This is the first of two articles examining the meaning of the

This is the first of two articles examining the meaning of the
age-old term `overseas Chinese' in the post Cold War era.

By Lie Tek Tjeng

JAKARTA (JP): Southeast Asia has inherited the term "overseas
Chinese", that is still widely used today, from its colonial
past. However, it is often not fully realized that the changed
political environment, from colonialism to independence, has
affected the exact meaning of this term.

In the colonial past, the term was used to refer to "any
ethnic Chinese living overseas who was a Chinese subject or
citizen." In this context, "Chinese" referred to "people of
Chinese descent." In contrast, in independent Southeast Asia the
term has a more limited meaning. It refers only to "ethnic
Chinese living overseas who have retained their Chinese
citizenship."

Our failure to observe this change and our indiscriminate use
of the term, without regard to its colonial or post-World War II
context, have added to the complexity of this matter. And,
unfortunately, it has affected the nation-building process in
Indonesia, as well as in Southeast Asia.

Hence, this article will focus on the term "overseas Chinese",
that seems to be the root of a sensitive problem all over
Southeast Asia.

"Overseas Chinese" is the English translation of the Mandarin
huachiao, meaning Chinese subjects or citizens abroad. In this
instance "abroad" means living outside China. This term emerged
because the successive central governments of China, since the
Manchu dynasty (1644-1911), have claimed all ethnic Chinese
abroad as their citizens.

It is also important to note the fact that the western powers
that have dominated world politics and international law in
modern times have accommodated the claim on all ethnic Chinese
abroad (ius sanguinis).

This means that in colonial Southeast Asia the western
colonial governments recognized all ethnic Chinese in their
colonies as Chinese citizens, who were treated differently from
the natives. Such a western attitude did not stem from a love for
the Chinese, but was caused rather by the political consideration
of divide et impera, which was meant to prevent the formation of
a united front that could threaten their continued existence.

The tolerant western attitude that accommodated the Chinese
claim on ethnic Chinese all over the world could be attributed to
the following factors and considerations:

(1) The geographic distance between China and the West;

(2) The fact that China was a weak and divided nation that did
not pose any danger to the West throughout the 19th and the first
half of the 20th century;

(3) The fact that the dominating West, which considered itself
superior to all other cultures and civilizations, did not really
want to have the "queer Chinese", with their completely different
culture, language and customs, integrated or assimilated into
their own societies. Consequently they did not oppose the Chinese
claim on all ethnic Chinese, nor did they feel offended by the
identification of their ethnic Chinese citizens with their
country of origin.

(4) The fact that the number of ethnic Chinese in the West
never reached alarming proportions, although local racial
problems did break out, such as in the western part of the U.S.
in the early 20th century. Even more significant is the fact that
the ethnic Chinese never ended by controlling the national
economy, which was considered monopolized by the Jews. Hence the
"Jewish problem" in the west, particularly Europe, but not a
"Chinese problem."

Opposite to the tolerant and accommodating attitude of the
West, the attitude of Southeast Asia has been much tougher. This
is caused by the following factors and considerations:

(1) There is a geographic proximity between Southeast Asia and
China. They are practically next-door neighbors.

(2) The colonial governments in the past imported large
numbers of contract coolies. These people, together with other
Chinese emigrants and their descendants, have come to make up a
sizable proportion of the populations of most Southeast Asian
countries. Even more important is the fact that their
industriousness, combined with the colonial policy that tolerated
and encouraged them to engage themselves in trade and economic
activities, led to the creation of a "Chinese-dominated" middle
class, which is considered to have control over the economy.

(3) Independent Southeast Asia faced a strong People's
Republic of China (PRC), which the cold war propaganda
consistently described as an "aggressive communist country poised
to control Southeast Asia."

4) The colonial policy of divide et impera and the lack of
nation-building policies interfered effectively with the natural
process of integration and assimilation between the Chinese
immigrants and their descendants on the one hand and the native
Southeast Asians on the other hand.

In addition, the colonial regimes cleverly manipulated the
religions factor -- primarily Islam, in which pork is considered
taboo -- to prevent the formation of a united front, which might
turn to threaten their rule in this region. (This statement is
not invalidated by the exceptions of Thailand and the
Philippines, where Buddhism and Catholicism served as unifying
factors).

(5) In addition to these colonial and religious factors, there
are also the sociological and psychological factors that in
general encouraged people to integrate or assimilate "upwards."

In the concrete situation of colonial Southeast Asia, this
means that the Chinese tended to identify themselves with the
ruling white elite. Where their Asian identity prevented them
from doing so, they tended to identify themselves with Chinese
nationalism. In the period of growing nationalism, this was
naturally resented by Southeast Asia nationalists and
chauvinists.

30