ethnicities in their communities and lives, so racial discrimination was rampant at that time. Nowadays, most of the Australian leaders in their 40s and 50s were born in the 1980s or before. Although they accept the diversity of the Australian society today, they have never had much personal experiences with multicultural communities or migrants, and therefore seldom consider things from the perspective of a multicultural society in their policy implementation or management. For example, many managers of mainstream organizations or enterprises deeply understand that they need to enter the multicultural community in order to continue their current market or organizational goals, but they do not know how to intertct with hese communities. In Australian society, the Australian Football League (AFL) have demonstrated a determination and experience to become multicultural, as many of the AFL’s past leaders have come from multicultural backgrounds.

Similar scenarios are reflected in politics and social management, that is, when the government implements a policy, it often fails to get a response from the whole society. For example, the NDIS, which was legislated in 2013, still has less than 9% of participants from multicultural backgrounds, which is less than 40% of the original expectation. Obviously, a policy that aims to benefit people with disabilities across the country has failed to reach out to ethnic minority communities, and has resulted in many cases of abuse and misuse. It  is totally unacceptable but little complaints has been made by neither mainstream Australians nor ethnic communities. Other example is services to help families troubled by gambling, which have not been used by many migrants for a long time. For many years, the organizations concerned thought that the problem was that migrants were reluctant to use their counseling services, but the truth is that these services are provided according to the Western individualistic medical model, rather than seeing gambling as a social problem that brings difficulties to the family members, let alone dealing with the problem by promoting it to the multicultural community. During the Covid pandemic, the Victorian government’s publicity of anti-epidemic measures neglected the role of multicultural media, which initially led to a situation where the infection and death rates of overseas-born people were twice as high as those of local-born people in the.early days.

 

Diversity in Australian Society

The Australian Bureau of Statistics recently announced that the proportion of overseas-born Australians in the population has increased to 31.5%, in response to the large number of migrants to Australia over the last 20 years. Until the early 1990s, the proportion of foreign-born people was not as high as this, and most of these people came from the United Kingdom, which was close to their cultural background, so the Australian society was not pluralistic, and it could be said that Australia was a monocultural British society at that time. At the time of the founding of the Liberal Party, Robert Menzies was confronted with such a monocultural society. Nowadays, Australia is the most multicultural society in the world. Obviously, the design and implementation of policies must take this factor into consideration.

The Labor Party’s support for multiculturalism basically allows immigrants to continue to retain their native customs, festivals and celebrations, and to tolerate each other in order to maintain respect and peace among communities. Such a society does not mean that there is communication or integration between communities. In fact, a society with no communication or integration will easily be segregated nto competing and opposing groups. It is not easy to maintain harmony and cohesion in such a society.

Last year, the Labor Party released the Multicultural Framework Review report, which was the Australian government’s first attempt to explore what kind of multicultural society Australia could become. The Commonwealth Government has so far indicated that it is also willing to provide funding support to take forward the report’s recommendations to further the realization of the framework. The report’s emphasis on the creation of a multicultural society in Australia, beginning with the recognition that Australian society started from Aboriginals, rather than solely a colonial society created by the British, is a progressive perspective in which migrants of different cultures are welcomed and accepted as part of the Australian society and culture. This means that Australia should not be a society divided by different cultural communities, but rather a modern Australia that integrates and embraces cultures from different places.

 

Integration into Intercultural

In order to build an integrated and inclusive society, the government has a responsibility to help migrants from all sides of the world, especially those from authoritarian societies, to experience Australian values that are different from their own, including freedom, equality, the rule of law, and human rights. Of course, migrants from non-English speaking backgrounds need to learn English and try to engage with the wider community, rather than being isolated in a culturally homogeneous migrant community.

For young migrants, this is not too difficult. Through the work environment, through life contacts, through community involvement, we see that the new generation is integrating without great difficulty. But for first generation immigrants, it is the government’s responsibility to create opportunities for them to gain exposure and experience in integration. This does not mean that the government is giving resources to migrants as a form of welfare, but rather as an investment by the community in migrants to integrate them into Australian society in the short term, so that they can contribute to Australian society as soon as possible. Such a policy would bring positive returns to the community, and would enable the migration program to maximize the social contribution of the elite settling in Australia.

Another group that has been neglected for a long time is those who were born and raised in the mainstream society. The government should also provide opportunities for them to develop through exposure to multiculturalism. For example, many traditional churches in Australia have been unable to absorb multicultural Christians and have eventually shrunk or even closed down. This is the result of not being able to keep up with the societal changes.

