Chinese Writer Defends His Nationals’ Place

In New Guinea.

Spirited Reply to Some Recent Criticism.

Letter to the Editor.

PLEASE permit me space to reply to the article by “Liviara,” appearing in your issue of July, 1933.

Your contributor seems to possess a strong dislike for my Nationals, though why it should be so no man can make out, in view of the fact that on more than one occasion, and for long inter vals, they were very good friends to him when he could not find friends elsewhere. He is now on the Gold fields and, perhaps, making money which is only another illustration of that old saying about putting a beggar on horseback, and there is no saying where he will ride.

In response to “Liviara’s” alarming cry as to what is to be done with the Chinese, I say leave the Chinese alone.

Whatever is done, will be done by men of good, sound common sense, and not by amateurs such as Mr. Liviara.

It is true that the Australians did not introduce the Chinese into New Guinea. Originally, the German Govern ment indentured approximately 90 Chinese for the discharging and loading of the N.D.L. steamers. In addition to these, there arrived at various times Chinese who were not indentured, but came here with the idea of seeking employment and trading. In this they were successful, and Europeans employ ing them found their services very satis factory. Hundreds of these people arrived in this Territory during the Australian Military occupation, with the full concurrence of the Australian Government.

With regard to “Liviara’s” remarks that the Chinese could not sell against the European storekeepers, it is to be wondered at, when the Chinese were paying to the European stores practi cally retail prices and very little, if any, margin was left them for profit. As to the condition of Chinatown, Rabaul, during the military occupation, it must be remembered that portion of the township was at that period only re cently established, and was only in the constructive stage.

Concerning the trading side of the question, it must be borne in mind that were it not for the Chinese trader working as hard as he did and pur chasing all possible copra, the Customs export duty, business-tax, and other sources of Government revenue in this

Territory would have suffered con siderably.

It was the prices that were charged the Chinese by European stores that forced the Chinese to go in for direct importing, and the result of this was to compel the Europeans to make their prices more reasonable. Another thing it did was to reduce the cost of living, because Europeans as well as Chinese obtained their goods much cheaper.

The planters also benefited by this reduction. The two European firms here, owing to their being so well established, are just as great competi tors of the small European traders and more so than the Chinese.

With regard to the question of dummying, it is not wise for people who have “dummied” to write letters or articles to newspapers.

The assertion of the low cost of living of the Chinese is another fallacy of Mr.

Liviara’s. He has dined with the Chinese people here and enjoyed it. In fact, they were his very best friends for a long time, and that was at a time when he wanted a friend. The Chinese standard of living as compared with that of Europeans leaves a very small margin in between. The standard of living is entirely a matter in the hands of the Chinese themselves. Whether their choice lies in extravagance or economy is purely their business. What about the extravagance of 1926 to 1928, on the part of the planters, and the ap plications they have made from time to time for moratoriums? The Chinese have never sought moratoriums.

Coming now to the assertion by “Liviara” that the Chinese are not path-finders, and his suggestion that the commercial activities of our nationals should be curtailed, might I ask why this curtailment? They carried out such a curtailment scheme in Papua against the Chinese, and the scheme was of no value whatever to the community of Papua in general. The present com mercial condition of Papua proves this.

Where would this Territory stand to day in commerce and the production of copra were it not for the Chinese trader? I will go further and ask, who was it planted some of the finest plan tations in this Territory? Again, I say, it was the Chinese. How many plan tations have been planted up by the Europeans since the Territory was taken over by the present Administra tion? It would not take the whole of one hand to count them.

Your contributor’s admiration for the N.D.L. stevedoring coolie is appreciated by me, and for same I thank him. It speaks volumes for the energy, thrift and doggedness of my nationals in helping to pioneer this Territory long before the present Administration ever thought of it. If it was the good luck of the Chinese to blossom into mer chants, what about the good luck of the present plantation-owners to walk

into ready-made plantations?

