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