Chinese Genealogy » Chinese

External links and resources

Woodson — Sun, 21 Mar 2010 01:13:46 +0000

Over the past decade Chinese genealogy online has come a long way. Sites come online daily. By the same token sites cease to exist with similar frequency. It may not be humanly possible to Keep up with the changes.

Please inform us of additions and broken links. Thanks you!

External Links

Online resources

Forums

Different views on compensation

Woodson — Sat, 21 May 2005 03:20:32 +0000

Senator Vivian Poy addressed the 12th AGM of the National Congress of Chinese Canadians at the Winnipeg Chinese Cultural and Community Centre September 13, 2003.

Thank you for inviting me to discuss the Head Tax issue with all of you today. Even though I have not, up until this point, taken part in any of these discussions, I have been reading, listening, watching, as well as participating in discussions at the federal level with M.P.s, and at meetings held by the Secretary of State for Multiculturalism. Please keep in mind that I most likely don’t have all the facts, and would be more than happy to be corrected and to listen to everyone’s opinion.

I will discuss the issue from a national perspective, based on historical and recent events.

Before I begin, I would like to thank Prof. David Lai for providing me with the proceedings of the National Conference held in March, 1991, in Winnipeg, as well as the results of the survey on this issue done by Victoria University and Simon Fraser University in 1996.

First, I would like to put the issue in its historical context. There has never been any doubt that Canada was a racist country, like all other Western countries at the time. Many of you are aware that our immigration policy remains discriminatory despite the fact that the racial and cultural qualifications were removed in 1967.

Everyone here today is aware of why the Head Tax was imposed. The main reason was that the B.C. politicians were concerned by the rapid growth of the Chinese population in comparison to the rest of the population in the province, and they were also afraid of losing the support of the working class who feared competition from Chinese labour. The Head Tax was meant to discourage Chinese migration to Canada after the completion of the Canadian Pacific Railway, when Chinese labour was no longer needed. The reason the amount was set at $50 in 1885 was based on information gathered by the Royal Commission of 1884. The amount was just above the maximum amount a Chinese labourer was able to save per year after his living expenses were paid, which were estimated to be $48.

However, we know that the Head Tax did not discourage Chinese immigration, and so the amount was increased to $100 in 1900, and to $500 in 1903. It is interesting to note that between 1885 and 1903, 39,925 Chinese paid the Head Tax to immigrate to Canada. From January 1904, after the tax was increased to $500, until the passage of the Chinese Exclusion Act of 1923, 42,444 Chinese paid the Head Tax to come to Canada (between 1886 to 1924, a total of 82,369 paid the Head Tax to enter Canada. The Chinese Exclusion Act in the U.S. was passed in 1882). What these figures tell us is that the Chinese clearly wanted to come to Canada, and that no amount of Head Tax would discourage them.

Most of you would know that the reasons for migration were economic. This was mainly due to a huge increase in the population in Guangdong province without enough land to feed the population. There were also wars and rebellions that caused a great deal of suffering. At the same time, because of the abolition of the slave trade (Britain 1833), labour was needed by Western countries in their colonies. Going overseas meant survival, and despite discrimination, it was still the preferred option for the poor peasants in China. That is why we have the term “Gold Mountain.” Going overseas became a tradition and chain migration started. And, because of the great impetus for the Chinese to immigrate to the New World, countries such as the U.S., Canada, Australia and New Zealand imposed a Head Tax to try to discourage their entry.

In reading the transcripts of the Winnipeg Conference of 1991, the point was made that there was a treaty signed in 1904 (Treaty Series #7) between the United Kingdom and China on the Employment of Chinese Labour in British Colonies and Protectorates, meaning that the Chinese should have had the right to immigrate to Canada which was a British Colony. Technically, yes. However, Canada became a country in 1867, and had its own immigration policy, and besides, most Chinese who immigrated after the completion of the CPR came as family members in the form of chain migration. So, in effect, this treaty did not apply. If I’m wrong, please correct me.

