China Studies in South and Southeast Asia

The following sections are included:

• About the Editors
• Contents
• Introduction

We attempt to trace paths of thinking by studying two senior China watchers, their ideas, and patterns of ideas over a period of time through their oral history as documented in interview transcripts. The transformation of the thinkers’ positioning of their perceptions of China in a long view considers the influence of history and the larger contextual frames such as social struggle, institutional development, and cultural change and discourse (Gordon 2007, Harding 2014). This comparative work on narratives chooses Jose Santiago “Chito” Santa Romana (or Sta. Romana) and Ramesh Nath Pandey as fruitful sources of oral history. Santa Romana is a senior public intellectual in the Philippines, known for being in exile in China during the anti-Marcos struggle in the 1970s. At the time of writing, he was recently confirmed as Ambassador of the Philippines to China. Pandey, on the other hand, is respected as a veteran diplomat of Nepal who has witnessed and who was part of facilitating many watershed moments in China–Nepal relations.

This chapter attempts to accomplish three objectives. The first objective is to explore an oral history comparison that goes beyond the usual geopolitical boundaries. It is usual for the Philippine context to be compared with that of another country within Southeast Asia owing to the similar experiences of overseas, diasporic, or transnational Chinese and the issues that relate to the region's relationship with China. The second objective is to problematize the idea that oral histories on China knowledge are not hinged on essentialism. The notion that China knowledge may be less valid owing to the absence of essential elements such as classical Sinology and language proficiency deserves some rethinking. The third objective is to explore the concept that such a comparison underscores that flexible epistemological approaches can build the field of China studies.

Section 2 casts attention on dissecting the evolution of thinking of Santa Romana and Pandey, bringing to light the salient points of inflection in their odysseys. Section 3 focuses on how a deep interest in China elucidates the thinkers' positioning of their perceptions on China. In closing, the chapter argues how the comparative insights fill a gap, enriching the field of China studies.

In our previous survey of the various fields of Chinese Studies in Malaysia (Ngeow, Ling and Fan 2014), we concluded that the Malaysian academia has a good tradition in the fields of Sinology and studies of ethnic Chinese in Malaysia, but has been rather weak in the field of modern and contemporary China studies. There are not many academic experts on the China that has existed since 1949 — the People’s Republic of China. Despite many advantages that Malaysia enjoys, including a positive state of relationship between China and Malaysia, its sizable ethnic Chinese population, and the widespread use of the Chinese language among the ethnic Chinese community, Malaysia does not stand exceptionally well in comparison to other Southeast Asian or South Asian countries in terms of its scholarly output on the politics, economy, foreign relations, and other aspects of the post-1949 China. In other words, Malaysia has done relatively well in the civilizational and ethnic perspectives on China, but not yet in the state perspective (Shih 2014), and this probably has something to do with the domestic identity/racial politics in Malaysia.

In another article, I have pointed out (Ngeow 2014), however, that there are many excellent Chinese Studies scholars of Malaysian origin who chose to move to universities in other countries. Included were those who studied the People’s Republic of China in their professional and intellectual career. They were the China scholars that Malaysia could have but never had. In this chapter, I focus on three scholars of Malaysian origin who moved to Hong Kong and established themselves as among the best China scholars in Hong Kong academia. Each of them belongs to different social science fields. Professor Huang Chih-Lien 黃枝連 taught sociology at Hong Kong Baptist University for more than 30 years. Professor Chang Chak Yan 鄭赤琰 was a senior political scientist at the Chinese University of Hong Kong (CUHK) and later at Lingnan Univeristy. Professor Kueh Yik Yaw 郭益耀 an economist, was also attached for a long time first to CUHK, and later to Lingnan.

This chapter discusses self-positioning of Peranakan Chinese in Indonesia, mainly raising an example of an activist, Mr. Benny Gatot Setiono. He wrote a bulky book entitled “Chinese Indonesians in turmoil” discussing the history of Chinese Indonesians based on various materials despite that he was originally a businessperson, not an academic. After Suharto’s fall in 1998, he organized a nationwide Chinese organization. From these efforts, we can perceive his outstanding passion for social movement concerning integration of the ethnic Chinese into Indonesian society.

This passion stems from the situation of ethnic Chinese in Indonesia. The presence of ethnic Chinese was very often politicized, and Chinese were regarded as a threat for national integration and were often criticized for lack of nationalism toward the Indonesian nation.…

This chapter is compiled from the interviews of two experts in the field of Chinese studies in Thailand who have gained their work–life experience through various fields, especially in Chinese newspaper houses where both had been involved for quite a long period of time. This served as a good base for both to enter the academic field in the later part of their lives. This chapter portrays their life paths since early childhood, their Chinese-language learning process, their access to knowledge about China, and their contributions to the academic field of Chinese studies in Thailand. The analysis of factors that brought both of them to the scholastic fields at present is also provided.

The influence of Soviet Union on Vietnamese Chinese studies is strong and impressive. It has had a significant impact on the development of Chinese studies in Vietnam. The Soviet Union influences Vietnam’s development in many fields and sectors such as training, teaching and social sciences. This preliminary research shows that the Soviet Union/Russia’s influence (both direct and indirect) and its unique legacy remain evident and impressive in various fields, including economic, political, cultural, and social sectors, in Vietnam society currently. In this chapter, I will focus on three main points: firstly, I make a sketch the Soviet Union/Russian Federation’s influence on Vietnam’s development (after the establishment of diplomatic relations since 1950 in the two countries); secondly, I highlight the influence of Soviet Union/Russia on Vietnamese Chinese Studies; and thirdly, I express the Soviet Union/Russia–Vietnam scientific cooperation and collaboration in the field of Sinology/Chinese Studies.

