On July 26, 2025, ABC News published an article profiling several Chinese-Australian politicians, aiming to showcase multicultural perspectives and highlight Chinese participation in politics. Yet, upon closer reading, it contained multiple errors and oversimplifications, reflecting how Australian society still perceives “Chinese identity” only at a surface level, without grappling with its true diversity.
Misunderstandings and Overgeneralizations
The article grouped all Asian-background politicians under the label Chinese-Australian, even though some did not have direct roots in China. For example, Sally Sitou’s parents came from Laos, while Gabriel Ng was born in Malaysia. Both were identified as Chinese-Australians simply because of ethnic heritage, ignoring the vast cultural differences among Chinese diasporas. A Malaysian Chinese may speak Hokkien or Cantonese at home, use Malay in daily life, and lack proficiency in Mandarin, while their education system reflects British colonial influence — markedly different from mainland China. Reducing them all to “Chinese” erases linguistic and cultural nuance.
Even within one individual, identity is not fixed but shaped by history and experience. Former MP Meng Heang Tak, for instance, came from a Cambodian-Chinese family persecuted under the Khmer Rouge, shaping an initial distrust of China. Later, his professional dealings led to closer ties with Beijing, shifting his sense of identity. This illustrates that “Chinese identity” is fluid, multi-layered, and dynamic.
When media and politicians lump these figures together as Chinese-Australian, they risk obscuring their complex cultural and generational identities. Such simplifications are often instrumentalized in debates on Chinese influence, reinforcing stereotypes of Chinese as a homogenous and politically mobilized bloc.
A striking example is Julie-Ann Campbell, included in ABC’s list of “six Chinese-Australian MPs.” Yet her Chinese heritage comes only from her mother, with her family settled in Australia for generations. She neither practices Chinese culture nor engages closely with Chinese communities. Labeling her “Chinese-Australian” reveals a bloodline-first logic that sidelines cultural practice and self-identification. By that reasoning, millions of Anglo-Australians with English ancestry should be called “English-Australians” — though most would deny any living connection to England.
Misconceptions About Chinese Culture
While the ABC piece intended to highlight non-white representation, its missteps show how shallow the understanding of “Chinese” remains. Such portrayals may seem “normal” to mainstream readers, but they create alienation among Chinese communities, who feel misrepresented.
Ironically, similar misunderstandings exist within Chinese communities themselves. Admiration often falls on Chinese-background politicians not for cultural affinity but for power and status. Figures like Penny Wong are celebrated less as cultural kin than as symbols of prestige, reflecting a long-standing hierarchical mindset. Historical examples, such as the posthumous glorification of Genghis Khan as a “Chinese leader,” reveal this tendency to adopt powerful outsiders into a collective identity.
Moreover, the ABC’s list included few with direct roots in China, Hong Kong, or Taiwan — the largest source regions of Australia’s Chinese community. Even first-generation immigrants like Sam Lim, born in Malaysia, may feel disconnected from these groups. Such gaps went unacknowledged.
Barriers Facing Chinese Immigrants
Why are first-generation immigrants from China, Hong Kong, or Taiwan so rarely seen in politics? The core barriers lie in structural exclusion and systemic bias. Despite high education and professional skills, many face hurdles:
-
Language: English proficiency affects access to politics and public life.
-
Credential recognition: Overseas qualifications are often dismissed, sidelining professionals.
-
Political suspicion: Chinese-born Australians are subjected to scrutiny and stigma due to tense Australia-China relations, discouraging participation.
Former MP Gladys Liu exemplifies these challenges. Though her election was hailed as a multicultural milestone, she struggled with trust from both mainstream and Chinese constituencies. Her ambiguity on Hong Kong and Xinjiang issues alienated democratic-leaning Chinese while raising suspicion among others. Her eventual electoral loss revealed the inadequacy of “Chinese identity” alone as a political base.
The Real Issue
Australian society continues to conflate ethnicity with representation. Politicians with partial Chinese ancestry but little cultural engagement are easily branded as “Chinese representatives,” while first-generation immigrants who actively preserve language, traditions, and community ties remain invisible. This bloodline-based representation misplaces the essence of multiculturalism, which should emphasize lived cultural participation, not symbolic ancestry.
For genuine inclusion, Australia must:
-
Support advanced English and civic education for first-generation immigrants to empower their political voices.
-
Provide systemic recognition of foreign qualifications to reduce professional marginalization.
-
Encourage policies that respect bilingualism and cultural continuity, such as multilingual election materials and cultural advisory councils.
True multiculturalism cannot be built by tokenizing second- or third-generation “Chinese faces” for optics. It requires dismantling structural barriers that silence first-generation immigrants, allowing them to engage politically while retaining cultural identity. Only then can Chinese immigrants achieve dignity and real representation in Australian society.