Connect with us

Features

Charles III’s visit to Australia

Published

on

Charles III’s visit to Australia reminds me of the return of Hong Kong to China 27 years ago, when Charles, as Crown Prince, handed Hong Kong back to the Chinese leaders on behalf of the Queen, opening a new page in Hong Kong’s history.

I believe that Charles’s visit to Australia will probably be his last as King, given his age, his health and the demand of the Australian community to become a republic. Last week, I was invited by the Prime Minister’s Office to Canberra on Monday to attend a reception in the Parliament Hall to welcome King Charles, and to see for myself how Australia has welcomed him. The protest ‘performance’ by Aboriginal Senator Lidia Thorpe at the end of the welcome ceremony was right in front of my eyes, and it got me thinking.

Charles’s love affair with Australia, 17 visits in total
Charles III became King of Australia last year, immediately following his accession to the British throne, and it is a misnomer for many Hong Kong newspapers to describe the visit of the King of England to Australia as a visit in his capacity as monarch of a foreign country. Charles arrived in Sydney on Friday evening, rested for a day and then visited the North Sydney Anglican Church for a service on Sunday, and then visited the NSW Parliament in the afternoon, where he presented an hourglass timer to celebrate the 200th anniversary of the founding of the NSW Parliament. The Commonwealth Universities Association (CUA) also announced that Charles had made a personal donation to establish a scholarship to help smaller developing countries face urgent economic, social and environmental challenges.

On Monday Charles attended the Canberra Parliamentary Welcome Reception and a number of charity events. In the afternoon Charles met with two climate scientists and Queen Camilla visited charities. On Tuesday, they met with Australian of the Year 2024 and fellow cancer specialists Professor Georgina Long and Professor Richard Scolyer to discuss cancer research. Later they met with Aboriginal leaders and attended an Australian barbecue. On Wednesday Charles III travelled to Samoa to open the Federal Heads of State Conference. It was not easy for King Charles, who began cancer treatment in February, to stop for nine days to visit Australia. Polls conducted in Australia during the period showed half of Australians were satisfied with the King’s visit, ahead of Prime Minister Albanese and Opposition Leader David Dutton.

This is the second visit by a sitting head of state to Australia since Queen Elizabeth’s visit in 2011. Charles first visited Australia when he was 19 years old and spent six months as a Year 9 student boarding at Geelong Grammar School’s Timbertop campus. This was his 17th visit to Australia (one more than Queen Elizabeth) and his first as King. In 1983 he visited Australia with the then Princess Diana and the newborn Prince William, with Princess Diana adding to Charles’ popularity.

Will he give up the headship soon?
In a sign of the importance Charles III attaches to his relationship with Australia, he took a break from his cancer treatment to visit Australia for five days before travelling to Samoa to preside over the Federal Heads of State Conference. He was met at the airport on Friday evening by Governor Sam Mostyn, Prime Minister Albanese and NSW Premier Chris Minn, but all the Premiers declined to attend the State Welcome Reception on Monday, citing official commitments. I had thought that Australia might be speeding up its transformation into a republic as more immigrants from different countries become Australians, and that Charles’ trip would become a “farewell to Australia” tour. However, the polls conducted during this period show that most Australians do not want to change the status quo, so if Charles’ health improves, perhaps he will have a chance to visit Australia in the future.

Charles has always reiterated that he has no objection to Australia becoming a republic, and that he would be happy to fulfil the wishes of the Australian people. However, some of the organisations pushing for Australia to become a republic have argued that Australia is not really a ‘land without people’ and that it would be disrespectful to the Aboriginal people to have an Englishman as head of state through an election. However, it seems that there is no consensus in the community on whether an Aboriginal leader should be allowed to take up the role of the head of state, and it may not be accepted by the current multi-ethnic society. 1999 Australia held a referendum, only 45% of Australians would support a republican system, and the situation is still similar to that time in the opinion polls released on Tuesday. So it seems unlikely that the monarchy will be abolished any time soon.

