Connect with us

Features

I’m an Indigenous Chinese Australian!

Published

on

I’m an Indigenous Chinese Australian! (Part 1)

This year marks my 30th year living in Australia. Through writing, volunteering, and social dancing, I’ve made countless friends from all walks of life: Australians, Europeans, Japanese, Koreans, Vietnamese, Filipinos, Malaysians, North Americans, Indians, New Zealanders, and even South Africans. I’ve had great teachers, good friends, bad influences too, all from across the globe. Life has been vibrant, interesting, and long. However, I regret that not one of my friends is an Indigenous Australian, and I know very little about Indigenous communities, their culture, and traditions. This regret often leaves me feeling empty, as though something is missing. Over the years, I’ve only met two Indigenous women: one was a friend’s girlfriend whose grandmother was Indigenous, but she was fair-skinned with delicate features, and there was no outward sign of her Indigenous heritage. The second was Professor Marcia Langton AO, a professor at the University of Melbourne. I first saw her in 2008 when I interviewed the famous Australian painter Zhou Xiaoping (see my article “In Search of Dreams in the Indigenous Dreaming World” in Issue 85 of Sameway). I met her again at a Lunar New Year banquet at Zhou’s house the same year. In 2012, at the screening of a film about Zhou Xiaoping (see my article “Ink and Ochre” in Issue 314 of Sameway), I met Professor Langton again, but both times, I missed the chance to speak with her. In recent years, this sense of loss and regret has grown stronger, eventually prompting me to begin a quest to learn more about the First Nations of Australia.

Indigenous Australians, a term that refers collectively to Aboriginal Australians and Torres Strait Islanders, are the descendants of the original inhabitants of Australia before European colonization. The term “Indigenous Australians” is a broad one, encompassing many different groups with significant distinctions between them. They may not share close connections or common origins, with each community having its own unique culture, customs, and language. It’s estimated that when Europeans first arrived, there were around 250 Indigenous languages. Now, only about 120 to 145 languages remain, most of which are endangered, with only 13 considered secure. Most modern Indigenous Australians speak English that is influenced by Indigenous vocabulary, pronunciation, and grammatical structures, a form known as Aboriginal English. Estimates of the population at the time of European settlement vary, with some suggesting between 318,000 and 1,000,000 people. They mainly lived in the southeast, which mirrors today’s population distribution. The current Indigenous population is 798,365, with 73% identifying as Christians, 24% having no religion, and 1% adhering to traditional Indigenous beliefs. There is no academic consensus on the relationship between the first inhabitants of the Australian continent and modern Indigenous Australians. However, most scholars agree that the earliest human remains found in Australia date back between 64,000 and 75,000 years, making them descendants of the earliest groups to leave Africa for Asia. Since 1995, the Aboriginal flag—red and black with a yellow sun—and the Torres Strait Islander flag—blue and green with a headdress symbol—have been recognized as official national flags in Australia. (Note 1)

Last week, through a friend’s introduction, I had the opportunity to learn more about Indigenous culture via several Australian television programs. The stories I’ll share here are based on ABC broadcasts (May 2020).

The Aboriginal Chinese Doll

I’m Brenda, an Elder of the Bidjara-Wakka Wakka nations. At 68 years old, I’ve always been curious about Chinese culture. Why? Because my grandmother used to call me “Chinese Doll.” I found the answer when I was four years old. It was the first time I discovered that I had Chinese ancestry. One day, while playing with other kids, I asked my grandmother, “Why do you call me Chinese Doll?” She told us that we were descendants of Chinese people. We continued asking, and she explained that my great-great-grandfather was Chinese. I grew up in Gayndah, a small town about 350 kilometres north of Brisbane, where my mother’s family are the traditional custodians of Wakka Wakka Country. Apart from that conversation with my grandmother, Lucky Law, and the taste of the fried noodles my mother May used to make, I knew very little about my Chinese roots, and even less about my mysterious Chinese great-great-grandfather. I couldn’t learn much from Lucky, as marriages like hers were seldom discussed back then. I only asked that day out of curiosity, but that curiosity has stayed with me, leaving a big gap in my life.

The First Generation of Chinese Shepherds

I’ve worked as a part-time teacher at a public school in Queensland for nearly a decade. A few years ago, I started exploring my family history in my spare time. My family tree reveals that one branch can be traced back to my great-great-grandfather John Law. He arrived in Australia around 1842 as a shepherd from Xiamen. He worked in the Gayndah region, where he apparently met my great-great-grandmother, and they married. It turns out I’m about one-fourteenth Chinese. In the 1840s, around 3,000 Chinese labourers, mainly men and boys, were transported from Xiamen to Australia to work as shepherds, spreading across modern-day Victoria, New South Wales, and Queensland. Dr. Maxine Darnell has been tracing the history of these shepherds, who were brought under five-year contracts and worked under harsh conditions as part of the first organized wave of Chinese labour to Australia. They helped meet the labour shortage after convict transportation to Australia ceased in the 1840s, before the influx of Chinese gold seekers in the 1850s and 1860s. As contract labourers, they were bound to their employers, unable to freely leave for the goldfields like many free workers. While little is known about the reasons behind their migration, it coincided with China’s recovery from the Opium War, when the lure of a better life must have been appealing. The story of labourers seeking a better life is a timeless one.

From Hostility to Intermarriage

The interaction between Chinese and Indigenous Australians dates back at least 150 years, though much of this history remains undocumented. Dr. Sandi Robb has been researching the relationships and marriage patterns between Chinese men and Indigenous women in Queensland. According to Dr. Robb, the early relationship between the two communities was fraught with “hostility and fear.” From the Indigenous perspective, the Chinese were unfamiliar people, different in appearance and dress, trespassing on their land without permission, thereby violating Indigenous law. However, over time, Indigenous marriage customs began to break down, and instances of intermarriage with other ethnic groups appeared. By 1890, Indigenous women were often left with no choice but to marry outside their communities due to the loss of traditional marriage partners, often due to violence. Both the Indigenous and Chinese were marginalized and looked down upon by white settlers. John Law was one of the few Chinese shepherds who married an Indigenous woman. Their daughter, Kate Law, married Chinese shepherd James Coy in 1877, and they had 11 children, including my grandmother, Lucky Law.