The unwritten expectation of Australian society has always been that newcomers will become mainstream Australians. I believe this is impossible. The challenge for Australia today is for all Australians, immigrants and native Australians (including Aboriginal Australians), to transform and integrate into modern Australians.

 

Mr. Raymond Chow

Continue Reading

Features

Chinese Aboriginals – A History that may Precede Captain Cook

Published

on

Last Friday, a book launch at the University of Melbourne’s AsiaLink Sidney Myer Centre brought out a powerful message. The Aboriginal people who have lived in Australia for more than 60,000 years are not just modern-day ‘living fossils’. Throughout their history, they have had contact with islanders from the South Pacific and explorers from Japan and East Asia in search of a better life, and they have been a part of Aboriginal culture. Mr. Zhou Xiaoping, an artist living amongst the Aboriginal people, compiled “Our Story: Aboriginal Chinese People in Australit” to introduce Aboriginal Chinese to Australians. Mr. Zhou’s research is now on display at the National Museum in Canberra, and through the book, “Our Stories”, some of the voices of Aboriginal Chinese are being presented to the Australian community.

 

Forgotten Chinese

In recent years, the voices of the Chinese community have started to be heard in Australia’s multicultural society. Concerns have been raised about the welfare of first-generation Chinese elders, as well as the education of their children and their lives. However, there is a group of Chinese who have long been forgotten, not only by the Chinese or the mainstream community, but also by themselves who have had little contact with other Chinese immigrants: they are the Chinese Aboriginal people, whose identity was often forgotten by the society until recently.

It is only in recent years, with the efforts of scholars, artists and community workers, that this hidden part of history has begun to emerge. One such artist is Chinese-Australian artist Zhou Xiaoping. Recently, he and his team have interviewed this group of mixed-race descendants of Chinese and Aboriginal people who are living among the Aboriginal community to tell their own stories through an exhibition and a book, “Our Stories”, to bring the existence of Aboriginal Chinese into the public eye again.

For Chinese immigrants who have settled in Australia in recent years, or who have been living in the mainstream Australian society since the Gold Rush era, it may never have occurred to us that some of the Aboriginal people, who have a history of 60,000 years and are regarded as the “living fossils” of the modern age, have Chinese cultural heritage since the Gold Rush era. Some Aboriginal leaders even believe that the contact between Chinese and Aboriginal people predates the British declaration of Australia as an uninhabited land. If contact between the Chinese and the Aborigines had been established earlier, then the Aborigines would not be the “living fossils” that the British claimed they were.

 

Who are the Aboriginal Chinese?

For many newcomers, the first impression of Australia is of a white-dominated, English-speaking society with a colonial past. But the cultural roots of this land are much more complex than that. Aboriginal communities have lived here for tens of thousands of years, and these communities are widely dispersed, with more than 250 language groups, each with their own unique language, culture and lifestyle. They have a deep connection to the land. Aboriginal people do not have the concept of private property, nor do they settle along rivers like other ancient peoples. Instead, they lived in groups, roamed the same area, and made their living by picking natural plants or simply growing them. They believed that people did not own the land, but belonged to it, and were “custodians of the land”, representing it and welcoming others to share its produce. This is why Aboriginal people are often invited to lead welcoming ceremonies at major events in Australia today.

Before the Gold Rush, as early as the 1840s, contract laborers from Xiamen, China, arrived in Australia to work as sheepherders to fill the demand for labor. They did not live in the big cities, even Melbourne was not yet developed. These Chinese sheep herders were scattered around the countryside on farms. Later, the gold rush that swept through Australia, and the establishment of New Gold Mountain in Victoria, attracted more Chinese immigrants to settle in places like Ballarat to participate in gold mining.

Initially, Aboriginal attitudes towards Asian immigrants were the same as those towards European colonizers – they were all foreigners, strangers entering a traditional territory. Interaction was limited by language and cultural differences. However, under colonial expansion and the White Australia Policy, both Aboriginal and Chinese were discriminated against and ostracized, and this common situation unexpectedly brought them closer together.

As the Aboriginal system of closed marriages was destroyed, some Chinese began to intermarry with Aboriginal people to form families, resulting in the birth of Aboriginal descendants of Chinese descent. Their stories are testimonies of how they have crossed cultural boundaries and traumatized by history.

 

Journey to the Roots: From Confusion to Recognition

In Our Stories, a book curated by Zhou Xiaoping, a number of Aboriginal Chinese descendants are interviewed. In Our Stories, Zhou interviewed a number of Aboriginal Chinese descendants who have pieced together their roots through the memories of their grandparents, family legends and historical archives. Some grew up wondering why they looked different from other Aboriginal people, until one day they asked, “Why do I look different? This began the journey of finding their roots.