Your contributor says that my nationals do not make any improve ments in this Territory. I would like to point out that we are not allowed to

do so. No inducements are offered us to take up land in this Territory. As an instance I might point to Namatanai, which was the district allotted by the German Government to the Chinese people and continued as such under the present Administration. That portion of the Territory is less in debt than any other part to which “Liviara” may refer.

If the Administration was to engage only European artisans they would never be able to pay same, owing to the great increase there would be in the pay sheets.

The three methods of ridding the South Seas of the Chinese sound not only tragic but ridiculous. Take the hub of the British Empire—England.

Do we ever hear of the sound states men of Westminster making absurd suggestions of this nature? There the Chinese are welcome, and allowed to enter into business.

Now, as to whether the Chinese are assets to a country, “Liviara” could not have studied this subject very deeply. Take, for instance, America the Philippines, the Straits Settle ments, South America, in all of which places you will find the Chinese people law-abiding, respected and regarded as good citizens and among the leading business men.

This is nonsense about sending all their money to China. The time comes when they like to retire from their labours, and end their days in their owti land, the same as ' any other nationals do. Does “Liviara” expect the Chinese to leave all their money in the country where they made it, ‘and go home penniless? A man’s money is his own property, and is his to spend where and when he chooses. As a rule the Chinese work very hard for what they get. Of course, it is a well-known tact that Europeans going to China cannot compete with the Chinese. There are very many fine European firms operating in China and amassing for tunes. One of the greatest banks in the British Empire operates in all ports of the Orient — The Hongkong and Shanghai Banking Corporation. That bank is a monument to the spirit of co-operation between the British and Chinese who brought it into being and have helped to maintain it ever since.

Insofar as class is concerned, more than half the Asiatic population of New Guinea are locally born and educated young Chinese. I regret to note “Livi ara’s” remark that most of these people are coolies. Approximated 90 coolies were indentured, and about 20 of these remain in the Territory to-day. Mr.

Liviara s assertion is a gross insult to the Chinese population of this Territory.

"Liviara” seems to contradict himself, because in one part of his contribution he is running down the Chinese for working for low wages, and in another part he claims that the reason the Euro peans employ Chinese is because they are cheap. Let me tell Mr. Liviara that the Chinese are willing to accept as high or even higher wages than Europeans receive, but the European employers will not pay them these wages, so what is one to do—not work, and starve?

Come now to “Liviara’s” bold scheme of replacing market-gardeners, carpen ters, and other Chinese artisans. What about the female European labour that replaced men during the war, and are still filling those positions? Germany has solved that problem, as we all know.

“Liviara” asserts that the Chinese are very cunning and always employ a lawyer. Well, of course they do, but that is just for their own protection.

It is a well-known fact that the litigant

who has a lawyer has the bigger stick to wield, compared with the litigant who has no lawyer. Would Mr. Liviara assert that the Europeans who employ lawyers are also cunning? The laws of China and of Great Britain differ to day, and so that a Chinese may get the proper advice, he just goes to a lawyer.

That is not cunning, but common sense.

Concerning repatriation to China of Chinese by their employers, I am as tounded at Mr. Liviara’s discovery. Now, in the event of repatriation being de cided upon, will Mr. Liviara be able to pay the expenses of the local Chinese?

Were Mr. Liviara to again become a trader would he be willing to indenture Chinese labour into this Territory, and pay their expenses to and fro between China and the Territory?

Concerning marriage between Chinese

and natives, I would point out that some Europeans marry native women. As to spending of money by Chinese in this Territory, does Mr. Liviara know me, and does he remember me when I was a bachelor and spending money in hotels in Rabaul on various people every day?

Mr. Liviara may know that in that period I was spending every day over two pounds, and Europeans can bear this statement out.

In conclusion, I would suggest to Mr.

Liviara that whenever he invokes the aid of the Press he should study his sub ject, and stick to facts all the time.

Otherwise, not only is he misleading the public, but the Press also.

I am, etc.,

T. C. Wee.

Rabaul, Aug. 20, 1933.