Indigenous people and Chinese workers formed friendships and connections that bridged their worlds. Both groups faced discrimination, and like today, that prejudice still affects both Indigenous Australians and Chinese. I believe that both groups learned much from each other, including cultural practices and agricultural knowledge related to land and cattle. In Gayndah, there were also orchards and citrus groves. In 2019, the Queensland government recognized the contributions of Chinese shepherds in irrigation and crop production in the Darling Downs region.

The Quest for Chinese Roots

My journey to trace my family history would have been much more difficult without the help of a Chinese friend. In 2018, I met a young Chinese man named Xianyang Tang on Facebook, and we quickly became friends. Over the past two years, with his help, I’ve uncovered many unknown aspects of my family history. Xianyang knew how deeply I wanted to find at least one relative and learn more about my great-great-grandfather’s origins, so he helped connect me with the Luo clan in Xiamen and local Chinese people. However, the search hit a roadblock when we couldn’t confirm which branch of the Luo family my ancestor belonged to, possibly due to the destruction of Luo family records during the Cultural Revolution. Xianyang was moved by my determination to uncover my roots and volunteered to help me. He visited me during my illness and even bought shoes and hats for my children. To me, he’s like family. He believes that my ancestors came from the Luo clan in Xiamen, but the search continues.

I’ve always felt proud of my identity. I have a large family descended from John Law, and none of us has ever denied our Chinese heritage. My dream is to visit China, especially Xiamen, to see it for myself and imagine the footsteps of my great-great-grandfather. While I know a lot about Indigenous culture, I’m part of two cultures, and I’ve decided to explore that other half.

Since the 19th century, Chinese and Indigenous Australians have walked side by side with untold stories!

 

Hi, I am a Chinese Aborigine in Australia! (II)

Recently, I had the pleasure of meeting CityMag and Ngarrindjeri (multidisciplinary) artist Damien Shen on the program to talk about his upbringing and what it means to be Aboriginal and Chinese.

Yellah Fellah: The Yellow-Skinned Family Man

Yellah Fellah is a colloquialism, an Australian term for yellow people. I, Damien Shen, am what Australians call Yellah Fellah, the yellow-skinned guy. However, my Aboriginal and Chinese backgrounds are deeply connected, and my Chinese heritage played an important role in my childhood. I am not sure where I would be today without the benefit of my Chinese heritage. My father was born in Hong Kong but was sent to boarding school in Adelaide. My grandparents thought the Communists would soon take over Hong Kong, so my father’s sister was sent elsewhere and then he was sent to Australia. I was born in Adelaide and my grandparents, who lived next door, were important people in my childhood. I think as I got older I appreciated more the Chinese side of things, that they were able to build up such structures, things that happened in my father’s life and so on. My Chinese grandmother felt it was her duty to keep order in the home – breakfast would be brought out at a certain time and dinner was always at 6pm. Grandparents provide a safe structure for children to live in. Although proud of my Chinese heritage, I admit that growing up in Australia with undeniable racism against Asians was challenging. I don’t speak Chinese because when my father came here, there was a lot of racism, so he was like, “No, you’re speaking English.” He wouldn’t encourage us to speak Chinese. At home he spoke Cantonese, and my grandparents spoke Cantonese, Mandarin and Shanghainese, and then they would go around the table and speak English to us. I recall my first job at a Chinese restaurant, where it was harder to fit in because I didn’t know the Chinese language. I was perceived as someone with long hair who didn’t speak Chinese, which was almost a bit of a novelty to the Chinese. I was there, but never really connected with the Chinese.

My mother’s Ngarrindjeri ethnicity, my Aboriginal heritage, was also crucial to my childhood. Growing up, I always knew I was part of an Aboriginal community and had many Aboriginal cousins with whom I spent a lot of time. One of those family members was Uncle Moogy. Moogy, who everybody knows – he’s my mom’s brother, so he’s actually my real uncle, and I grew up with him. There were always a lot of children in his house and we always spent the night there, so it was always very fun and memorable and I’m still very close to him. Although I now appreciate my Aboriginal and Chinese heritage, there are still struggles, especially at a young age. When I was in about 10th grade, I encountered a lot of racism in terms of being Asian or Aboriginal – basically, “they” had two ways of dealing with me. Then I changed schools and things changed immediately because I went to a very multicultural school. Suddenly, I didn’t have that pressure to ‘stand out’. It wasn’t until I was older that I started researching my Aboriginal heritage. As you get older, you start to think more about genealogy, history and things like that. …… It’s so fascinating when you look at what it means to be an Aboriginal person with family ties from a genealogical perspective. Anyone you meet, you call each other by name, but you’re not quite sure how far apart we are – are we really cousins? Then, on the other hand, you see what being Aboriginal means politically, historically, what happened to the Ngarrindjeri people, so part of my work deals with that. I looked back at my own life in two different contexts and felt blessed. I was lucky to be able to experience it through two lenses: dual identity, or dual background – it’s an interesting thing. As I’ve experienced, you don’t always fit into the Aboriginal community environment, especially when I was young, I felt that. As I’ve gotten older, I’ve gotten to know more Asian Aboriginal people, and we all look the same.

Yellah Fellah for OzAsia explores storytelling through an Indigenous Asian lens.

Yellah Fellah for OzAsia, an art exhibition curated by Catherine Croll, is on display at the Adelaide Festival Centre in 2023. This fascinating and inspiring exhibition featured the work of four different artists with Asian and Aboriginal traditions. I am exhibiting my own work alongside Gary Lee, Caroline Oakley and Jason Wing to show our personal interpretations of our backgrounds through the art form, which is essentially a gathering of many artists with Asian and Aboriginal traditions. For me, it’s Chinese and Aboriginal, and I think the artists will be proud of this mix of hybrids. I don’t speak for any other artist. …… Having a Chinese and Aboriginal heritage is something I’ve always been extremely proud of. You don’t see as much Aboriginal Chinese in South Australia as you do in the north of Darwin, there’s more of a mix of Asian Aboriginal cultures, but I’ve felt it’s quite unique here for a while now, so that’s cool. Curator Catherine says Asian-Australian relations began centuries before the European colonization of Australia, when Aboriginal people in the Northern Territory began to build a sea cucumber trading network with Malaysia and then on to China. I created a pewter skull fragment at an anatomy lab in Virginia entitled Life Behind the Pen, which is a history of the theft of human remains – many of the Ngarrindjeri people’s remains were stolen and shipped overseas. Uncle Moogy had a huge influence on a large group of Aboriginal leaders who travelled abroad to find these remains and repatriate them to Australia. My work here embodies that idea, and the photographs that Uncle Moogy and I have deliberately taken in this ethnographic way are like a real classic style of documenting things at a certain point in time, kind of like a drama of that history. The artwork called “Portraits” was a personal favorite of City Magazine, black and white portraits of my grandparents, sisters and uncles. Then I was inspired to organize a painting workshop with an American, and I thought, I don’t mind documenting all the stories around my mom. And then on the other hand, I’m going to document my Chinese grandparents and my sister as part of this series, linking the Chinese and Australian Aboriginal elements.

