Tag: Vote Yes

Will Chinese Australians Stand Up for Justice and Fairness, Again?

澳洲华人会再次为正义和公平而站出来吗?

Chek Ling (林忠质)

In 1888 Lowe Kong Meng, Cheong Cheok Hong and Louis Ah Moy took the moral high ground in The Chinese Question booklet.

They were ignored, of course.  It was the time.

A century later, in 1998, the Queensland Chinese Forum denounced the Queensland Liberal Party for its decision to preference Pauline Hanson One Nation Party at the forthcoming State Elections.  Our media release pointed out the moral failure of the Liberal Party – abandoning liberal values for short term political gain – and encouraged all Chinese Australians to withdraw support from the Libs.  It was a historical moment – we spoke up, on principle and on moral grounds.  The next evening the Liberal Party President wanted us to issue a joint media release to say that it was all a misunderstanding on our part!   We refused.  Subsequently the Libs lost 11 seats and with that the mandate to govern, for some years to come. But at the time the Chinese votes were far too few to have made a difference.

Now in 2023, the Chinese are 5% of the population.  We are said to have flipped a few seats from the unlovable Morrison government in the 2022 Federal Elections.

In his NO calculus Peter Dutton seems to have taken the same politically expedient route as the Queensland Liberal Party had done in 1998. The Libs knew then that the small number of Chinese and Vietnamese votes in Queensland would not make any difference at the ballot box. In 2023 the calculus seems to have been that a referendum not supported by both sides of the Parliament would have little chance of succeeding. Dan Tehan, Shadow Minister for Immigration and Citizenship, recently more or less leaked that calculus on ABC Q&A. Plumping for NO could transpire to be the only chance for Dutton, handed the poisoned chalice, to land a body blow on his opponent, Prime Minister Albanese, before the next Federal Elections in 2025.

But will the Chinese take the moral high ground on 14^th October, to allow the heirs of the original inhabitants of this land a gentle voice towards the restitution of past injustices inflicted upon them? And allow them a chance to choose their paths to a better future?

The signs are not great. There is a bright spark in Victoria, though.  Two Chinese organisations have publicly promoted YES –  the Chinese Museum and CCCAV. Elsewhere it is a becalmed tepid sea.

Are too many latter-day Chinese Aussies still afflicted with the middleman mentality?

In 1984, at the height of Blainey’s campaign against Asian immigration, a Malaya-born Chinese doctor rang me from his Gold Coast residence one Sunday afternoon: “You know, Blainey’s right. We don’t want too many Asians coming here. They would drag down our status!”

I hope Chinese Australians today would feel much more confident about standing up for what is morally right, in this, the homeland of their heirs.

Back in 1984 the huayi, born and bred in the ex-colonies of South East Asia, who constituted most of the Chinese in Australia, were often ambivalent about their place in Oz, despite the umbrella of multiculturalism, and despite their material and professional status.  You see, their forbears did so well as compradors to the White colonial masters in Malaya and elsewhere. Hear no evil, do no evil, speak no evil! That epigenetic heritage of the “colonised mind” must be so hard to overcome.

The huayi now constitute barely half of the Chinese Aussies. And in between times, their children have largely discarded the colonial baggage that their parents brought with them from Asia.

Therein I see a glimmer of hope.

In addition, the PRC immigrants seem more liberated!  A few of them have taken serious interest in the original inhabitants of this land. A number of these, artists, have lived amongst Aboriginal peoples to learn about their art and culture. These have produced paintings based on the two artistic traditions.

It’s a long bow. But the PRC settlers are now the predominant Chinese Australians.  I have a feeling that they will be unfettered to do what is morally right for the Voice Referendum.

I do hope that this homeland of my heirs does have a soul, and that our Parliament is not just a gladiatorial pit for the winner-take-all Two Party Preferred polity.

YES23. What a legacy that would be for future generations!

Expunge the original sin of our nation’s birth!

And begin a new journey to find a peaceful restitution to the heirs of the original inhabitants of this land.

Is that too much to ask?

Author: Chek Ling

Chek Ling arrived in Melbourne in 1962, on a Colombo Plan scholarship, to study electrical engineering. He never left. He has been an activist in the Chinese community since 1984.  In 1988 he was spokesperson for the Queensland Chinese Forum to denounce the State Liberal Party. He is the author of Plantings in a New Land, an oral history of the Chinese in Queensland, published in 2001 under the auspices of Centenary of Federation Queensland.

YES for the Voice: A Chinese-Australian’s Perspective

Chek Ling (林忠质)

1984 was a seminal year for me. Not George Orwell’s, but our own Geoffrey Blainey’s 1984. In that year my childhood imaginations of God’s own country got blown up by Blainey’s year-long anti-Asian campaign. He was then the pre-eminent historian of Australia. And now 60 years after I came to Oz, I wonder if the NO case for the Voice referendum is a lab-incubated 2023 mutation of the Yellow Peril virus first released in C19 terra nullius.

