Chinese Trading In New Guinea

Letter to the Editor.

TOURING the past sixteen months, much has been written in your journal about Chinese trading in this, and other Pacific Territories. I propose to deal only with conditions as I have seen them in the Mandated Territory.

I recently have completed a very thorough 18 months’ tour of the most thickly populated agricultural portion of the Territory: and my observations are those of a trained commercial traveller of many years’ experience in dealing with primary producers and wholesale indentors.

In your issue of July, 1933, you made a comparison of trading conditions in Chinatown in its early period, and the conditions to-day. The reason given for the competition with Europeans being “of little account” in pre-war days was the fact that the traders then made their purchases through the then existing large German firms. The method in existence at that time was that indenting could be done by the Chinese through the firms at 10 per cent, on original invoice cost. But, when sundry charges were added for the passing of customs entries, etc., this 10 per cent, really amounted to somewhere in the region of 17½ per cent. In other words, the big German firms definitely controlled the Chinese trade.

With the passing of the Military Occu pation, two Australian firms obtained a secure footing in the business of this Ter ritory. This has now developed into a virtual monopoly. The present Chinese trading position was brought about pri marily through the short vision of those Australian firms.

Prior to, and during the war period, representatives of English, Australian and German firms regularly visited this Territory, in which they did a consider able business. The German firms here, even though they had their own buying organisations in Australia and abroad, were always pleased to see those repre sentatives, treated them with courtesy, and business was done to mutual advan tage.

But as the newly-established Australian firms gained a secure footing, they curtly

informed the arriving manufacturers’ re presentatives that “they did not wish to see them or do business with them,” as they already had their own buying organisations both in Australia and abroad.

Those experienced travellers or manu facturers’ representatives, having come to the Territory at considerable expense, did not intend to go away empty handed, and so they approached the Chinese mer chants in Chinatown with their wares, and thus inaugurated the present day direct importing and indenting by Chinese, over which so much fuss is being made.

I do not altogether agree with your contention that the difference between the European and the Chinese trader is “racial and a difference in the standard of living.” This antagonism towards the Chinese as a whole has, as its origin, a psychological condition of the Australian character, kept alive from time to time by the Australian politician, and the “White Australia Policy.”

Professor Shann, in his “Economic History of Australia,” gives instances of Australian antagonism towards Chinese, in Victoria, as early as 1853, wherein the same old cry was raised, i.e., “they were taking the pickings”: they were “sending their money out of the country,” etc.

Mention is also made of how, through the dictation of public outcry, politician? tried the expedient of entry taxes and poll taxes, without serving any good pur pose—a feature which I mention because similar suggestion has been put forward by a public body in this Territory.

To get down to the actual trading with natives: The Chinese, in his trade store, is often what might be termed “a born salesman,” though even in this category I doubt if, in numbers, the proportion would be greater than those Europeans who could be similarly described —that is, if they tried! With the Chinese, however, even in the small store in a remote place, there is always a good and varied assort ment of goods for sale, and he has, to good purpose, studied the requirements of his clients.

During my recent tour, I visited and took particular notice of the contents of the so-called “trade stores” on planta tions. Approximately 5 per cent, carried a stock fit to compete with any Chinese trade store. The remaining 95 per cent, had, apart from a small quantity of trade twist tobacco, and a few bags of rice, and lava lavas, not £5 worth of stock.

As I have already said, a good number of the Chinese traders are “salesmen” out to dispose of their stock; whilst the European planter, suffering from a superiority complex, shows utter con tempt for his black clients, and is very often abusive at having been diverted from some duty or pleasure, to attend to his trade store. If the business or trade of the native, and the receipt of his money, is as valuable to the planter as one is led to believe by all which has been

written, why adopt the attitude of arro gant contempt in dealing with him?

With the exception of slightly under 5 per cent., the planters in the Territory are under financial and trading obliga tions to the large Australian firms estab lished here. They are, therefore, com pelled to purchase their requirements from the firms to whom they are “tied” financially. The firms, in supplying a plantation with “trade goods” for sale in the plantation trade store, under pre sent conditions, are merely increasing, or “piling up,” an already large debt, as they receive only the produce of the planta tion, not yet having evolved a system whereby they receive any cash payment from the “sale proceeds'” of trade goods.

In these circumstances, the firms do not relish this class of business, whereby they are merely providing the where withal for some additional spending money for their planter client. For this reason, one firm, to my knowledge, adopts the policy of “let the Chinese have the trade store business.”

I am optimistic enough to firmly believe in the agricultural future of this Terri tory, and in the time when the bulk of the present “tied” planters will become freed from their present obligations.

When that time arrives, with a change of attitude and a different method of stocking the plantation trade store, I am of opinion that the European planter will more than hold his own against any Oriental competition, when dealing with natives.

With the development of the Territory there can be expected an increased Euro pean population. Whereas, the Chinese population is now restricted to present numbers, plus natural increase, and as time passes the ratio will be an increase in favour of the European.

At the present time, as we all seem to agree, the problem is a most difficult one.

However, in the future, we shall be able to look back and think “there was much ado about nothing.”

There are always two sides to every question, and in this vexatious one which appears to have many sides, I have, per haps, opened up a new avenue of ap proach, as after all, the whole question is merely one of economics in which the easy going, free spending, Australian is suffering under what he considers to he a grievance, and is apprehensive of what may be unfair competition. Much of what has been written has been sound com monsense, but much shows bias and venom, with an indulgence in per sonalities.

However, from the different angle in which I have viewed the position.

I am of opinion that we should be con tent to leave the Chinese alone, work harder to compete with him, and not re sort to the expedient of unfair political action.

I am, etc.,

Commercial Traveller.

Rabaul, 25/3/1934.