Chinese Aboriginal Women Writers

Not long ago, I saw some exciting news on SBS Chinese TV: Ms. Alexis Wright, a Chinese Aboriginal woman, won $60,000 and the Stella Prize for non-binary writers this year for her novel Praiseworthy, which beat out 227 entries. 2018 is the year that she writes about Aboriginal chiefs. In 2018, her collective memoir of Aboriginal chiefs, Tracker, also won the Stella Prize, making her the first author to win the award twice. She also won the Miles Franklin Award, Australia’s highest literary prize, for Carpentaria. Described by the New York Times as “the most ambitious and accomplished Australian novel of the century”, the 700-page book has been described as a great book in many ways, telling the story of the John Howard. Howard government’s 2007 military intervention in a Northern Territory community, the story of a small town whose inhabitants have been struck by a haze, and the story of the Aboriginal people who have been forced to live with the government’s military intervention in their community. This is a story of Aboriginal ancestry and ecological disaster. The characters’ reactions to the situation are allegorical, ranging from the comic to the tragic: one man devises a plan to replace Qantas with five million donkeys across Australia, another dreams of being white and powerful, and a third, apparently named Aboriginal Sovereignty, becomes suicidal. The judges were unanimous in stating that readers would be inspired by the aesthetic and technical qualities of Worthy of Praise and struck by Wright’s staccato rhythms of satirical politics, and that the award was rightfully given to Wright.

Challenge Yourself

Wright made a commitment long ago to challenge herself in whatever she writes, and her ambition has grown over the years. She began writing this novel about ten years ago, much of it during her tenure as Boisbouvier Chair of Australian Literature at the University of Melbourne. The process required Wright to pause and restart many times as she tried to evoke the slow pulse of central and northern Australia, to capture the scale of the period and the immense difficulties of the time, to challenge the reader’s indifference and to try to replace it with a deeper understanding. In an interview with the Australian Associated Press AAP, Wright pointed out that there is no harm in exercising the brain through the reading of good books. People are happy to go to the gym for a good physical workout, and there is no harm in a good workout for the mind.

Chinese Great-Grandfather & Native Great-Grandmother

“I come from one of the greatest storytelling worlds,” Wright said at the Stella Prize ceremony, “We are a culture of storytelling. Some of the most important, richest and longest-running epical law stories belong to the indigenous cultures of this land.” Wright, 73, is of Chinese descent. His great-grandfather came from Kaiping, Guangdong Province, to make a living in the Gulf of Carpentaria, a remote region in northern Australia, following the gold rush of the 19th century, and later married his Waanyi Aboriginal great-grandmother. Wright was invited to Shanghai for Australian Writers’ Week in 2018 and revealed in a media interview, “My great-grandfather was Chinese, but I don’t know him or the exact location of his hometown. I think it was somewhere in Kaiping, Guangdong. In the 19th century in Kaiping, a lot of Chinese people left their hometowns and went to the United States, Canada and other places to look for gold. Great-grandfather brought a lot of knowledge about China to the Gulf of Carpentaria, and he taught community members about irrigation and farming and growing vegetables.” She made a trip to Guangdong in 2017 to search for her roots, but unfortunately was unable to find any trace of her great-grandfather, after all, it was too long ago. Her books are available in Chinese translation, including the Franklin Award-winning Carpentaria and the full-length novel The Swan Book.

Bridging the Gaps in Australian History

During an unusual trip to the Northern Territory in 1988, renowned Australian painter Zhou Xiaoping was rescued by three Aboriginal teenagers when he was lost on a vast sandbar, which initiated his intense interest in Aboriginal culture and profoundly influenced his subsequent works, making Aboriginal people the only protagonists of his paintings. Through understanding, respect, and sincerity, he broke the barrier and formed decades of friendship with the Aborigines, making friends with Jimmy Chi, a Chinese Aboriginal musician, and Peter Yu, a professor. (See my articles “Seeking Dreams in the Aboriginal Dream World”, “Ink and Ochre”, and “Exploring Aboriginal History of Chinese Descent” in the 85th, 314th, and 665th issues of The Wayfarer) In 2022 Mr. Zhou initiated a project, Exploring Forgotten History, which is a project to explore the history of Aborigines in China, and to explore the history of the Chinese Aborigines in the world of Aborigines in the world of Chinese culture and culture. In 2022, Mr. Zhou initiated a project entitled “Exploring Forgotten Histories” to study Aboriginal people of Chinese ancestry, the significance of which is to fill in the gaps in Australian history. In the study of Chinese history, there is a large amount of information on the Chinese gold rush, but the relationship between the Chinese and the Aboriginal people is seldom covered. Why is it that in the early gold rushes in Bendigo and Ballarat, Victoria, there were not many intermarriages between the Chinese and Aboriginal people, and why are there not many Aboriginal descendants left behind? This is an important part of our history that we are gradually forgetting. Mr. Zhou’s research and the emergence of Aunty Brenda Kanofski, Damien Shen, Alexis Wright, Jimmy Chi, Peter Yu and other Aboriginal people of Chinese ancestry are like a jigsaw puzzle, putting together a picture of the past that has rarely been talked about or forgotten, showing the rich and complex interactions between the descendants of two of the oldest civilizations in the world, the Bendigo and the Ballarat. It shows the rich and complex interactions between the descendants of two of the world’s oldest civilizations. Will all this contribute to the integration of Australia’s diverse peoples and the harmony of its cultures? We look forward to it!

