Future of Chinese

Communities In The Pacific

riTHE future status of large Chinese JL communities settled in South Pacific Islands —notably New Guinea and Tahiti—has been re ceiving some attention lately.

In the Trust Territory of New Guinea the Administration has been giving thought to the future status of the Chinese. There are about 4,000 Chinese in New Guinea (mostly in Rabaul) —but none in Papua. As reported elsewhere, an attempt that has been made to regulate the occupation of land by Chinese in the newly-planned town of Rabaul has been causing some slight unrest there.

While the Legislative Council of Papua-New Guinea was in session in late July, Father Dwyer (one of the nominated Members repre senting the Missions) made an in teresting and significant speech about the Chinese community. He made a plea for a clearer under standing of the problem, and better treatment of the Chinese community as a whole.

Father Dwyer said it was not true that the Chinese in New Guinea were mostly the descendants of Chinese coolies brought in by the Germans. The Germans generally repatriated their Chinese labourers: but they did encourage the immi gration and settlement of free Chinese from the Canton area, and 80 per cent, of the Chinese now in New Guinea were of this stock.

About 800 Chinese children were attending the Rabaul schools— about half the cost being met by the Missions, half by the Adminis tration —and at least 100 Chinese children were being educated in Australia. In Rabaul, the medium of instruction was mainly English —some Chinese.

“Within this community there is a large and increasing proportion of second and third generation Chinese Territorians,” said Father Dwyer. “These people definitely want a status of complete citizen ship within the Territory without any discrimination on racial grounds.

They base their claim on a record of good citizenship and loyal sup port of the Government. They have the lowest incidence of crime; they are fair to their native employees; they support good causes with their money and their service.”

Father Dwyer said the Chinese were given the franchise for the Legislative Council election but it came so late that they did not have any opportunity of exercising it in the way they might have wished.

It had been said against them that they did not contribute much to the war in the South-West

Pacific against the Japanese. But the Chinese had not been accepted into the Australian Army, and were not able to serve as soldiers. They were overwhelmed in the invasion and were made prisoners and suf fered severely. They did not co operate with the Japanese. Since the war, and rehabilitation, they had contributed to the utmost of their ability to the economic ad vancement of the country in which they lived.

The most urgent need now of the Rabaul Chinese was land on which they could build their homes. After the war the majority of the Chinese were forced to live in the Matupi area and do the best they could on land that was not owned by them or by the Administration; and the result, in a settlement of ram shackle huts, was a disgrace to the town and to the Administration.

The Chinese did not want this— and they did not want money— they wanted land on which they could erect suitable buildings for themselves. They did not seek a Chinese reservation—they sought land for industry and land for agri cultural development.

Father Dwyer said the older Chinese felt there had been dis crimination against them in the past on racial grounds; but on the other hand there was now a belief that there was a growing spirit of goodwill on the part of European residents—a development for which

both Europeans and Chinese thanked the Christian Missions.

In Australia, said Father Dwyer, there were 14,000 Chinese and 4,000 of them now enjoyed full Australian citizenship. The New Guinea Chines 3 claimed that they were entitled to similar privileges in New Guinea.

Discussion in Tahiti

SUVA, August 20.

UCH discussion was caused in Tahiti by a notice in the

Journal Official of July 15, under which the Governor granted French naturalisation to two Chinese couples. One couple was born in Canton 70 years ago, and the other in Tahiti in the early 1920’5. There is a “tight little community” of nearly 10,000 Chinese m Tahiti.

The critics point out that this is the thin edge of the wedge. They say others will press for the same privileges, and will thus be exempt from foreigners’ taxation, and per mitted to purchase lands, obtain

business licenses in their own rights, etc.

Though the Chinese have few rights and may be deported at any time, they are already well estab lished in business in French Oceania, holding about the same position there as the Indians hold in Fiji. They appear to be gener ally law-abiding citizens —outside the smuggling and black-marketing spheres—activities which are not re stricted to Chinese.

If Mr. Murray C. Groves, son of the Director of Education for Papua and New Guinea and Mrs, Groves, qualified for the Diploma of Anthropology at Oxford University in August, being classified at the top of the year’s diploma candidates.

He is an Arts Graduate with first class honours of Melbourne Uni versity, and was on the lecturing staff of the School of History there for two years prior to being awarded in 1952 the Aitcheson travelling scholarship for further study over seas. During one of his Melbourne University vacations, he did some research into the problem of social change amongst the people of Hanuabada village, Port Moresby.

During the present English Uni versity vacation, he is working on the records of early missionary work in the Pacific at Livingstone House, the London headquarters of the LMS. Under the Aitcheson scholarship and a special post

graduate award from the Australian Service s’ Canteens Scholarship Trust Fund, for the next two years, Mr. Groves will pursue advanced research studies for the degree of Doctor of Philosophy at Oxford, and in this connection he hopes to visit Papua and New Guinea to carry out field research amongst selected Native communities.

fl Dr. J. S. Phillips, Government Entomologist, BSIP, left Honiara on August 18 for Suva, at the expira tion of his contract. He had been engaged for a year in research into the best means of control of coco nut pests, and in particular Ambylpelta cocophaga, the insect which is responsible for the “Early Nutfair disease of coconuts.