The Monarch Who Won the Hearts and Minds of the People
After the British landed in Australia in 1788, the colonies were formed into state governments under the British Empire, with a democratic system of government whereby the King of England became the head of state, and between 1890 and 1900, the Australian states voted in a referendum to form the Commonwealth of Australia, with today’s constitution, no longer colonies but self-governing by the people of those states. It was the choice of the people of each state to become a Commonwealth, and on 1 January 1901 the Commonwealth of Australia was formally established when the King of England, who was also the King of Australia, was voted into office by the British Parliament. For the Australians, it was not the British who conquered this part of Australia by military force and forced the Australians to accept the King of England as their head of state, but the colonisers fought for independence as a self-governing country, but after independence, Australia still maintained its ties with Britain and appointed the King of England as the King of Australia.

Queen Elizabeth was the first sitting monarch to visit Australia in 1954. After the Second World War, Britain pursued a policy of de-colonisation, with British Malaya and Singapore in the vicinity of Australia becoming independent states. Queen Elizabeth visited 57 Australian cities and towns during her 58-day tour. The trip involved 31 flights of over 16,000 kilometres by plane, and many trips by train, car and ship. It is estimated that 75% of the 9 million Australians who met the Queen in person at the time, made the Queen’s visit the only major event of its kind in Australia at that time. The visit made the Queen the Queen of Australians, and it is fair to say that the Queen gave the majority of Australians who had settled in the Commonwealth far from Britain an identity that connected them to British history and tradition. From that time until today, Australians have believed that they were not separate from the Asian nations from which they were so different, living in isolation in the Pacific in a Western society.

Charles’s visit to Australia today is not the same as it was in Elizabeth’s time. But the latest opinion polls show that Australians are not keen to speed up the establishment of a republic, indicating that although Australians have been in closer contact with Asian countries, it is clear that Australia is still reluctant to give up its historical ties with Britain. the establishment of AUKUS, which has become the centre of gravity of Australia’s foreign affairs and defence in recent years, shows that the Australian society is not willing to become a completely independent country from Britain in the near future. In all likelihood, Australia would like to strengthen its co-operative relationship with more ex-British countries. If this were to happen, there would be a market for the King of England to be the King of Australia, at least for a certain period of time.

A Different Concept of Monarch from the Chinese Empire
Due to historical factors, most European heads of state were not direct rulers of the country, but rather symbols of the country. This is a completely different concept from that of the emperors who have always governed China, and it is believed to have started in Britain.

More than 800 years ago, the King of England signed the Magna Carta, handing over the power of governing the country to the aristocracy, and eventually developed the present democratic system. It can be said that the power of the king has long since passed away, and the monarch is no longer, and does not need to be directly responsible for the policies of the country. However, the emperors of the Chinese Empire (i.e. China in history) have always had the supreme power to govern the country. When an emperor failed to govern and the country was in turmoil, there was often a coup d’état or a popular revolt, leading to a change of dynasty and the Chinese would support the new emperor. It can be said that such a system, which advocated the supremacy of power, made the rulers unwilling and unable to give up the power they possessed. Whenever the Chinese nation was invaded by foreigners, the majority of the Chinese people would accept the new emperor’s rule, but in the end, the ruling system composed of scholars assimilated the foreign monarchs and nations. For example, the Manchurian dynasty was still ruled by the Han Chinese ruling class, and the Manchurians were eventually Sinicised to the extent that not many of them know much about Manchu culture today. Another example is that the Mongols refused to be Sinicised, and as a result, when their control over the society was weakened, they were driven back to the north by the Han Chinese, and their life has never been un-Sinicised.

From these different views on kingship, we can understand the situation of Charles III today. Though the kingship is inherited from history, the actual governing power is in the hands of the people, so the kings do not have absolute power and interests. Today, the British Royal Family is an alternative group of people in Britain who can contribute to the improvement of the country’s inequalities, or give hope to the neglected people, and thus provide strength to the stability of the society. Most of the activities of the British royal family are ceremonial and charitable, and the royal family has accumulated a great deal of wealth over the course of its history. Whether or not they continue to be members of the Royal Family is not an important issue for them. Moreover, while royalty is often the centre of public attention, there are some members of the royal family who are unwilling to take on such a role. Prince Harry, for example, who had no right of succession, gave up his position and became an independent celebrity, enjoying his leisure time.