From everything I’ve read so far, no one has mentioned anything about Chinese tradition and culture, which are very important points. A lot has been said about the Canadian government separating families, but if you look at the pattern of Chinese immigration overseas until after the Second World War, the immigrants were mostly adult males. The women were left behind in China, not by their own choice, but because of Chinese tradition. Even after the Second World War, if it had not been for the civil war in China, many of the women and children would still have been left behind. Villages in many parts of south China consisted mainly of women and children because as soon as the boys were old enough they would be sent abroad, despite having to pay the Head Tax. These families were known as the “overseas families.” But that’s another story which I’m not going to expand on at this time.

There is absolutely no question that the Head Tax was unfair, and that the Chinese were discriminated against by the Canadian government, since we were the only group singled out by racial origin to have legislation passed against the entry of many of our ancestors. However, we must realize that other groups, such as the South Asians also had legislation passed against their entry by the “Continuous Journey” amendment in the Immigration Act (1910), which just about excluded them from coming to Canada, even though they were not mentioned specifically by name in the legislation.

Canadian politicians wanted Canada to remain a white country, and as British as possible. That was why Eastern and Southern Europeans were not welcome until after the Second World War, and only then, partly because of the war against Fascism, but mainly because of the booming Canadian economy and the need for labour. So, aside from race, anyone with a different religion or customs, such as the Hutterites and the Doukhobors, was considered unable to assimilate. You can say that Canada had a discriminatory history similar to other immigrant receiving countries such as the United States and Australia.

In order to prevent those of non-British origins from entering, Canadian politicians did all they could to bar their entry. One of the ways was through negotiations with foreign governments. The Canadian government did attempt to abolish the Head Tax in exchange for self-regulation by the Chinese government on the emigration of its citizens, similar to the Hayashi – Lamieux agreement with Japan. I know the following information has been presented by Prof. David Lai in the past, but because it is so important, I am going to repeat it for those who are not aware of it. In 1908, Mackenzie King went to Beijing to discuss the issue with Liang Tun-yen, the acting president of the Ministry of Foreign Affairs. However, the officials at Foreign Affairs suggested that King return to Canada, and bring forward any matter for discussion with the Chinese Consul-General who was being appointed, and in turn, he would refer the Canadian position to the Chinese Foreign Ministry for instruction. So, the opportunity for an agreement was missed because of the evasive and indecisive attitude of the Manchu government. In June, 1914, the Chinese Consul General in Ottawa suggested that the Chinese government was willing to restrict the number of emigrants to 1,000 per year, but the Canadian government felt that the number was too large, and no agreement was reached. So, I do put the blame partially on the Chinese government at the time.

Now, I will go over the chronology of the Head Tax redress campaign. For those of you who are very familiar with it, I hope you will bear with me for the sake of others who may need this information.

In 1984, an elderly Chinese-Canadian went to the office of MP Margaret Mitchell (NDP) of Victoria and asked if he could expect to be compensated for the Head Tax he paid. That was, to my knowledge, the beginning of the Head Tax redress issue.

We all know about the success of the redress movement of the Japanese-Canadians in 1988. Like everything else in Canada, events seem to follow those in the U.S. In 1980, the U.S. Congress conducted hearings into the internment of Japanese Americans. A year before the Canadian agreement by the Mulroney government, the U.S. government offered an acknowledgement and individual compensation package to the Japanese American internees.

In 1988, Prime Minister Mulroney formally acknowledged the wrongs done to the Japanese Canadians, and authorized the provision of C$21,000.00 to each of the individual survivors of wartime detention. The language used in the official document was “acknowledge” the treatment of the Japanese Canadians, and the government “pledge” to ensure it won’t happen again, as well as to “recognize” the commitment and loyalty of the Japanese Canadians to Canada. Please note that nowhere was the word “apologize” ever used. This is important because the Chinese communities all want an apology, even if they cannot agree on anything else. Please remember that the federal government will be very reluctant to use the word “apology”, because legally speaking, it means liability, and the government can be sued for monetary compensation. And because there are so many groups out there asking for redress, the government feels that there would be no end to it.