 

Knowing, Understanding and Respecting Aboriginal Culture

As we enter the month of May, the message of “Reconciliation” has appeared frequently in the media. What is reconciliation? Why Reconciliation? How to reconcile?

According to the Oxford Dictionary, “Reconciliation” means to end a disagreement or conflict with someone and start a good relationship again. But in Australia the concept of reconciliation is not so simple. Aboriginal and non-Aboriginal Australians have always tried to reconcile their differences, and Reconciliation is of great importance and significance to the nation. National Sorry Day is celebrated on 26 May each year, followed by National Reconciliation Week from 27 May to 3 June. The start and end dates of the week are historically significant, and are designed to promote the reconciliation of Australia’s Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander peoples. The week begins and ends with historically significant dates to promote reconciliation between Aboriginal, Torres Strait Islander and non-Aboriginal Australians. This year, the theme for National Reconciliation Week 2024 is ‘Now More Than Ever’, and now more than ever, we have the opportunity to think about how we can use this knowledge and these connections to create a better Australia. Let’s learn and reflect on our shared history, culture and achievements with the Aboriginal community through the presentations of SBS Chinese Aboriginal reporter Mr. Ryan Liddle and CEO of Reconciliation Australia (National Reconciliation Association Chief Executive Officer) Aboriginal Ms. Karen Mundine.

History of Reconciliation Week

Reconciliation between Aboriginal and non-Aboriginal Australians can be traced back to the arrival of the Englishman James Cook in 1770; it is also thought to have begun with the civil rights movement of the 1960s, and was formalized with the 1991 Royal Commission into Aboriginal Deaths in Custody. Finding that too many Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander people were incarcerated and often detained, the commission submitted a report with more than 300 recommendations to address the crisis. While many of the recommendations have yet to be adopted, the last recommendation in the report, No. 339, stands out: initiate a formal reconciliation process. The Aboriginal Reconciliation Commission Bill was passed by Parliament with the support of both the government and opposition parties, and in 2001 the Commission was replaced by a new organization, Reconciliation Australia, which is still in operation today. Before the handover, two key events marked new beginnings, signalling a promising new era. Karen Mundine said: “We’ve seen governors, territory leaders, federal governors and prime ministers from all states come together to make a commitment to the spirit of reconciliation, and what we really need to do is to build positive relationships, to make sure that Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander people are seen as Australians, the first Australians, and that we are the oldest continuous culture in the world, and that we celebrate this uniqueness and we are proud of it. We celebrate this uniqueness and are proud of it. Ryan Liddle said: “On this day, this week, Reconciliation Australia was born, this was our starting point, nearly a quarter of a million Australians marched on the Sydney Harbour Bridge in support of reconciliation on a freezing cold and windy morning, and it was a truly transformative moment, a moment of unprecedented support from a wide range of communities to usher in a millennium of new opportunities to join together in a common journey to improve race relations. Since then we have had many successes, launching thousands of Reconciliation Action Plans, raising awareness of Aboriginal issues amongst the general public and generally improving the overall image and status of Aboriginal people in Australia.”

The most significant moment was the government’s action on February 13, 2008, when then Prime Minister Kevin Rudd said in Parliament, “We apologize for the laws and policies of successive Parliaments and governments that have caused deep grief, pain and loss to our fellow Australians. Prime Minister Rudd apologized to the nation, and as the world watched, there were cries of relief, tears of joy and sadness, and many Australians took to the streets holding up signs that read: I’m Proud to say Sorry! This day is known as National Sorry Day in Australian history. The next big push for reconciliation came about a decade later, in late May 2017, when a citizen-led Aboriginal National Constitutional Conference, including Aboriginal leaders, academics, social activists and others from across the country, worked hard to reach a rare consensus to constitutionally authorize the creation of an Aboriginal voice in Parliament, a treaty, and the establishment of a Truth Commission. For Aboriginal people, this sovereignty is a spiritual concept that has never been ceded or extinguished, and exists alongside the authority of all levels of government.20 In October 2023, a referendum to affirm the Aboriginal and Tortugas Channel Islander National Congress failed, and Australians voted down the establishment of an Aboriginal and Tortugas Channel Islander National Congressional Voice.

Respect for Aboriginal Etiquette

Why is it important to show respect for Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander ceremonies? Because an understanding of these ceremonies can affect our behaviour and our relationships with Aboriginal people. Exploring the richness of Aboriginal traditions, getting Aboriginal etiquette right and learning Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander customs are fundamental to respecting Australia’s heritage and the land we all live on. Mr. Thomas Mayo, advocate and writer for the Kaurareg, Kalkalgal & Erubamle peoples, introduced the five steps to get Aboriginal etiquette right, to reconcile and to become one.

Ⅰ. Introduce yourself appropriately

Julie Nimmo says, “When I introduce myself to other Aboriginal people and Torres Strait Islanders, it is important to say what people and family I belong to. When we talk about family, we talk about our ancestors from the past, but when we meet people from another country, we often introduce ourselves as Aboriginal or Torres Strait Islander or Aboriginal Australians”. Thomas Mayo said, “I would introduce myself as both Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander because of family ties. Torres Strait Islanders are more closely related to Pacific Melanesians, and Aboriginal Australians are from the Australian continent, and we have different cultures and languages.

  1. Never abbreviate

Properly refer to Aboriginal people by referring to Australia’s first inhabitants through terms such as ‘Aboriginal’, ‘native’, ‘Torres Strait Islander’ and ‘land’, with the first letter of each title capitalized as a sign of respect. Never abbreviate the terms Aboriginal & Torres Strait Islander and avoid using acronyms or other pejorative terms that were used in colonial times, as this can really offend Aboriginal people. Do not use acronyms such as “ATSI”, which is an abbreviation for Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander, and has historically been used as a pejorative insult to Aboriginal Australians, who are very particular about what they call themselves and can be deeply hurt by hearing offensive terminology.