Charles III knows what he’s doing
For me, still in Hong Kong, a visit from the British Royal Family means holidays, celebrations and good news. When the Queen comes to Hong Kong, she’s bound to be on holiday, and part-time workers are always hoping that the Queen Mother (Hong Kong people’s nickname for Queen Elizabeth) will come to Hong Kong more often. The royal family’s visits to Hong Kong are often to preside over the launching of large-scale construction or projects, and are a sign of Hong Kong’s prosperity, stability and development. Charles visited Hong Kong five times in his capacity as Crown Prince. Initially, it was thought that the Queen was too old for the Crown Prince to take over the throne, but the Queen’s longevity made Hong Kong people realise that he would not have the opportunity to preside over the handover as King in 1997.

But Charles did manage to get the British out of Hong Kong in style. Charles III left Hong Kong’s Queen’s Pier (which no longer exists today) on the HMS Britannia with the British flag lowered, signalling that the British had come and gone by ship. I believe that most people in Hong Kong at that time, as well as the rest of the world, were amazed that the British had turned this barren harbour into the richest metropolis in the world. Looking at the prosperity of Hong Kong, the quality of life of the people of Hong Kong at that time, who would say that the colonial government was a tyranny that exploited the people?

Charles summed it up as the contribution of the British in Hong Kong, and today, 27 years later, many Hong Kong people around the world would agree and still miss it. Charles’s ‘farewell to Australia’ is a low-key visit to a country where many have rejected him as king, despite the difficulties of fighting cancer, and where he insists on his duty as ‘King of Australia’ (many Hong Kong media have misrepresented his visit to Australia as the ‘King of England’). Charles III’s early public statement that he would let the Australian people decide whether to become a republic or not shows that Charles III realised that the era of the king as the head of state was over. By making the change known to the Australians, the hardliners, who had been in favour of retaining the royal system, had no reason to hold out any longer. But the Australians were in no hurry to change, and Charles did not have to accelerate the pace. Australia’s transformation into a republic has become a consensus that the Australian community needs to seek on its own, and this attitude shows Charles’s ability to know what to do and what to do not, as well as his political wisdom.

A Nation Grows
The attitude of the Australians towards the royal family also shows that a country has to grow. In the beginning, Australia was just a new continent discovered by the British, similar to the Americas. These two lands were too far away from Britain and not on the Asian trade routes to be of much trade value to the British Empire. India, Hong Kong, Singapore and some parts of Africa were different, they played the role of entrepot and supply port in the East-West trade, and as these places were already governed by established sovereign governments, the British had to become sovereigns through war as conquerors. However, the British did not colonise these colonies in large numbers. While the administration of these colonies brought benefits to Britain in terms of global trade and the plundering of the resources of these lands, at the same time, the administration of these colonies also brought great problems and costs to the British Empire. After the First World War, Britain’s power declined so rapidly that after the Second World War, Britain adopted a policy of decolonisation, allowing these colonies to become independent. To this day, many of these countries still maintain a good co-operative relationship with Britain and are part of the Commonwealth.

The situation in America and Australia was different. The opening up of America was driven by religious idealists who were dissatisfied with the British social system and soon formed self-governments in opposition to Britain. As a result, the United States of America was founded on the other side of the Atlantic Ocean with western democratic institutions but without the historical baggage of Britain, and with a strong belief in individual freedom, human rights and the rule of law, and has become the most powerful country in the world in the last few decades. Australia, on the other hand, because of its more remote location, only had settlers from the lower social classes and gold miners who pursued a free life, and up to 70 or 80 years ago, it was still a small country with a population that supplied Britain with wool, beef and dairy products for trade. Nevertheless, the lives of these oppressed people, who sought freedom and equality, were greatly improved by the richness of the land. The colonists quickly established self-government, honoured British traditions, and because the neighbouring countries were all undemocratic in Asia, Australian society was keen to maintain its close relationship with Britain until the Second World War, and naturally, the British king became the king of Australia.

Queen Elizabeth’s charisma, coupled with the White Australia policy that prevailed in Australian society for more than 50 years, has kept Australians from changing the present system of having the King of England as the head of state. However, over the past 30 years, Australia has absorbed a large number of immigrants from all over the world, and this generation of Australians is now a global citizenry with a global outlook, but still retains the old values of freedom, equality and tolerance of different perspectives. Australians are able to build co-operative relationships with different countries and ethnic groups around the world, and because of this, Australian society is capable of making institutional changes.