The Japanese redress movement was successful and a comparison has often been drawn to that of the Chinese Head Tax redress. I want to point out that there are at least two major differences:

the Chinese who paid the Head Tax to come to Canada were Chinese nationals and not Canadians. The Head Tax was to prevent the Chinese from entering the country. The Japanese who were interned were Canadians or residents of Canada;
Unlike the Japanese Canadians, the Chinese were not interned, and to my knowledge, they never had their belongings and properties confiscated and sold.

So, comparing the two is like comparing apples and oranges.

In a speech given to the National Congress of Italian Canadians and the Canadian Italian Business Professional Association on November 4, 1990, Prime Minister Brian Mulroney mentioned that he would apologize to the Italian Canadian community for the internment of 700 Italian Canadians during the Second World War in a speech to the House of Commons during that session of Parliament. This event was seen as a boost to the Chinese redress campaign. However, by the end of the parliamentary session, he still had not apologized. And to my knowledge, no apology was ever made.

On May 22, 1992, the British Columbia government approved a motion calling on the federal government to provide reasonable redress for the injustice of the Chinese Head Tax. This is a complete reversal of the earlier B.C. policy of urging the Dominion government (as it was known at the time) to stop Chinese immigration. After the Head Tax was instituted, the B.C. government was given part of the proceeds, which became very profitable for the province. Between 1885 and 1903, a quarter of the Head Tax, certificate fees and penalties went to the B.C. government. From 1903, half was paid to the B.C. government. So, the question is, is the B.C. government willing to compensate the Head Tax payers? I am not aware of any decision on their part.

I should like to mention that, at this time, some of the other groups who are seeking redress are:

the Italian Canadians (internment, WWII)
the Ukrainian Canadians (WWI internment – almost 9,000; Bill C-331 Inky Mark – public commemoration and restitution to be devoted to education and promotion of tolerance),
the German Canadians (internment during both World Wars)
the Canadian Jewish Congress (turned away the St.Louis – 900 Jewish refugees from Nazi Germany),
the Doukohbors (for 6 years, the B.C. government kidnapped their children and confined them in the New Denver Institution),
the National Association of Canadians of Origins in India (Continuous Journey; Komagata Maru) and
the African Canadian communities (slavery legal until 1833; Africville and the Black Loyalists – the African Canadian Coalition Against Racism formed in 2001 is a coalition of a number of black Canadian organizations).

Redress petitions were sent to then Secretary of State for Multiculturalism, Sheila Finestone, (by the Chinese Canadian National Congress, the National Congress of Chinese Canadians, the German Canadian Congress, the Canadian Jewish Congress, the National Association of Canadians of Origins in India, the National Congress of Italian Canadians, the Ukrainian Canadian Congress, and the Canadian Ukrainian Civil Liberties Association), and on December 14, 1994, Minister Finestone made the following statement, “we wish we could rewrite history. We wish we could relive the past. We cannot…We believe our only choice lies in using limited government resources to create a more equitable society now and a better future for generations to come. Therefore, the government will not grant financial compensation for the requests made.”

I got to know Sheila Finestone when she was appointed to the Senate about three years ago. One day, I asked her why she made that announcement in 1994, and she said the Cabinet refused to pay compensation, and her hands were tied.

In 1995, the Canadian Race Relations Foundation was established with a grant of $24 million, as a fulfillment of the commitment under the Japanese redress in 1988, as well as the commitment of the government in 1994. Going through their website, I can see that many groups have had grants for initiatives and specific projects against racism, but up to this year, the Chinese Canadians have not received any significant funding from the Foundation for any educational projects on the Head Tax or the Chinese Exclusion Act of 1923. I thought the Foundation is exactly what many in the community have been asking for. It is available, and we should make use of it.

