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

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

Recently, a piece of news in Hong Kong once again triggered a media debate: Anna Kwok Fung-yee, the executive director of the Hong Kong Democratic Foundation, who is wanted by the Hong Kong National Security Bureau for a reward of HK$1 million, has her father and her second elder brother arrested on charges of assisting in the handling of Anna;s funds. While her elder brother has been released on bail pending investigation, and the case is now adjourned until June 13 for further proceedings. This is the first time that the Hong Kong Police Force has invoked the offence of “handling funds belonging to an absconder” under the measures against absconders in the Maintenance of National Security Ordinance to arrest suspects for assisting in the handling of property in Hong Kong belonging to “specified absconders”. One cannot help but wonder, in the 21st century, whether the uncivilized way of governance of “connecting nine clans of the family” has resurfaced again.

The “guilt by association with nine clans” system is a representative system of guilt by association in Chinese history, which originated in the Qin Dynasty and reached its peak in the Ming and Qing Dynasties. The core idea is that if a person commits a crime, all his relatives and associates will be punished. During the Second Qin Dynasty, the prime minister Li Si was framed by Zhao Gao, and not only was he himself chopped into pieces, but his three clans were also executed. After the usurpation of Emperor Zhu Di of the Ming Dynasty, he ordered Fang Xiaoru to draft a document on his accession to the throne, but Fang refused, and as a result, he was punished with the execution of ten of his clans, including students and servants. During the Qing Dynasty, there were a number of cases in which relatives were implicated in the “delusion of the government”, such as the case of Cao Xueqin’s family, the author of The Dream of the Red Mansion, who were executed because of the “Case of Kangxi’s Guiqi”.

The detention of Ms. Kwok’s father pending trial reminds us of the modernization of Hong Kong today, which has not yet left the era of undeveloped people’s wisdom.

Who is Anna Kwok Fung-yee?

Kwok, 28, is an exiled lobbyist in Hong Kong and currently serves as the executive director of the Washington, D.C.-based Hong Kong Democratic Committee: in 2023, she called on the U.S. government to ban Hong Kong Chief Executive Eric Li Ka-chiu from traveling to the United States to attend the Asia-Pacific Economic Cooperation (APEC) summit, and in July 2023 she was put on the Hong Kong National Security Agency’s Most Wanted List, which is a list of 19 overseas activists who are wanted by the police in Hong Kong. In December 2024, Kwok’s Hong Kong status was revoked and she became stateless after she requested the U.S. government to grant her asylum as soon as possible after the warrant was made public. Kwok was accused of violating Hong Kong’s national security law by colluding with foreign or overseas forces to jeopardize national security, and the police offered a HK$1 million reward for her arrest.

According to the information, the National Security Bureau took away Kwok’s parents and two elder brothers on August 8 and 22 of the previous year, respectively, to investigate whether they had any form of contact or financial dealings with Kwok. At the time, Kwok responded on Facebook that her family “has never helped, is not aware of, and does not even know what I do”. She also said that the Hong Kong government was trying to harass her family to silence her in the U.S., but that she would not give up her work to pave the way for Hong Kong’s freedom and self-determination. In recent years, the national security police have repeatedly taken away the family members of wanted Hong Kong residents to assist in investigations, and in the first four months of this year, a total of 14 people have been taken away on nine occasions to assist in investigations. This is the first time a family member has been charged.

The cause of this incident stems from a police investigation, which revealed that Kwok’s father and others had traveled overseas to meet with Anna Kwok , and were suspected of illegally assisting in the handling of Anna’s insurance policies in Hong Kong after returning to Hong Kong. There is also evidence that Kwok’s father attempted to help Kwok to withdraw nearly HK$100,000 in cash balance from the insurance policy, and submitted a number of documents purporting to contain the signatures of both parties to the insurance company early this year. It is worth noting that Kwok’s second brother works for the insurance company, and the police suspect that he used his position and knowledge of the industry to assist in the transfer of the property.