Much water has flowed under the bridge. In 1973 Gough Whitlam, to the discomfort of many who had imbibed their mother’s milk of White Australia, buried the White Australia Policy. And then in 1984 Blainey seized his chance.  The sudden influx of Vietnamese refugees after the fall of Saigon in 1976 had badly upset the traditional white inhabitants in run-down suburbs where the refugees had swiftly descended, and taken over!  Ah, if White Australia was no more, perhaps a man of Blainey’s stature could stem the tide of time and at least preserve the British culture. He launched his campaign. Stop the flow of Asian immigrants, lest they water down that “crimson thread” to which Henry Parkes had drunk a toast whilst campaigning for “A United Australia” at the 1890 Federal Convention in Melbourne.

At Federation in 1901 the dream of a White Australia was enshrined in the Constitution. The original inhabitants were not mentioned: God had ordained that they would die out, terra nullius thus made sacred. The Chinese would fade away, as the cunning Dictation Test would ensure: the Yellow Peril thus avoided for good.  And the Kanakas, prototype of today’s temporary-visa hired hands, to be deported en masse: OUT!

It was the time. Race was everything, with White on top of the totem pole of humanity.  And our founding fathers certainly did not want the Chinese to be included in our constitution.

It is clear that once that decision to exclude the Chinese was made, the reasons soon followed and mutated.

The Chinese will swamp us. There are so many of them in China! 

The Chinese are heathens.  They bring diseases (though not Covid yet!).  They have bad habits.

And above all, they are a threat to our unprotected women.

All huge, huge anxieties incubated from selected fragments of truth.

And thus the fear of The Yellow Peril was enshrined in our Constitution.

As a latter-day Chinese Australian I see a parallel in the Ten Reasons crafted by the NO case for the Voice Referendum.

In 1992, just 20 years after Gough Whitlam had buried the White Australia Policy, the High Court handed down its Mabo judgement. It exploded the lie of terra nullius:  an existential blow to the sanctity of our-purity-of-race Constitution.

The White Australia Policy is no more, but the Yellow Peril virus has mutated, periodically flaring up:  evoking nostalgia for the crimson thread in 1984; channelling Howard’s culture war; fuelling Pauline Hanson’s rise and rise; gestating Clive Hamilton’s Silent Invasion; and of late stirring up the drums of AUKUS to ward off the China threat.

Terra nullius likewise is no more, but the rearguard soldiers on.

Since the Mabo judgment cannot be upset, the rearguard must make sure that the Constitution is protected from any consequential flow-on. Thus Keating’s Native Title Act had to be nobbled at all costs.  For if we had simply acknowledge that the original inhabitants were here and did have their own systems of government, that would have been just bearable; but to allow them to claim their ancestral lands legally was a step too far.    

Thus Tim Fisher, then Deputy Prime Minister, warned that everyone’s backyard was under threat from Native Title claims.  Yet no-one I know has lost their backyard!  But it paved the way for John Howard in 1997 to emasculate Keating’s Native Title Act with his Ten Point Plan, largely to appease the mining lobby. Aye, just like the beat-up fears of the Yellow Peril that led to the White Australia Policy being enshrined in our Constitution! 

So it is with the Voice Referendum. The vanguard has conceded that a simple acknowledgement of the original inhabitants in the Constitution would be acceptable, but to allow the same people to sit, retrospectively as it were, at the table when the Constitution was wrought into shape, was just too much.  What’s gunner happen next?  All the inheritors of the crimson thread being told that they are no longer citizens of this “most successful multicultural nation in the world”? 

It is the same existential anxiety that in 1997 drove the new Coalition government to nobble the Native Title Act.

I wonder if all of this is incubating in the mind of Peter Dutton, handed the poisoned chalice of a Liberal Party shorn of MPs attractive to the younger and/or better educated voters, owing to a purge that began with Howard and got put into overdrive with Morrison. Dutton needs a miracle.  Perhaps the NO subterfuge could turn the tide for him, just as the Tampa-inspired national security ruse had done for Howard! 

No wonder then that the NO narrative bears all the hallmarks of the Yellow Peril hysteria:  Risky; Unknown; Divisive; Permanent.

There is a thin shaft of light.

The NO case is all over the place:  the Dutton NO; the Lydia NO; and the Mundine NO.  A cacophony.  All they care about is to blow up the government. Guy Fawkes is probably chuckling in his grave.  

But the YES mob has been too timid. A generous invitation for us to walk together! Oi, oi, oi!   It’s a spoonful of oil, over a tempestuous sea.