“I don’t know how to explain who I am because I don’t know myself,” said one respondent.  It was only through oral family narratives and self-study that he slowly came to understand his cultural and historical origins.

Broome, a small town of 14,000 people in the far north of Western Australia, has been a center of multiculturalism since the 19th century. Chinatown, in the heart of the city, is a symbol of this multiculturalism. Its history dates back to the end of the 19th century, when Broome quickly became the center of the pearl industry due to the abundance of shells, attracting migrants from China and Japan to work in the pearl mining industry. In today’s cemetery in Broome, there are more than 900 graves of settlers from Japan. Not only Chinese and Japanese, Broome was also a place where Malays, Pacific Islanders, Filipinos and others came to settle. Broome was not affected by the “White Australia Policy” of the time, as its bead mining industry relied heavily on the skills of Asian divers.

These Asian immigrants lived mainly in what came to be known as ‘Chinatown’, alongside the local Aboriginal Yawuru community. The architecture of Chinatown at the time was unique, blending Asian architectural features with the local climate, resulting in sturdy corrugated iron buildings with reddish-green beams and columns, a fusion of East and West.

One respondent said, “Broome is a place where people know that we can live together from different countries”. These words are a testament to the reality of the history of the Broome.

 

Chinese immigrants and ‘custodians of the land’

Aboriginal Australians do not see themselves as ‘landowners’, but as custodians of the land. Their culture is so closely tied to the land that even today, when most of them live in modern cities, they continue to carry on their traditions in different ways.

In various public settings, “Welcome to Country” or “Acknowledgement of Country” have become commonplace. These ceremonies remind us that this land belongs first and foremost to the Aboriginal people, and that this recognition is not only a ritual, but also a form of revision and respect for history.

However, on this year’s ANZAC Day, when former Opposition Leader Dutton openly objected to the ‘welcoming ceremony’, it once again triggered a discussion on historical memory and respect. What is the minimum respect for the past? Who is qualified to define “Australian”?

Since the end of the White Australia Policy in 1973, Australia has re-admitted migrants from different countries, but there are still many Australians who have yet to embrace multiculturalism. There has been a rapid growth in Chinese migrants from China, Hong Kong, Taiwan and Southeast Asia. In practice, however, many migrant families face the tensions of cultural identity: first-generation immigrants struggling to establish themselves in a foreign land, with language and cultural barriers, but still wanting to pass on their culture to the next generation. Their children, on the other hand, have grown up in a Western educational system and are often caught between two values: being seen as outsiders and being expected to be a ‘model minority’. How can outsiders be accepted and integrated by the indigenous people?

Against this backdrop, the stories of the indigenous Chinese provide a different perspective. Their experience is even more complex: they are both Chinese and Aboriginal, but often not fully accepted by either. They are not only the absentees of history, but also the victims of institutionalized forgetfulness. In Our Story, however, they speak of the complexity, or rather the diversity, of their identities, but also of the protection of their land, and perhaps this is one of the things that immigrants need to learn. Perhaps this is the point that immigrants need to learn.

 

Earlier than Captain Cook

The keynote speaker at the book launch of Our Story was Melbourne University anthropologist and geographer Professor Marcia Langton. Langton, 74, is not only a distinguished scholar, but also a renowned author and Aboriginal rights advocate, a Queenslander of Yiman and Bidjara Aboriginal descent, who traveled around Australia as a schoolboy, worked hard to become a scholar, and has been a longtime campaigner for Aboriginal rights. Langton said that Australians have always thought that Aboriginal culture is old and outdated and cannot keep up with modern society, but they have never thought that Aboriginal people have had contact with other ethnic groups in the past tens of thousands of years before the white people came to Australia.

Langton believes that a deeper study of Aboriginal culture can reveal Australia’s most multicultural traditions, and that Aboriginal culture is the starting point of a multicultural Australia.

 

Multiculturalism is more than superficial

Australia has been a multicultural nation since the 1970s. From the implementation of multiculturalism policies since the 1970s, to the release of the Multiculturalism Framework Review report in late July 2024, it has been emphasized that multiculturalism is at the heart of the nation’s social structure, and that the freedom of language, religion and cultural practices of different ethnic groups must be guaranteed in law. However, this kind of pluralism sometimes remains on the surface. Every year during the Lunar New Year, dragon and lion dances and Chinese art are used to decorate public institutions. This kind of ritual becomes a symbol of political correctness, but it does not help to truly understand and respect cultural differences. The structural problems of poverty, lack of education and health resources for Aboriginals, and the discrimination and misunderstanding of the Chinese community in the mainstream media are still deeply rooted in the non-European white community, resulting in the phenomenon of so-called ‘depoliticized multiculturalism’.