Whose property?

Kwok’s father, Kwok Yin Sang, is reportedly a businessman with three children. One of his children, Ms. Kwok, went to the International School and studied in Norway, and later studied journalism and philosophy at New York University. For someone who can provide such an expensive education for his children, Kwok is believed to be a successful businessman and is presumably well off. On the other hand, how did Anna Kwok have the financial means to support herself, accumulate assets and take out insurance when she never had a high-paying job after graduation? If the insurance policy purchased in her name is regarded as her property and the father is sued under the National Security Law for handling his daughter’s property, is it in line with the spirit of the law, which has raised a lot of questions?

In traditional Chinese society, property is owned and developed by the family. After the death of the head of the family, the next generation will distribute the property among different members of the family according to the principles set by the family leader. In Western societies, individualism is emphasized, so property is distributed in the name of the individual, and Western law is based on this system of private ownership of property. Obviously, it is unlikely that Kwok Fung Yee’s property was accumulated from her income. Therefore, the government’s investigation into the handling of Kwok Fung Yee’s insurance policy, which involved only HK$100,000, is intended to send an important message that family members of fugitives will be prosecuted for any contact with the fugitives.

The Hong Kong Police Force’s action sends a clear message to the community that any attempt to challenge national security will be prosecuted, and those who assist the “specified absconders” will also be subject to legal sanctions, advising family members, friends or associates of absconders not to break the law, and that all absconders should turn back to Hong Kong as soon as possible and give themselves up. According to the existing laws of Hong Kong, handling of funds belonging to the absconders concerned is a serious crime, which is liable to a maximum penalty of seven years’ imprisonment upon conviction.

Crackdown continues to escalate

Since mid-2023, the National Security Bureau of the Hong Kong Police Force has placed 19 Hong Kong residents in exile overseas, including Kwok Fung-yee, on the wanted list. It is alleged that after she left Hong Kong, she attended overseas meetings and activities in her capacity as a key member of the Hong Kong Democratic Committee, and lobbied foreign countries to sanction, blockade and carry out other hostile actions against the governments of China and Hong Kong, suspected to have violated the “collusion with a foreign country or foreign forces to endanger national security” in the Hong Kong National Security Law, and last year, on Christmas Eve, she was even arrested under the commonly known as the “National Security Law” for “colluding with foreign or overseas forces to jeopardize national security”. On Christmas Eve last year, six measures were imposed on Kwok and seven others, including revocation of their HKSAR passports and prohibition of providing them with funds, under the “Article 23” of the “Maintenance of National Security Ordinance”, which is commonly known as “Article 23”.

Kwok’s father, 68-year-old Kwok Yin-sang, is currently being returned to prison so that the prosecution can seize his cell phone and computer. Defense counsel pointed out that the defense needs to confirm whether the assets of the policy belong to Kwok Fung Yee or Kwok’s father, but the prosecution has not been able to do so, so bail has not been granted for the time being. The National Security Law Judge, Chief Magistrate So Wai Tak, subsequently decided to adjourn the case until the middle of next month, during which time the defendant could write to the court if he wished to apply for bail. The Hong Kong Democratic Committee, to which Ms. Kwok belongs, describes this unprecedented action by the Hong Kong government as an escalation of attacks on human rights defenders in the U.S., and urges the U.K. and the U.S. to take appropriate countermeasures.

Undoubtedly, this action highlights the dangerous expansion of Beijing’s complicity, which has been extended to Hong Kong. Blatantly implicating relatives in Hong Kong as a means of suppressing the voices of Hong Kong’s overseas pro-democracy dissidents is in complete defiance of basic human rights and the rule of law. What is even more disturbing is that this case is likely to develop into an ongoing retaliatory campaign against the families of Hong Kong’s exiled pro-democracy activists, a new pattern of intimidation and persecution aimed at spreading fear and suppressing pro-democracy and pro-human rights activities both within Hong Kong and internationally.