III.  Welcome Ceremony

Before the event begins, people participate in a traditional Welcome to Country ceremony or an Acknowledgement of Country ceremony. The two ceremonies are different. The former is a very important sacred ceremony, conducted by an Elder of the place where you are, welcoming the participants to commemorate the past, and may take the form of speeches, dances, or fireworks. The latter ceremony, which can be conducted by anyone, is an important welcome offered at important meetings. No matter where we come from, we still belong to the land, and recognizing and thanking our guardians and elders shows that we know and respect the land. In the old traditions, an Elder was a respected member of the community who had reached a certain age and had the cultural and intellectual wisdom to teach the people moral behaviour. Elders were usually referred to as “Aunty” and “Uncle” (aunt and uncle) as a sign of respect, and non-indigenous people had to first seek permission to use these titles.

  1. Don’t judge a person by his or her appearance

Never question or assume a person’s Aboriginal identity based on physical appearance. Many Aboriginal people are survivors of the Stolen Generation. Aboriginal children were forcibly removed from their homes between the 1910s and 1970s. Thomas Mayo said, “It is offensive to ask Aboriginal people about the percentage of their Aboriginal ancestry because the colonizers were trying to assimilate us in this country by reproducing us so that we eventually disappeared. 2008 Prime Minister Rudd apologized to the nation: ”On behalf of my government, I am sorry! On behalf of my government, I am sorry! People were criticized for the colour of their skin, this was called the assimilation policy, where a percentage of Aboriginal blood was measured so that the government could define a person as no longer Aboriginal, but now white. In fact, as long as these people have any Aboriginal or Torres Strait Islander blood in them, we will consider them Aboriginal, or Torres Strait Islander, because it’s about connection to the Nation’s land, and it’s just as much about what heritage we still have”.

  1. Don’t be an advocate

Let’s show respect by knowing and understanding Aboriginal culture and never speaking on behalf of Aboriginal people. In order for us to move forward in a very positive and respectful relationship with each other, it is important to listen deeply, but we can also ask questions, as long as they are respectful and come from a place of genuine interest in learning. Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander people have a deep knowledge of the land, and by passing on their stories, protocols, ceremonies, and caring for their land – the land, the sea, the waterways, and the sky – through oral traditions, we can learn a great deal about caring for the environment.

I hope that through SBS’s detailed and heart-warming tips, Chinese Australians will recognize, understand and respect Aboriginal cultures, and think about how to contribute to the realization of reconciliation and the integration of Australia’s diverse cultures and ethnicities. After all, Chinese culture is a melting pot of thousands of years of history!

Continue Reading

Features

The Limits of Capitalism: Why Can One Person Be as Rich as a Nation?

Published

on

On November 6, Tesla’s shareholder meeting passed a globally shocking resolution: with more than 75% approval, it agreed to grant CEO Elon Musk a compensation package worth nearly one trillion US dollars.

According to the agreement, if he can achieve a series of ambitious operational and financial targets in the next ten years— including building a fleet of one million autonomous robotaxis, successfully selling one million humanoid robots, generating up to USD 400 billion in core profit, and ultimately raising Tesla’s market value from about USD 1.4 trillion to USD 8.5 trillion— his shareholding will increase from the current 13% to 25%. When that happens, Musk will not only have firmer control over the company, but may also become the world’s first “trillion-dollar billionaire.”

To many, this is a jaw-dropping number and a reflection of our era: while some people struggle to afford rent with their monthly salary, another kind of “worker” gains the most expensive “wage” in human history through intelligence, boldness, and market faith.

But this raises a question: on what grounds does Musk deserve such compensation? How is his “labor” different from that of ordinary people? How should we understand this capitalist reward logic and its social cost?

Is One Trillion Dollars Reasonable? Why Are Shareholders Willing to Give Him a Trillion?

A trillion-dollar compensation is almost unimaginable to most people. It equals the entire annual GDP of Poland (population 36 million in 2024), or one-quarter of Japan’s GDP. For a single person’s labor to receive this level of reward is truly beyond reality.

Musk indeed has ability, innovative thinking, and has built world-changing products— these contributions cannot be denied. But is he really worth a trillion dollars?

If viewed purely as “labor compensation,” this number makes no sense. But under capitalist logic, it becomes reasonable. For Tesla shareholders, the meaning behind this compensation is far more important than the number itself.

Since Musk invested his personal wealth into Tesla in 2004, he has, within just over a decade, led the company from a “money-burning EV startup” into the world’s most valuable automaker, with market value once exceeding USD 1.4 trillion. He is not only a CEO but a combination of “super engineer” and brand evangelist, directly taking part in product design and intervening in production lines.

Furthermore, Musk’s current influence and political clout make him irreplaceable in Tesla’s AI and autonomous-driving decisions. If he left, the company’s AI strategy and self-driving vision would likely suffer major setbacks. Thus, shareholders value not just his labor, but his ability to steer Tesla’s long-term strategy, brand, and market confidence.

Economically, the enormous award is considered a “high-risk incentive.” Chair Robyn Denholm stated that this performance-based compensation aims to retain and motivate Musk for at least seven and a half more years. Its core logic is: the value of a leader is not in working hours, but in how much they can increase a company’s value, and whether their influence can convert into long-term competitive power. It is, essentially, the result of a “shared greed” under capitalism.

Musk’s Compensation Game

In 2018, Musk introduced a highly controversial performance-based compensation plan. Tesla adopted an extreme “pay-for-results” model for its CEO: he received no fixed salary and no cash bonus. All compensation would vest only if specific goals were met. This approach was unprecedented in corporate governance— tightly tying pay to long-term performance and pushing compensation logic to an extreme.

Musk proposed a package exceeding USD 50 billion at that time. In 2023, he already met all 12 milestones of the 2018 plan, but in early 2024 the Delaware Court of Chancery invalidated it, citing unfair negotiation and lack of board independence. The lawsuit remains ongoing.

A person confident enough to name such an astronomical reward for themselves is almost unheard of. Rather than a salary, Musk essentially signed a bet with shareholders: if he raises Tesla’s valuation from USD 1.4 trillion to USD 8.5 trillion, he earns stock worth hundreds of billions; if he fails, the options are worthless.

For Musk, money may be secondary. What truly matters is securing control and decision-making power, allowing him greater influence within Tesla and across the world. In other words, this compensation is an investment in his long-term influence, not just payment for work.