It can also be said that Australia has grown to become a democratic, free and lawful nation in the Asia-Pacific region, one that demands mutual respect and tolerance, and that resists the threat of force and oppression. In the face of the reorganisation of the world order, Australia will play an important role in the region, and perhaps it is a good symbol for a change in the system of national leadership.

Who will be the head of state?
If Australia ever becomes a republic, how will she elect her head of state? Australia’s most powerful Governor-General has always been an elected head of government, nominated by the Prime Minister and appointed by the King of Australia. Most of them are respected members of the community, come from a wide range of backgrounds, and are seen as representatives of fairness and justice. Most of these nominees are knowledgeable people, but if we recognise that Australia did not start out as an uninhabited land, but was inhabited by Aboriginal people for more than 60,000 years, does it mean that the Australian community should consider an Aboriginal leader to be the head of state?

No Aboriginal person has ever been appointed as the Governor-General of Australia. Douglas Nicholls was appointed Governor-General of South Australia in 1976, the first Aboriginal person to hold such a position. Mr Le Van Hieu, an immigrant from Vietnam, also served as Governor-General, but they were appointed by the King and had no real power.

But if the head of Australia is elected by the people on a one-man-one-vote basis, how much power should he have? Is it possible to elect an Aboriginal head of state? Or should the Aborigines be the head of state of Australia? It seems to be very difficult for the Australian community to reach a consensus on these issues.

As I attended Charles III’s welcome reception in Parliament on Monday, I observed a number of things of interest.

You’re not my king, you’ve committed genocide
Before the King got off the bus and arrived at Parliament House, there was an Aboriginal welcome, a sign of respect for Aboriginal people, and a parade of Australian soldiers. I saw Charles III stop to talk to the soldiers, some of whom were obviously not white. On entering the parliamentary chamber, the sign language interpreter, sitting on the far left hand side of the room, conveyed a very clear message. I don’t think many people in the room would have needed a sign language interpreter, but rather a way to express to the Deaf people of the country that they too are part of this country and can be seen on the TV news. Before the start, Auntie Violet Sheridan gave the Aboriginal welcome to the King, and then the Prime Minister’s speech, which showed that the Australian government recognises that this land belongs to the Aboriginal people.

The Prime Minister’s and King’s speeches also mentioned how Queen Elizabeth won the hearts of all Australians on her first visit to Australia as King. The Prime Minister also praised King Charles for his many visits and interest in Australia’s development and charitable work during his years as Crown Prince. Prime Minister Albanese recognised the positive role Charles has played in Australia’s development and growth to date. Charles spoke about his first time living in Australia and how the Aboriginal culture has had a huge impact on his life over the past 58 years. He also expressed his concern about the recent fires and natural disasters that have occurred in Australia in recent years, and was pleased that Australia has grown to become such an influential country in the world.

It could have been a perfect farewell visit. The guests did not come as kings to a land of exiled convicts, the hosts did not bow and scrape as vassals, and we all parted in a courteous manner, with the Prime Minister saying that Australia would continue to play an active and important role in future federal meetings of states. It could be said that this visit was the perfect prelude to Australia’s entry into a republic. However, immediately after the speeches, Aboriginal Senator Lidia Thorpe rushed forward and shouted, ‘You are an exterminator’ and ‘You are not my king’. Her action absolutely disrupted the harmony of the whole welcoming ceremony, and all the participants shook their heads and sighed. Bringing politics into the ceremony was not recognised and supported by the participants and Australians. Lidia was later criticised by many Aboriginal leaders for insulting the king she claimed to be loyal to, losing her integrity and bringing shame to the Aboriginal people.

Aboriginal people are being ignored?
Are Lidia’s demands reasonable? Firstly, Lidia wants to get back the bones of the Aborigines. Many Aboriginal skeletons were brought to Britain during the colonial era, and some museums have returned them to Aboriginal communities in the past.Lidia’s request is reasonable, but should it have been made at the King’s welcoming party, or is there a better way?

Secondly, Lidia says the King is responsible for the genocide of the Aborigines, which is a difficult question to answer. When the British first landed in Australia, not many people would have thought that the Aborigines were living in a highly civilised society at that time. Since the Australian continent had been isolated from the world for tens of thousands of years, when the known civilised society developed into the Industrial Revolution, the British encountered the Aborigines and regarded them as undeveloped and did not regard the land as inhabited. However, inhabited land can also become colonies of other countries through wars. It is not uncommon for the original inhabitants to die in large numbers after the invasion of a new nation.