At this point, the response and support of the international community is all the more important. If Western countries insist on universal values, they must put pressure on Beijing and the Hong Kong authorities to immediately stop all acts of harassment and intimidation against the families of overseas Hong Kong democrats in Hong Kong. The international community can protect exiled Hong Kong pro-democracy activists and other critics of the Beijing authorities from intimidation and persecution similar to that of the Long Arm if it is determined to take concrete action to hold accountable the officials responsible for the human rights abuses in question, and to put in place a strong legal framework. Otherwise, the escalation of such persecution will only get worse.

The Powerful Influence of Culture

Anyone who knows a little bit about China’s 5,000 years of history will know that while one man’s success is rewarded by the rise of all family members, similarly, one man’s offense will implicate all men. Even in modern times, similar cases of vendetta killings often occur, such as a village headman bullying villagers and the angry headman killing his entire family and even babies in their infancy. This kind of time is rare in Western societies because when modern civilization began, Chinese civilization took a very different path from that of the rest of the world: China continued the tradition of the clan bloodline, which formed the current Chinese civilization, and which is still the nucleus of its civilization even today. Ancient Greece, on the other hand, blew up the clan-blood relationship and established a contractual form of social organization, which is also the originator of modern Western civilization.

There is also the influence of Christian thought on society. The New Testament emphasizes that the sins committed by the father cannot be borne by the children, and that God will not punish the offender’s next generation for these sins. The Bible also emphasizes that each person should be judged by God for his own sins, which laid the foundation for the principle of “guilt by association” in Western law. Especially after the Magna Carta in England, the royal power and the nobility reached a contractual relationship, in which both parties were close to equality, and this relationship was extended to the relationship between the government and the citizens in recent times. This is incomprehensible to the Chinese people who have long been obsessed with imperial power. It is only that today, the Hong Kong government has ignored the application of British law in Hong Kong for over a hundred years, and is now applying in Hong Kong the same uncivilized practices that have existed in China for thousands of years.

In this case, the ownership of the assets handled by Kwok’s father is one of the main points of contention between the prosecution and the defense. The defense pointed out that there is no bail application at this stage, saying that the crux of the case is the father of Kwok allegedly handled the policy, in the end is Kwok Fung Yee or his own assets, it takes time to review the policy, but the prosecution has not been provided, hope that the case is adjourned for a week, and then decide to reply to the direction of the direction and whether or not to apply for bail. Even if the defense can produce relevant evidence, it is not difficult for those who are familiar with the process of interpretation of the law “with Chinese characteristics” to imagine that the prosecution will find a way to make the evidence satisfy the conditions for the establishment of the charges.

However, in contemporary China, the idea of “linking nine clans to one’s family” has long permeated many corners of the country, such as the “political examination” that must be passed in order to get into the civil service, and the idea that “one person committing a crime affects three generations”, although it has no legal basis, has a real impact on real-life considerations. It’s just that birth is not a choice, and the behavior of parents will have an impact on their children, but that’s fate and has nothing to do with the law. The law cannot reinforce parental benevolence, nor can it make children worse off as a result of their parents’ bad luck. However, it will take time for this modern idea of democracy and the rule of law to take root in Chinese society, which has long been steeped in feudalism.

A year ago, the bloodshed in a large shopping center in Bondi Beach, Sydney, shocked the whole of Australia. After the incident, the murderer’s parents spoke out, grieving for the lives lost and pointing out that having a mentally ill child was a nightmare for the parents; they also claimed that they did not resent the policewoman for killing their son, as she was just doing her job. If we think like Chinese people, these parents would not be able to hold their heads up for the rest of their lives, let alone speak out to the media. As a society progresses towards civilization and the rule of law, it is essential to respect the rights of the individual, and the idea of “lumping” a family together should have been swept into the dustbin of history long ago.

Article/Editorial Department, Sameway Magazine

Photo/Internet