Such multiculturalism maintains a consumerist cultural identity, but does not truly deconstruct the white-centered social structure. The existence of Aboriginal Chinese is a challenge to this institutionalized forgetfulness. Excluded from the mainstream Chinese narrative and not included in Aboriginal or colonial history, they are ghosts of history. If we do not face up to this past, contemporary multiculturalism will only remain superficial and will not be able to promote real social integration.

Therefore, true cultural integration does not only require minority groups to give up their ego to cater to the mainstream, but also allows each identity to be seen, understood and respected. Just as Zhou Xiaoping has brought Aboriginal culture to Chinese communities in China and Australia through his art, he has also brought Chinese culture into the Aboriginal world. His action is not just an art exhibition, but a starting point for cross-cultural dialogues.

Listening to one more story and recognizing one more piece of history is the first step to dismantle prejudices and gaps.

For many Chinese, their knowledge of Aboriginal people is still limited, even in the form of travel guides or media stereotypes. But when we begin to understand that those who are Chinese, but not like us, are also a mix of Aboriginal people, and how they live with people of different nationalities in their communities, we realize that multiculturalism in Australia is not a product of policy, but a reality that has existed for a long time in the depths of history.

As one of the interviewees in Our Stories says, “My ancestors came here a hundred years ago, and although we’ve been unspoken of for a long time, we’ve never forgotten who we are”. Such voices remind us that identity is not a single lineage or language, but a weave of histories, memories and experiences.

These are the stories that will help us understand what it means to be ‘Australian’ again, and that will open up more possibilities for imagining Australia’s future.

 

Article/Editorial Department, Sameway Magazine

Photo/Internet

Continue Reading

Features

Investing in an integrating InterCultural Society

Published

on

The Australian Bureau of Statistics recently released data showing that 31.5% of Australia’s population are immigrants born outside of Australia. Excluding about 6% who came from the UK and New Zealand, this means that over 25% are from countries not governed by democratic regimes. In the recent Australian federal election, the combined vote share of the Liberal and Labor parties continued to decline. In many marginal seats, the affiliation of multicultural communities with political parties determined the election outcome. This shows that immigrants who were not born in Australia now play an important role in Australian politics.

Research from both major parties shows that immigrant communities tend to support the Labor Party. The reason is clear: Labor’s policies lean toward promoting multicultural development and establishing closer relationships with leaders of immigrant communities, these had made strong impacts. Labor is more accepting of the fact that immigrants need assistance when starting a new life in Australia, and immigrant communities are also more proactive in seeking support from Labor. If the Liberal Party ignores this reality and does not make adjustments, it will find it increasingly difficult to promote its ideals within immigrant communities in the future—losing ground is almost inevitable.

Objectively speaking, not many immigrants pay close attention to party ideologies or political platforms. In fact, these 25% of immigrants often had little political power or opportunities for political participation in their countries of origin. After becoming Australian citizens, they know they are required to vote as part of their civic duties and rights, but Australian society has never taught them how to choose or how to cast their sacred vote.

We must understand that today’s world has become a knowledge-based society. When students enter the university or new members join a company, orientation and workplace cultural integration are important. If new immigrants—many of whom grew up in authoritarian countries—are not given exposures in democratic processes, it is extremely dangerous and could even increase the risk of societal disintegration. Without promoting democratic engagement and integration into Australian society through ethnic minority media, and allowing immigrants to remain under the influence of their original homeland’s media, the outcome is to slow down their integration into Australia, which is extremely detrimental to Australia’s long-term social development.

Today’s immigrants, especially Chinese immigrants, are generally highly educated. When they come to Australia, they have the potential to quickly become a driving force for Australia’s social and economic development. If Australia promotes integrating interculturalism—actively leveraging the international visions and homeland connections of new immigrants as to develop its service industries and to enhance global export—it can further stimulate economic growth.

It is time for Australian society to “modernize”: not only by attracting talented individuals from around the world who can contribute to society, but also by providing more support to immigrants so they can become pillars of societal development. This support is not about giving special welfare benefits (honestly, the proportion of such immigrants who rely on social welfare is not high), but rather an instant investment in their social integration—one that no political party can afford to ignore.

 

Mr. Raymond Chow, the Publisher of Sameway Magazine

Continue Reading

Trending