Interestingly enough, also in 1995, a head tax of $975.00 per person was imposed on all immigrants by Citizenship and Immigration Canada, on top of $500.00 per adult and $100.00 per child as a processing fee. These amounts have been raised to $550 and $150 respectively. There are other fees as well for different kinds of sponsorships. Many people have complained and charged that the government is being unfair to immigrants. Have you ever wondered what the descendants of these immigrants may do in the future?

In 2001, the Chinese Canadian National Council launched a class action suit against the federal government “Mack vs. Canada”, acting for the survivors and relatives of those who paid the Head Tax to enter. The claim was for financial compensation, with compound interest, of the tax paid, as well as for general damages for pain and suffering. This failed, and the CCNC appealed to the Supreme Court of Canada on November 15, 2002, which was rejected, and a complaint is now underway with the United Nations Human Rights Committee.

On February 12, 2002, Prime Minister Helen Clark of the New Zealand government issued a formal apology to the Chinese New Zealanders, and announced the beginning of a process of reconciliation with the ethnic Chinese who had to pay poll tax until 1944. Funds and resources will be provided for the purpose of restoring and maintaining the Chinese heritage, culture and language. I think it is important to learn from the Chinese New Zealanders.

On December 10, 2002, Inky Mark introduced Bill C-333, which basically asks for:

an apology;
restitution to be devoted to educational materials on Chinese Canadian history, and the promotion of racial harmony.

The latest that I know of is that this May, the CCNC launched a New Redress Website and Canadians for Redress Campaign. It has won the support of, among others, the NDP leader, Jack Layton, June Callwood, Mathew Coon Come of the Assembly of First Nations, the Canadian Race Relations Foundation, the Metro Toronto Chinese as well as the Southeast Asian Legal Clinics.

Before we discuss the way forward, we should look at what the Chinese Canadian communities really want. From the survey that I have, there are many different points of view from the Head Tax payers and their descendants, from wanting personal compensation, to an apology, to education, to nothing at all. As long as there is such extensive division in the Chinese communities, the federal government will not deal with us seriously.

I now propose the following questions for discussion:

Do Chinese nationals have the right to compensation when another government tried to prevent them from entering the country?
Did the Chinese culture and tradition of keeping the women and children in China, while the men went abroad to work, not play a role in separating families as well?
If conditions had been better in China, would we be here discussing the Head Tax?
Are we responsible for the sins of past generations? As tax payers, are we responsible for what the politicians did generations ago? Should we set a precedence that future generations should pay for our sins?
What happened to the Chinese in the past was against human rights, but the concept of human rights was not even part of our vocabulary until after the Second World War. The claim by the different groups for redress is based on the Charter of Rights and Freedoms passed in 1982. Is it possible to claim retroactive rights?
In order that past mistakes are not repeated, future generations must know the truth about Canadian history. Would education not be the key to solving the problem. Since education is a provincial responsibility, is it not up to all of us to make sure that accurate history is taught in our schools and in our homes?
Is the new Human Rights Museum (Winnipeg) an effective venue for educating Canadians about past wrongs?
Should there be a Chinese Canadian National Museum like the one the Japanese Canadians have in Burnaby, B.C., or the Abbotsford Sikh Museum, also in B.C.? And if so, where do you think it should be located?

For all of you who really want to learn about the insider story of the Japanese Canadian redress, you should read Bitter Sweet Passage by Maryka Omatsu, who is a judge in Ontario, and who was intimately involved with the negotiations. I agree with her that, if it had not been for the settlement in the U.S., and the economic clout of Japan, it would not have happened in Canada.

No matter what any government says, history can repeat itself, so we must always be vigilant. Ultimately, I think political power is the only way to ensure that past wrongs will not be repeated. So, to all the members of the younger generation here, please keep that in mind, and play an active role in Canada’s future government.

Views | 1 | 2 | 3 |

Chinese Canadians sue Ottawa

Woodson — Mon, 03 Nov 2003 00:57:24 +0000

Onetime immigrants want redress over head tax in claim that would total $1-billion
by
Caroline Alphonso

Tuesday, December 19, 2000
Globe and Mail

VANCOUVER — With their numbers dwindling each year, Chinese Canadians who had to pay a head tax to enter the country a lifetime ago are suing the federal government to try to get redress for the discriminatory practice.