The Forgotten Workers, Users, and Public Interest

Yet while Tesla pursues astronomical valuation and massive executive compensation, a neglected question emerges: does the company still remember who it serves?

In business, companies prioritize influence, market share, revenue, and growth— the basics of survival and expansion. But corporate profit comes not only from risk-taking investors or visionary leaders; it also relies on workers who labor, consumers who pay, and public systems that allow them to operate.

If these foundations are ignored, lofty visions become towers without roots.

Countless workers worldwide—including Tesla’s own factory workers—spend the same hours and life energy working. Many work 60–70 hours a week, some exceeding 100, bearing physical and mental stress. Yet they never receive wealth, status, or social reward proportionate to their labor.

More ironically, Tesla’s push for automation, faster production, and cost-cutting has brought recurring overwork and workplace injuries. Workers bear the cost of efficiency, but the applause and soaring market value often go only to executives and shareholders.

How then do these workers feel when a leader may receive nearly a trillion dollars from rising share prices?

How Systems Allow Super-Rich Individuals to Exist

To understand how Musk accumulates such wealth, one must consider institutional structures. Different political systems allow vastly different levels of personal wealth.

In authoritarian or communist systems, no matter how capable business elites are, power and assets ultimately belong to the state. In China, even giants like Alibaba and Tencent can be abruptly restructured or restricted, with the state taking stakes or exerting control. Corporate and personal wealth never fully stand independent of state power.

The U.S., by contrast, is the opposite: the government does not interfere with how rich you can become. Its role is to maintain competition, letting the market judge.

Historically, the U.S. government broke up giants like Standard Oil and AT&T— not to suppress personal wealth, but to prevent monopolies. In other words, the U.S. system doesn’t stop anyone from becoming extremely rich; it only stops them from destroying competition.

This makes the Musk phenomenon possible: as long as the market approves, one person may amass nation-level wealth.

Rewriting Democratic Systems

And Musk may be only the beginning. Oxfam predicts five more trillion-dollar billionaires may emerge in the next decade. They will wield power across technology, media, diplomacy, and politics— weakening governments’ ability to restrain them and forcing democracies to confront the challenge of “individual power surpassing institutions.”

Musk is the clearest example. In the 2024 U.S. election, he provided massive funding to Trump, becoming a key force shaping the campaign. He has repeatedly influenced politics in Europe and Latin America, and through his social platform and satellite network has shaped political dynamics. In the Ukraine war and Israel–Palestine conflict, his business decisions directly affected frontline communications.

When tech billionaires can determine elections or sway public opinion, democracy still exists— but increasingly with conditions attached.

Thus, trillion-dollar billionaires represent not only wealth inequality but a coming stress test for democracy and rule of law. When one person’s market power can influence technology, defense, and global order, they wield a force capable of challenging national sovereignty.

When individual market power affects public interest, should governments intervene? Should institutions redraw boundaries?

The Risk of Technological Centralization

When innovation, risk, and governance become concentrated in a few individuals, technology may advance rapidly, but society becomes more fragile.

Technology, once seen as a tool of liberation, risks becoming the extended will of a single leader— if AI infrastructure, energy networks, global communication systems, and even space infrastructure all fall under the power radius of a few tech giants.

This concentration reshapes the “publicness” of technology. Platforms, AI models, satellite networks, VR spaces— once imagined as public squares— are owned not by democratic institutions but private corporations. Technology once promised equality, yet now information is reshaped by algorithms, speech is amplified by wealth, and value systems are defined by a few billionaires.

Can These Goals Even Be Achieved?

Despite everything, major uncertainties remain. Tesla’s business spans EVs, AI, autonomous-driving software, humanoid robots, and energy technology. Every division— production, supply chain, AI, battery tech— must grow simultaneously; if any part fails, the plan collapses.

Market demand is also uncertain. One million robotaxis and one million humanoid robots face technological, regulatory, and consumer barriers.

Global factors matter too: shareholder and market confidence rely on stable supply chains. China is crucial to Tesla’s production and supply, increasing external risk and political exposure. Recent U.S.–China tensions, tariffs, and import policies directly affect Tesla’s pricing and supply strategy. Tesla has reportedly increased North American sourcing and asked suppliers to remove China-made components from U.S.–built vehicles— but the impact remains unclear.

If all goes well, Tesla’s valuation will rise from USD 1.4 trillion to 8.5 trillion, surpassing the combined market value of the world’s largest tech companies. But even without achieving the full target, shareholders may still benefit from Musk’s leadership and value creation.

Continue Reading

Features

Rights of Chinese Older People

Published

on

To age with security and dignity is a right every older person deserves, and a responsibility society—especially the government—must not shirk.

I have been writing the column “Seeing the World Through Australia’s Eyes”, and it often makes me reflect: as a Hong Kong immigrant who has lived in Australia for more than 30 years, I am no longer the “Hong Kong person” who grew up there, nor am I a newly arrived migrant fresh off the plane. I am now a true Australian. When viewing social issues, my thinking framework no longer comes solely from my Hong Kong upbringing, but is shaped by decades of observation and experience in Australia. Of course, compared with people born and raised here, my perspectives are still quite different.

This issue of Fellow Travellers discusses the major transformation in Australia’s aged care policy. In my article, I pointed out that this is a rights-based policy reform. For many Hong Kong friends, the idea that “older people have rights” may feel unfamiliar. In traditional Hong Kong thinking, many older people still need to fend for themselves after ageing, because the entire social security system lacks structured provisions for the elderly. Most Hong Kong older adults accept the traditional Chinese belief of “raising children to support you in old age”, expecting the next generation to provide financial and daily-life support. This mindset is almost impossible to find in mainstream Australian society.

Therefore, when Australia formulates aged care policy, it is built upon a shared civic value: to age with support and dignity is a right every older adult should enjoy, and a responsibility society—especially the government—must bear. As immigrants, we may choose not to exercise these rights, but we should instead ask: when society grants every older person these rights, why should our parents and elders deprive themselves of using them?

I remember that when my parents first came to Australia, they genuinely felt it was paradise: the government provided pensions and subsidised independent living units for seniors. Their quality of life was far better than in Hong Kong. Later they lived in an independent living unit within a retirement village, and only needed to use a portion of their pension to enjoy well-rounded living and support services. There were dozens of Chinese residents in the village, which greatly expanded their social circle. My parents were easily content; to them, Australian society already provided far more dignity and security than they had ever expected. My mother was especially grateful to the Rudd government at that time for allowing them to receive a full pension for the first time.