In fact, under such circumstances, the British did not carry out genocide against the indigenous people to a large extent. This was not because the British were not aggressive, it was believed that it was only because of the vastness of Australia and the distance between Australia and Britain that the British did not colonise on a large scale. After the conflict between the British colonisation and the Aborigines, the Aborigines settled in the more remote inland of Australia. It was not until the discovery of gold mines in Australia in the 60s and 70s that more Britons emigrated to Australia, and Lidia’s assertion that Charles or the King of England carried out genocide in Australia is clearly not true.

The British colonial government set up loyalist governments in each state, recognising the King as the head of state was their choice, and there is no law in each state that says that Aborigines must be citizens of each state. However, there were Aboriginal Protection Officers in each state to protect the rights of the Aborigines in case of conflicts between the Aborigines and the citizens of the state, so that the Aborigines could be treated fairly in the society. You can say that the colonialists stole the land by claiming that it had no owner, but this is the view of the post-World War II world on respecting national sovereignty. During the colonial era, when it was a common belief in the world that military might was the key to determining who belonged to a territory, it was considered progressive for the colonisers to ignore the rights of the aborigines instead of exterminating them.

Perhaps the officials who dealt with the Aborigines at that time did not know how to do the job well, but at least the Australian society did not completely ignore the Aborigines.Lidia can say that the British colonialists initially ignored the cultural heritage of the Aborigines, or they did not respect the rights of the Aborigines, but it is far-fetched to think that they had occupied the Aborigines’ land. At that time, the Aborigines did not have a life style of settling on a piece of land for a long period of time. It can also be said that they were not a people who settled in a fixed place, but a people who travelled around a certain place for a long period of time. The Aboriginal people also did not have any concept of property rights (settlement) or who owns a certain piece of land, and naturally, there was no such thing as encroachment.

A Free, Democratic and Rule of Law Australia
When the state and federal governments of Australia were formed, Aborigines were not initially included in national statistics. The intention was that Aborigines would be denied the responsibility of state protection, and that they would not be taxed or provided with welfare benefits by the state and federal governments, not that the state or federal governments would not recognise their existence and right to exist. The fact that Aboriginal people could only live on land that no one else owned or used was not a big problem, as there was plenty of land in Australia in the first place. The Aborigines had the right to deny that they were nationals of either the British Empire or the Commonwealth of Australia, but in doing so, they also denied the responsibility of Australia as a nation to protect them. Senator Lidia Thorpe’s behaviour is therefore clearly contradictory.

As Aborigines, Lidia has the right to deny the existence of the Commonwealth of Australia because the Aborigines did not become Australian citizens in 1900 when they voted in a referendum to accept the Commonwealth’s constitution. They became part of the Commonwealth of Australia in a referendum in the 67th century, when the original colonisers and their descendants were accepted into the Commonwealth of Australia. Since then they have enjoyed the privileges, benefits and Aboriginal land rights of living in Australia, and Lidia was born after the constitutional changes that made all Aboriginal people Australians, and naturally, a subject of Charles III of Australia. Since her birth, she has enjoyed the welfare and education provided by the Australian government, and has become part of the Australian government by running for election, being elected, and swearing allegiance to the Australian government. However, Australians enjoy freedom of speech, and simply stating publicly that you are not a subject of Charles III is not treason or sedition, nor is it a criminal offence, as long as you do not take any specific action. She is a democratically elected member of Parliament, and the Parliament does not have the power to remove her from office.

Lidia’s behaviour demonstrates that Australians today enjoy a great deal of freedom, and that they use this freedom ‘unreasonably’ to promote their own political ideas without fear of being suppressed by the government. This is all because Australian society practises democracy and the rule of law, and allows its citizens to enjoy freedom. Whether they are descendants of the original British colonisation, Aboriginal people, or people who have immigrated from outside the UK and settled in this country, they all enjoy these rights, and this is the most valuable change that some of us, the first generation of immigrants to settle in this country, have experienced.

King Charles has gone, but his visit to Australia has made Australians think again about who they are and how Australia should go forward. How should Australia go forward? I’m sure it will be discussed amongst Australians for some time to come.

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