The claim, which would total more than $1-billion, comes after years of trying to put political pressure on Ottawa for compensation and an apology for the country’s mistreatment of Chinese immigrants.

“The head-tax payers cannot wait any longer,” Yuen Hing Tse, executive director of the Chinese Canadian National Council, said at a news conference in Vancouver yesterday. She added that many are in their nineties.

For years, Canada treated Chinese immigrants differently than it treated those from other countries. They were not permitted to vote, they could not bring in wives from their homeland, and most of these long-ago immigrants were forced to pay the government a head tax to arrive in Canada.

Yesterday, the council announced that three Chinese Canadians, who will represent all families who had to pay a head tax or put up with a blatantly racist exclusion act passed by the government, have filed a statement of claim in Ontario Court to force Ottawa to make amends.

The statement of claim, which contains allegations that have yet to be proven in court, states that the government collected approximately $23-million at the time from Chinese head-tax payers. Today, that is equivalent to more than $1-billion plus interest.

To stem immigration from China, the federal government imposed a $50 head tax in 1885, shortly after Chinese labourers were no longer required to toil on the Canadian Pacific Railway. This tax for entering the country was raised to $100 in 1890 and $500 in 1904. Immigrants from other countries paid nothing.

Then came the Chinese Immigration Act, an even harsher law, passed in July, 1923, at the urging of the British Columbia government. The act barred Chinese from entering Canada, preventing wives in China from joining their husbands.

The representative plaintiffs are:

Shack Jang Mak, 93, now in a nursing home near Toronto. “He and his wife were separated for 22 years because of the exclusion act, and he paid the head tax,” council president May Cheng said.

Quen Ying Lee, 89, widow of Sudbury restaurateur Guang Foo Lee, who paid the $500 tax as a young man but was unable to bring her and their children to Canada until he was in his fifties.

Their son Yew Lee, 50, of Chelsea, Que.

Mr. Lee, named to represent the descendants of those affected by the measures, said his parents lived on separate continents for 20 years and were completely out of communication while war and famine ravaged China between 1937 and the late 1940s. “I guess she put her faith in him coming back, she was faithful to the marriage, and my father had faith in Canada as a place for a new life,” he said.

The council registered 2,600 claimants in 1984 and Ms. Tse said more surviving head-tax payers, spouses and descendants will join the lawsuit.

| 1 | 2 | 3 |

Different views on compensation

Woodson — Fri, 25 Oct 2002 03:11:40 +0000

The Canadian case for compensation

Kenda Gee – comments on the Australian view

The author misses the point concerning redress, entirely.

Redress is a process involving individuals who were harmed. And it holds government accountable, particularly as it continues to re-invent mistakes from the past.

On those notes – money isn’t important. Yet, it is.

If 99% of the claimants chose to donate their individual compensation back to the community, then that would be *their* decision. But they must be allowed to decide for themselves. The individual compensation is a way to allow them to reclaim their history and to be empowered, as a result. But it is their choice and no one else’s.

Secondly, what seems to escape the author is that government and our generation are the beneficiaries of those past injustices. Just as we expect citizens to pay their taxes on time, and should they fail to do, have government collect from them or their estates when they are dead and long gone, so too should we make sure that government is not unjustly enriched as a result of wrong actions. That is why I say, money is not the issue, yet it is.

If the author believes we have come a long way, then he ought to consider that shortly after Ottawa tried to renege on their promise to redress our Chinese in Canada, they introduced a $975 “right of landing fee” that would apply to all arrivals, including refugees. This was summarily denounced by the U.N. because whether or not a refugee is allowed entry should not be based on whether he or she can pay $975. In fact, the Liberal government’s party did not support the ROLF at their national convention in Ottawa.

A few months after this, New Zealand’s government tried to introduce a similar fee.

Does any of this sound familiar to you as a New Zealander and member of the Commonwealth? I would hope so.