However, when my parents eventually needed to move into an aged care facility for higher-level care, problems emerged: Chinese facilities offering Cantonese services had waiting lists of several years, making it nearly impossible to secure a place. They ended up in a mainstream English-speaking facility connected to their retirement village, and the language barrier immediately became their biggest source of suffering. Only a few staff could speak some Cantonese, so my parents could express their needs only when those staff were on shift. At other times, they had to rely on gestures and guesses, leading to constant misunderstandings. Worse still, due to mobility issues, they were confined inside the facility all day, surrounded entirely by English-speaking residents and staff. They felt as if they were “softly detained”, cut off from the outside world, with their social life completely erased.

After my father passed away, my mother lived alone, and we watched helplessly as she rapidly lost the ability and willingness to communicate with others. Apart from family visits or church friends, she had almost no chance to speak her mother tongue or have heartfelt conversations. Think about it: we assume receiving care is the most important thing, but for older adults who do not speak English, being forced into an all-English environment is equivalent to losing their most basic right to human connection and social participation.

This personal experience shocked me, and over ten years ago I became convinced that providing culturally and linguistically appropriate care—including services in older people’ mother tongues—is absolutely necessary and urgent for migrants from non-English backgrounds. Research also shows that even migrants who speak fluent English today may lose their English ability if they develop cognitive impairment later in life, reverting to their mother tongue. As human lifespans grow longer, even if we live comfortably in English now, who can guarantee we won’t one day find ourselves stranded on a “language island”?

Therefore, I believe the Chinese community has both the responsibility and the need to actively advocate for the construction of more aged care facilities that reflect Chinese culture and provide services in Chinese—especially Cantonese. This is not only for our parents, but possibly for ourselves in the future. The current aged care reforms in Australia are elevating “culturally and linguistically appropriate services” to the level of fundamental rights for all older adults. I see this as a major step forward and one that deserves recognition and support.

I remember when my parents entered aged care, they requested to have Chinese meals for all three daily meals. I patiently explained that Australian facilities typically serve Western food and cannot be expected to provide daily Chinese meals for individual residents—at most, meals could occasionally be ordered from a Chinese restaurant, but they might not meet the facility’s nutrition standards. Under today’s new legislation, what my parents once requested has now become a formal right that society must strive to meet.

I have found that many Chinese older adults actually do not have high demands. They are not asking for special treatment—only for the basic rights society grants every older person. But for many migrants, even knowing what rights they have is already difficult. As first-generation immigrants, our concerns should go beyond careers, property ownership and children’s education; we must also devote time to understanding our parents’ needs in their later years and the rights this society grants them.

I wholeheartedly support Australia’s current aged care reforms, though I know there are many practical details that must still be implemented. I hope the Chinese community can seize this opportunity to actively fight for the rights our elders deserve. If we do not speak up for them, then the more unfamiliar they are with Australia’s system, the less they will know what they can—and should—claim.

In the process of advocating for culturally suitable aged care facilities for Chinese seniors, I discovered that our challenges come from our own lack of awareness about the rights we can claim. In past years, when I saw the Andrews Labor Government proactively expressing willingness to support Chinese older adults, I believed this goodwill would turn smoothly into action. Yet throughout the process, what I saw instead was bureaucratic avoidance and a lack of understanding of seniors’ real needs.

For example, land purchased in Templestowe Lower in 2021 and in Springvale in 2017 has been left idle by the Victorian Government for years. For the officials responsible, shelving the land has no personal consequence, but in reality it affects whether nearly 200 older adults can receive culturally appropriate care. If we count from 2017, and assume each resident stays in aged care for two to three years on average, we are talking about the wellbeing of more than a thousand older adults.

Why has the Victorian Government left these sites unused and refused to hand them to Chinese community organisations to build dedicated aged care facilities? It is baffling. Since last November, these officials—even without consulting the Chinese community—have shifted the land use application toward mainstream aged care providers. Does this imply they believe mainstream providers can better meet the needs than Chinese community organisations? I believe this is a serious issue the Victorian Government must reflect upon. Culturally appropriate aged care is not only about basic care, but also about language, food and social dignity. Without a community-based perspective, these policy shifts risk deepening immigrant seniors’ sense of isolation, rather than fulfilling the rights-based vision behind the reforms.

Raymond Chow

Continue Reading

Features

Rights-Based Approach – Australia’s Aged Care Reform

Published

on

The Australian government has in recent years aggressively pushed forward aged care reform, including the new Aged Care Act, described as a “once-in-a-generation reform.” Originally scheduled to take effect in July 2025, it was delayed by four months and officially came into force on November 1.

Elderly Rights Enter the Agenda

The scale of the reform is significant, with the government investing an additional AUD 5.6 billion over five years. Australia’s previous aged care system was essentially based on government and service providers allocating resources, leaving older people to passively receive care. Service quality was inconsistent, and at one point residential aged care facilities were exposed for “neglect, abuse, and poor food quality.” The reform rewrites the fundamental philosophy of the system, shifting from a provider-centred model to one in which older people are rights-holders, rather than passive recipients of charity.

The new Act lists, for the first time, the statutory rights of older people, including autonomy in decision-making, dignity, safety, culturally sensitive care, and transparency of information. In other words, older people are no longer merely service recipients, but participants with rights, able to make requests and challenge services.

Many Chinese migrants who moved to Australia before or after retirement arrived through their children who had already migrated, or settled in Australia in their forties or fifties through skilled or business investment visas. Compared with Hong Kong or other regions, Australia’s aged care services are considered relatively good. Regardless of personal assets, the government covers living expenses, medical care, home care and community activities. Compared with their country of origin, many elderly people feel they are living in an ideal place. Of course, cultural and language differences can cause frustration and inconvenience, but this is often seen as part of the cost of migration.

However, this reform requires the Australian government to take cultural needs into account when delivering aged care services, which represents major progress. The Act establishes a Statement of Rights, specifying that older people have the right to receive care appropriate to their cultural background and to communicate in their preferred language. For Chinese-Australian older people, this is a breakthrough.

