Earlier today the National Interest posted my web-only op-ed regarding recent anti-Chinese riots in Southeast Asia — and film director Feng Xiaogang’s role in explaining them (sort of). It’s a different kind of essay for me, and I’m quite curious to receive some feedback from regular readers of this blog.
In either case, the National Interest (and its editor, Justine Rosenthal) is expanding its online coverage, bringing some interesting local (and local expat) voices to its foreign affairs coverage. Well worth a visit.
I find your association of Feng Xiaogang’s propagandist video clips with the rioats in Southeast Asia, I’m sorry, absurd.
You suppose that the Chinese in Australia mind more about their manners than those in Southeast Asia, which is not true. The white Australians generally hold very dim view of the Chinese immigrants and their manners. There is a popular white only Australia movement, which is not directly targeted at the Chinese because there are more serious problems with other bigger racial groups like Indonesians or Arabs. Read the reports about the riot last year against the Lebanese. Why are the Chinese restrained from involving in political scandals in Australia? Do you know how much money a shopkeeper in Sydney has to save to have a say in the Australian politics? If they have got enough money, you know every presidential election in the States since Reagan has one or two funds scandle with ethnic Chinese involved. Read the recent story about Mr Hsu.
The problems in Southeast Asia are not that the Chinese are jostling and pushing and infecting the area with corrupted practice. The local administrations are already rampant with foulness and completely open for a few cents. The Chinese immigrants, who are able to afford the long distance air ticket and secure a visa from the money thirsty embassy officials, can often bring with them a capital, a feasible business practice, and an international network. With their closed ghetto society and newly acquired wealth, they are suspicious like rotten flesh for flyers in the local racially high homogeneous societies. They are able to bribe the local government because the few hundred kuai they borrowed in their home village are really worth something on a stinky coral atoll in the South Pacific.
No time for a longer response. But I will agree with you that the problems in Southeast Asia are exacerbated by the already corrupt governments in places like PNG. But that’s my point, exactly – the Chinese entrepreneurial class knows how to operate in such an environment, especially the Chinese who have come from smaller cities. Corruption takes two – someone willing to give, and someone willing to receive.
I agree with Leo, the connection between the riots and manners is tenuous at best. They probably have more to do with the local Chinese being successful take-no-prisoner resented entrepreneurs whose government is too far away to protect them.
Micah – Thanks for the comment. Yours, combined with Leo’s, tells me that I didn’t do a very good job of getting my point across – which has more to do with a passage in the new Foreign Ministry pamphlet given to Chinese traveling abroad. In addition to a number of social points, it has a brief warning against using bribery.
I don’t know why you’re apologizing, Adam. If your point is that Chinese behavior abroad is going to matter just as much in 2008 as Chinese behavior back home, you’re right. If you mean that the Chinese behave nicely in developed countries like Australia (no bribing, or less) than they do in poor countries, there is no argument. Everybody knows that. Especially in poor countries without good legal systems. And Beijing doesn’t care because they know there’s no consequences. You think Beijng puts out that Foreign Ministry pamphlet for travelers going to poor African countries? No way. That’s so Chinese don’t look bad in Sydney or New York. Not for “stinky corral atoll” in South Pacific.