The fact that the author believes that we should be concerned with a potential backlash just goes to show you how little we have progressed. If Chinese are indeed equal in Australia, New Zealand, or Canada, is there a reason why he should dare to hold these kind of old-time fears?

During the closing of the Sydney Olympics, Australia’s Prime Minister claimed that his country was the most open and welcoming in the world. I beg to differ. They have a huge way to overcome their White Supremacy thinking which was the precursor to copy-cats in New Zealand and Canada. What a shame.

Howard’s rationalization is pretty lame.

If Ottawa apologizes to Chinese Canadians, it will do so with compensation for a very good reason. The compensation will act as a negotiated ceiling to any future claims.

It is easy for Howard to claim that the poor old flood gates will burst open, but it’s easy to feign poverty when you (as the government) haven’t offered a dime.

This is one of a few reasons why I do have questions re. NZ’s official apology. In Ottawa, it would be rare to offer a formal acknowledgment without a settlement in money. How does the NZ government plan to defend future (arbitrary) claims if it has acknowledged guilt?

In the Speech from Helen Clark, she says that it is the first step. First step to what?

This is an example of the potential short-coming of trying to put the cart before the horse. It would not happen in Canada, since our group (HTEA) and the groups we work with (CCNC) have never claimed to speak for the entire Chinese community. We represent only those who have legitimate claims as registered HT payers and have indicated that they will not accept anything less than 3 conditions of settlement (apology, individual compensation, and collective redress).

Kenda Gee

22 February 2002

Canadian Head Tax and Exclusion Act Committee

Views | 1 | 2 | 3 |

Different views on compensation

Woodson — Fri, 25 Oct 2002 03:01:28 +0000

An Australian view of the apology

After my initial great and excited euphoria over Helen Clark’s apology on behalf of the NZ Government and people, I became very worried as I began to receive messages, first indicating prominent NZ commentators calling for the “next step” by way of compensation, and secondly, from the various huaren sites around the world praising the apology as a great achievement of Chinese nationalistic and ethnic spirit. I am Chinese and very proud of it, but I do not necessarily need to boast about my cultural and ethnic identity in a manner of racial and ethnic superiority. I am in fact rather worried about the new rampant Chinese nationalism and culturalism which at an international conference in Singapore in 2000 I warned would bring problems to the younger generation of overseas Chinese, who will be torn by the demand they be loyal New Zealanders or Australians, and by the strident demand they be patriotic Chinese!

Money, especially for descendents, can not compensate for the humiliation and suffering of our fore bearers in New Zealand, nor any where else. Money will not help our grandfathers or our fathers. The demand for compensation will simply damage the achievements and reputation of the Chinese community that our generation have managed to achieve in Australia and New Zealand. I would caution you and my fellow New Zealand Chinese to be careful about what the “next step” actually should be.

The present Howard Government will never apologize to the Indigenous peoples in Australia and they explain why – they fear that a government apology will lead to massive claims for monetary compensation, in many cases very justified (more so than in the case of NZ Chinese!). The majority of White Australians think that the Aboriginal peoples already receive too many benefits from the public purse in Australia and so they support the Australian government stand.

It is already being asked when will the Canadian and Australian governments now apologize to the Chinese in Canada and Australia for their poll taxes. In the Australian case I think I can safely say not in my life time and probably never!

If the NZ Chinese now pursue a claim for monetary compensation then I think it will make apologies from the Canadian and Australian government even more unlikely.

Further, though the present NZ Government is a very socially conscious one that appears favorably inclined towards Chinese and other ethnic and migrant groups, and I am much prouder to be a New Zealander than an Australian at the moment, from my observations the racial situation in New Zealand has not really improved. I can well imagine the backlash from the Pakeha and especially Maori communities if the Chinese in New Zealand appeared to be receiving special treatment and extra monetary benefit. I would think the Chinese community in New Zealand is regarded as a very rich and well-to-do one by many Pakehas and Maoris. The reality is of course very different but it is perceptions that matter most to the general public!!!!