Therefore, providing linguistically and culturally appropriate care—such as Chinese-style meals—is no longer merely a reasonable request but a right. Similarly, offering activities such as mahjong in residential care for Chinese elders is considered appropriate.

If care facility staff are unable to provide services in Chinese, the government has a responsibility to set standards, ensuring a proportion of care workers can communicate with older people who do not speak English, or provide support in service delivery. When language barriers prevent aged care residents from having normal social interaction, it constitutes a restriction on their rights and clearly affects their physical and mental health.

A New Financial Model: Means Testing and Co-Payment

Another core focus of the reform is responding to future financial and demographic pressures. Australia’s population aged over 85 is expected to double in the next 20 years, driving a surge in aged care demand. To address this, the government introduced the Support at Home program, consolidating previous home care systems to enable older people to remain at home earlier and for longer. All aged care providers are now placed under a stricter registration and regulatory framework, including mandatory quality standards, transparency reporting and stronger accountability mechanisms.

Alongside the reform, the most scrutinised change is the introduction of a co-payment system and means testing. With the rapidly ageing population, the previous model—where the government bore most costs—is no longer financially sustainable. The new system therefore requires older people with the capacity to pay to contribute to the cost of their care based on income and assets.

For home-based and residential care, non-clinical services such as cleaning, meal preparation and daily living support will incur different levels of co-payment according to financial capacity. For example, low-income pensioners will continue to be primarily supported by the government, while middle-income and asset-rich individuals will contribute proportionally under a shared-funding model. To prevent excessive burden, the government has introduced a lifetime expenditure cap, ensuring out-of-pocket costs do not increase without limit.

However, co-payment has generated considerable public debate. First, the majority of older Australians’ assets are tied to their homes—over 76% own their residence. Although this appears as high asset value, limited cash flow may create financial pressure. There are also concerns that co-payment may cause some families to “delay using services,” undermining the reform’s goal of improving care quality.

Industry leaders also worry that wealthier older people who can afford large refundable accommodation deposits (RADs) may be prioritised by facilities, while those with fewer resources and reliant on subsidies may be placed at a disadvantage.

The Philosophy and Transformation of Australia’s Aged Care

Australia’s aged care policy has not always been centred on older people. Historically, with a young population and high migration, the demand for elder services was minimal, and government support remained supplementary. However, as the baby-boomer generation entered old age and medical advances extended life expectancy, older people became Australia’s fastest-growing demographic. This shift forced the government to reconsider the purpose of aged care.

For decades, the core policy principle has been to avoid a system where “those with resources do better, and those without fall further behind.” The essence of aged care has been to reduce inequality and ensure basic living standards—whether through pensions, public healthcare or government-funded long-term care. This philosophy remains, but rising financial pressure has led to increased emphasis on shared responsibility and sustainability.

Ageing Population Leads to Surging Demand and Stalled Supply

Beyond philosophy, Australia’s aged care system faces a reality: demand is rising rapidly while supply lags far behind. More than 87,000 approved older people are currently waiting for home-care packages, with some waiting up to 15 months. More than 100,000 additional applications are still pending approval. Clearly, the government lacks sufficient staffing to manage the increased workload created by reform. Many older people rely on family support while waiting, or are forced into residential care prematurely. Although wait times have shortened for some, the overall imbalance between supply and demand remains unresolved.

At the same time, longer life expectancy means residential aged care stays are longer, reducing bed turnover. Even with increased funding and new facilities, bed availability remains limited, failing to meet rising demand. This also increases pressure on family carers and drives demand for home-based services.

Differences Between Chinese and Australian Views on Ageing

In Australia, conversations about ageing often reflect cultural contrast. For many older migrants from Chinese backgrounds, the aged care system is unfamiliar and even contradictory to their upbringing. These differences have become more evident under the latest reform, shaping how migrant families interpret means testing and plan for later life.

In traditional Chinese thinking, ageing is primarily a personal responsibility, followed by family responsibility. In places like Hong Kong, older people generally rely on their savings, with a light tax system and limited government role. Support comes mainly in the form of small allowances, such as the Old Age Allowance, which is more of a consumption incentive than part of a care system. Those with serious needs are cared for by children; if children are unable, they may rely on social assistance or move somewhere with lower living costs. In short, the logic is: government supplements but does not lead; families care for themselves.

Australia’s thinking is entirely different. As a high-tax society, trust in welfare is based on a “social contract”: people pay high taxes in exchange for support when disabled, elderly or in hardship. This applies not only to older people but also to the NDIS, carer payments and childcare subsidies. Caring for vulnerable people is not viewed as solely a family obligation but a shared social responsibility. Australians discussing aged care rarely frame it around “filial duty,” but instead focus on service options, needs-based care and cost-sharing between the government and individuals.

Migrants Lack Understanding of the System

These cultural differences are especially evident among migrant families. Many elderly migrants have financial arrangements completely different from local Australians. Chinese parents often invested heavily in their children when young, expecting support later in life. However, upon arriving in Australia, they are often already elderly, lacking pension savings and unfamiliar with the system, and must rely on government pensions and aged care applications. In contrast, local Australians accumulate superannuation throughout their careers and, upon retirement, move into retirement villages or assisted living, investing in their own quality of life rather than relying on children.

Cultural misunderstanding can also lead migrant families to misinterpret the system. Some transfer assets to children early, assuming it will reduce assessable wealth and increase subsidies. However, in Australia, asset transfers are subject to a look-back period, and deeming rules count potential earnings even if money has been transferred. These arrangements may not provide benefits and may instead reduce financial security and complicate applications—what was thought to be a “smart move” becomes disadvantageous.

Conclusion

In facing the new aged care system, the government has a responsibility to communicate widely with migrant communities. Currently, reporting on the reform mainly appears in mainstream media, which many older migrants do not consume. As a result, many only have superficial awareness of the changes, without proper understanding. Without adequate community education, elderly migrants who do not speak English cannot possibly know what rights the law now grants them. If people are unaware of their rights, they naturally cannot assert them. With limited resources, failure to advocate results in neglect and greater inequality. It is time to make greater effort to understand how this era of reform will affect our older people.

Continue Reading

Trending