They need to take the strategic risk of making a clean breast of it all.  They need a downpour on the gunpowder of the NO vanguard.

Somehow they have to be upfront about the original sin of our Constitution. Terra nullius was a lie. And 230 years of dispossession has left a horrific outcome.  At the very least we should made opportune restitutions to redress the injuries inflicted upon the original inhabitants of this land.

We took their land

We deprived them of food

We gave them diseases

We poisoned their water holes

We raped the women

We abducted their children into detention centres

We turned the children into domestic servants

And foot-soldiers for our cattle barons

We perpetuated the cycle

In honour of God’s blessing upon our civilisation

In terra nullius

Our conscience finally pricked

1967  

Mabo

Native Title

Many good intentions

Billions spent

But Close the Gap

From White perspectives on high

Has failed

The least we can do now is to give our first peoples an inalienable voice at the table to propose what they need to heal the wounds and to rebuild their hopes.

Author: Chek Ling

Born in Sarawak to parents from Foochow, China.  Got to Oz in 1962 on an unexpected Colombo Plan scholarship, to study electrical engineering.  Never left.

Have been an activist in the Chinese community since Blainey’s 1984.

A Yes Vote Just as Important to Chinese-Australians as for Our Indigenous Brothers and Sisters

Kingsley Liu (刘仲权律师)

With a population of 1.4 million, Chinese-Australians are the largest ethnic minority community in Australia and our say has weight. From the perspective of that community, an important objective must be playing our part in seeing Australia lift its game to match world standards of acceptance of minorities and particularly of its indigenous peoples.

We all know our Constitution is terribly flawed, it maintains the Race Power in Sec 51 xxvi. The race power provides Parliament the power to make laws for “the people of any race whom it is deemed necessary to make special laws.” Those in politics and public commentary who’ve spent a lifetime opposing any forms of Constitutional change point to the implied conventions of the Constitution as guaranteeing national stability and fairness to all Australians. The most cited convention is – despite what the Constitution says – the British Monarch is not our head of state, rather it is the Governor General. However, “conventions” cleared the way for the White Australia Policy and laws to imprison Australians of Japanese, Italian and German ancestry during World War Two.

Colonial power was still the basis for global rule back in 1901 when Australia became a federation – not a sovereign nation, rather a formalised grouping of six smaller British Colonies still under the British Crown.  Australia never legislated a Bill of Rights that guarantees civil rights and liberties—such as freedom of speech, and press, where it sets rules for due process of law and reserves all powers not delegated to the Federal Government to the people or the States.  Because of this, the passage of Immigration Restriction Act, Poll Taxes, Dictation Tests, Citizen Tests, and Foreign Influence Transparency Scheme had been operating one after the other for over 100 years. And all of these instruments have contributed to the marginalisation of Chinese-Australian communities. The right thing for us to see is marginalized communities coming out from underneath.

The same flaw much more tragically operated from the beginning of white settlement to keep suppression and marginalization of the Indigenous community – some in apartheid South Africa even envied our constitutional race powers.

The Voice is where the Chinese and Indigenous peoples can reach for shared values in our communities. The same sharing extends further for multicultural Australia, with 25% of the population not being of Anglo/European descent. Why cannot we maintain that any advance for Indigenous rights works to “affirm a kindred action” for other minorities. Any step forward to multi-polarity in the entire community not only brings more expansion and development of the Indigenous rights, but fundamentally advances our own for Chinese Australians and other minorities.

We need to ask if the yes vote for Voice is only allowed for indigenous peoples, then what would the indigenous vote be by itself for its Voice?  Fair go is fair go. Polling says over eighty percent of Indigenous Australians support the Yes Vote.

I ask my fellow Chinese Australians as to why would we merge our precious votes along with No camp and how would we be able to explain to our children that whilst we do not consider ourselves as racists, yet in 2023 a number of us may vote together with the No’s to stop the Voice. If so, sadly our anti-racism campaigns over the recent years from the Chinese community comes to nought.

When we view the photo of Jimmy Chi, we know that we know that Chinese Australians and Indigenous Australians stood together, and often married, in the Northern Territory, throughout the 1800s and that we walked overland from Darwin to Cooktown across sacred lands.

Author :  Kingsley Liu

A third-generation Chinese-Australian, Kingsley has had a diverse career, spanning power engineering and investment banking from Melbourne to Canada and Asia.

In 2006, Kingsley co-founded The People’s Solicitors alongside Jeff Shaw QC, the former New South Wales Attorney-General, and later a Supreme Court judge, to represent disadvantaged individuals and the less privileged.

He remains an active Honorary President of the Chinese Community Council of Australia. His three-year tenure as the National President of the Asian Australian Lawyers Association was transformative.