I think you must ensure that the Chinese people who are consulted and represented are the descendants of the early Chinese migrants who suffered the poll tax. My father must have paid it, and probably my mother and I did when we arrived as war refugees in 1940? You must see that the more recent migrants do not have all the say and influence. From my understanding, organisations such as the Tung Jung, Seyip, and older Chinese groups are much more representative than the NZ Chinese Association which I gather has been taken over by more aggressive recent Chinese arrivals? ,p> Yes, I gather the NZ Government wishes some advice concerning some thing more tangible. Support for Chinese language and studies in schools and universities is worth considering. However, I would caution against specific Chinese schools that I have heard has been suggested. The ethnic specific schools that now proliferate in Australia are a great source of division and will eventually weaken multiculturalism in Australia. You would not wish that to occur in NZ?

I would suggest the establishment in New Zealand of a government body such as the Australia-China Council which encourages and funds academic, cultural, and people to people exchange between Australia, the PRC, and Taiwan. The ACC also supports research and cultural projects that promote mutual understanding of Australian and Chinese cultures and societies. It is very well funded by the Australian government and is at present chaired by the most distinguished Chinese Australia, Dr John Yu, AC.

John Yu is descended from one of the early Chinese settler families in Australia but like me was born in China! The AC, Commander of Order of Australia, is the highest honour awarded in Australia. It is closed order, in that there is a permanent set number of AC, and an AC has to die before another is appointed!

Henry Chan

18 February 2002

Dr. Henry Chan is a retired professor of Chinese in Australia

Views | 1 | 2 | 3 |

New Zealand government apologised for the Poll Tax

Woodson — Mon, 30 Sep 2002 02:37:39 +0000

New Zealand Prime Minister Helen Clark announced here on Tuesday that the government has decided to make a formal apology to Chinese New Zealanders who paid a poll tax and suffered other discrimination imposed by statute and to their descendents.

The announcement was made at a function marking the Chinese New Year in Parliament hosted by the prime minister and George Hawkins, minister for Ethnic Affairs,for members of the Chinese community in New Zealand.

It was the first time for a New Zealand prime minister to host a function on the traditional Chinese Spring Festival. More than 300 Chinese New Zealanders from various parts of the country attended the reception.

Following is the text of her announcement.

It is my pleasure this evening to welcome all our guests to this celebration of Chinese New Year at Parliament. I extend a special welcome to all guests from the Chinese community, many of whom have travelled from other parts of New Zealand to be with us this evening.

In the Chinese calendar, 2002 is the Year of the Horse. Those born in this year are said to be cheerful, popular, wise, hard working, and good with money. Our special good wishes this evening go to all those born under the sign of the horse.

Chinese New Year is the oldest and most important festival in the Chinese calendar. These days with New Zealand’s significant and growing Chinese population it is also an important festival in the New Zealand calendar. For us all, it is an opportunity to see the richness of Chinese culture and to celebrate the diversity of culture in New Zealand today.

There was of course a time when New Zealand was fearful of cultural diversity and distinctly unwelcoming to migrants of Chinese descent in particular. That was so despite Chinese people being among the earliest migrants to New Zealand. Chinese came to the goldfields in the 1860s, around the same time as my great, great grandparents did. The open air museum at Arrowtown today tells us something of the lives they lived and the hardships they endured.

In the late nineteenth century, the New Zealand Parliament passed discriminatory laws against Chinese seeking to enter New Zealand. The Chinese Immigrants Act of 1881 imposed a poll tax of ten pounds per Chinese person and restricted the numbers able to enter the country to one person per ten tonnes of ship cargo. In 1896 the tax was lifted to one hundred pounds per person and there were further restrictions on the numbers of Chinese able to enter New Zealand.

No other ethnic group was subjected to such restrictions or to a poll tax. Other legislative initiatives also singled out the Chinese.

In 1908, Chinese people had to put a thumbprint on their Certificates of Registration before leaving the country – no other ethnic group had to leave thumbprints.
Chinese people were deprived of their right to naturalisation in 1908 and this was not rescinded until 1951. No other ethnic group was deprived of this right.
A reading test in English was introduced – other immigrants had only a writing test in their own language.
Even in 1935 when entry permits were introduced after a suspension of 15 years for reunification of family and partners of Chinese people, they were severely restricted.
There were those who spoke against the passing of the poll tax legislation. They included journalists, members of the House of Representatives, and members of the Legislative Council. Quotes from these people are on the displays here tonight. Chinese people organised petitions against the poll tax, and one backed by the great majority of Chinese residents was sent to the King via the Governor-General.

Many Chinese suffered the indignity of the poll tax and the other restrictions. Arrivals in the port of Wellington between 1888 to 1930 numbered around 2100 people. In total, the estimated number who paid the poll tax between 1882 and 1930 was 4,500. The tax was not abolished until 1944. At that time, the Minister of Finance, Walter Nash referred to the “removing of the blot on our legislation” and affirmed that the government would not in future countenance any discrimination against Chinese people in New Zealand.

Nine years ago the New Zealand Chinese Association commissioned Nigel Murphy to undertake historical research on the poll tax. His work was completed in 1994 and published in 1995. Discussion followed on seeking a formal apology from the New Zealand Government for the discrimination suffered by those subjected to the poll tax and other practices. I recall this matter being raised with me at a meeting of the New Zealand Federation of Ethnic Councils in 1999, and it has been raised since with the Minister for Ethnic Affairs, the Hon George Hawkins.

I wish to announce today that the government has decided to make a formal apology to those Chinese people who paid the poll tax and suffered other discrimination imposed by statute and to their descendants.

With respect to the poll tax we recognise the considerable hardship it imposed and that the cost of it and the impact of other discriminatory immigration practices split families apart.

Today we also express our sorrow and regret that such practices were once considered appropriate. While the governments which passed these laws acted in a manner which was lawful at the time, their actions are seen by us today as unacceptable. We believe this act of reconciliation is required to ensure that full closure can be reached on this chapter in our nation’s history.

The Government’s apology today is the formal beginning to a process of reconciliation. The Minister of Ethnic Affairs and I have been authorised to pursue with representatives of the families of the early settlers a form of reconciliation which would be appropriate to and of benefit to the Chinese community. To that end we wish to meet with key representatives of the descendants to discuss the next step in this process of reconciliation.

The New Zealand Chinese Association, representing many of the descendants of the Chinese who paid the poll tax, has suggested that it may be appropriate for the government to make a contribution in the form of funds and resources for the purpose of restoring and maintaining the Chinese heritage, culture and language in New Zealand which was severely eroded as a result of the injustice of the poll tax and other discriminatory policies. The government looks forward to engaging further with the New Zealand Chinese Association and other descendants’ representatives to discuss such proposals.

Each year as Minister for Arts and Culture I have organised an essay competition for secondary school students on an aspect of New Zealand history. This year, in recognition of the Government’s move to offer a formal apology for the discrimination imposed by statute on Chinese people in the past, essays are invited on the history of the Chinese in New Zealand. The winners will be invited to a reception with the Prime Minister and members of the Chinese community and presented with copies of James Ng’s beautiful work Windows on a Chinese Past.

Through the essay writing initiative we hope to ensure that this little known aspect of New Zealand history is better understood by present generations.

Today’s New Zealand Government both recognises and values the importance of the Chinese community in New Zealand. The community is making a huge economic and social contribution to our country. The many new Chinese migrants are also bringing new ideas, a strong work ethic, and valuable contacts with their countries of origin.

Modern New Zealand has a bicultural foundation, and today is home to many peoples. It is important that we value, honour, and respect all our communities and see our diversity as a great strength. For that reason it is a great pleasure to me to be hosting this Chinese New Year celebration here at Parliament and to wish the Chinese community a very happy New Year. Gung Hei Fat Choy!

Rt. HON Helen Clark
Prime Minister
12 February 2002