The global power paradigm shift from the West to the East is expected to coincide with an Asian Century, coupled with China leading from the front for the developing countries. This splendid re-emergence and transformation of the Chinese economy could trump the notion of China threat discourse in the West. Against this backdrop, there seems to be a profound interest among the China watchers in South Asia to further understand and explore China studies. In this context, this study offers a comparative view of China studies in South Asia, particularly focusing on Pakistan and India. Therefore, the roadmap for this underlined study is divided into two parts: The first part focuses on China studies in Pakistan. The second part of this study explores Indian studies on China. This chapter concludes that China studies are vigorously pursued not only in Pakistan, but also in India, yet it suggests to re-calibrate fissures and hurdles in promoting China studies in South Asia (Pakistan and India). Thus, it could contribute to the existing body of literature on China and enhance understanding of China studies in Pakistan and India.

Since the second half of the 1970s, after being confronted with external and internal changes, both China and Vietnam have carried out reforms, opened up their countries, normalized their relations, and evolved as big power and middle power, respectively. In May 2008, both sides signed the comprehensive strategic partnership making China the number one trading partner of Vietnam. However, the recent development of Vietnam–China relationship is contested and threatened by the dispute over sovereignty in the South China Sea (Bien Dong in Vietnamese), especially the Haiyang Shiyou 981 oil rig incident from May to July 2014, the reclamation of seven entities by China and the recent PCA awards on July 12, 2016. This chapter aims to analyze the characteristics of Vietnam–China relationship from power, party, and peace approaches. The first part of the chapter analyzes China’s rise to power from theoretical perspectives. The second part discusses the development of Vietnam–China political relations. The third part focuses on the recent development of bilateral relations through the Haiyang Shiyou 981 oil rig incident and highlights the party factor therein. The fourth part discusses implication and recommendations for both Vietnam and China as well as for regional politics. The chapter concludes that power, party, and peace are the main factors in Vietnam–China relations, and both countries should not let the realist point of view determine their relations, but promote confidence-building measures to play proactive and responsible roles in the region.

China has progressed to emerge as an Asian economic giant propelling the engines of growth of other countries dependent on it. In the last few years, China’s interconnectedness with all continents has grown, both through continental and maritime space. China studies has also witnessed a spectacular interest among China’s neighboring countries within both South and Southeast Asia. With a view to explore the perceptions of South and Southeast Asian countries about China, it is important to understand these through both secondary and primary sources of information, the latter comprising interviews of China scholars in these countries. This chapter comprises a comparative analysis of China studies in South and Southeast Asia, both as sub-regions of Asia and through the countries of Thailand and Sri Lanka. Both these countries are pivotal to China’s interests not only through linkages with its Belt and Road strategy encompassing the economic and the strategic connection, but also the cultural (Buddhist) connection. This chapter is divided into three main sections. The first provides an overview of China studies in South and Southeast Asia; the second provides an overview of China’s historical, civilizational, and cultural familiarity with Thailand. It also brings in some aspects of China’s economic and strategic influence in Thailand. The third section focuses on China’s increasing economic engagement with Sri Lanka which has spurred an increased interest in understanding China.

In conclusion, the chapter shows that while China itself is deeply embedded within the Thai society, its influence in Sri Lanka is perceptible, but disparate.

Singapore arguably owns one of the world’s best think tanks that focuses on Chinese affairs: the East Asian Institute (EAI). By comparison, South Asian countries look pale institutionally on policy analysis and Chinese affairs. Singapore distinguishes itself by its Chinese cultural background as well as English education. Together, the bilingual and multicultural characteristics of Singapore society enable a hybrid perspective that is difficult to emulate elsewhere. However, I will argue that political consideration and historical practices have jointly established a mode of analysis to do without the Chinese cultural sensibilities in Singapore’s thinktank methodology. This methodological self-restraint has reached such an extent that the deliberately contrived technicality of the EAI operation has fixed its intellectual resources to an external position that is not significantly different from the analytical style of Nepali, Bangladeshi, or even Bhutanese in observing Chinese affairs. The latter faces the challenges of language and civilizational unfamiliarity with the Chinese culture and the Chinese people.

In the 21st century, the rise of China is one of the most significant events in the world in general and Asia in particular. Not only an astounding economic growth but also rising diplomatic and political power provided China a much needed bulwark to play an indispensably important role in transforming the global geopolitical scenario. In the process, China’s neighborhood policy has become a focused agenda given that it will have far-reaching regional and global significance, both economically and politically. What China is seeking by pursuing its neighborhood policy is to restore confidence in the regional neighborhood that China’s rise is an opportunity not a threat. However, such policy in China’s next door neighbor, South Asia, is more influenced by strategic concerns. No wonder then that China’s rise has propelled its importance from that of a neighbor to a strategic partner, especially for the smaller countries in South Asia such as Bangladesh and Nepal. It is in this context that this chapter focuses on highlighting the image of China in South Asia taking Bangladesh and Nepal as case studies. The chapter examines the approaches by which China is being studied in these two South Asian countries, both in terms of policy and knowledge, in a comparative perspective. While doing so it seeks to analyze the extent and pattern of China Studies in Bangladesh and Nepal. The two countries have established a few centers dealing with China Studies including the Confucius Institutes in order to understand and study not only Chinese foreign and security policies, but also Chinese economic advancement with a view to advocate greater economic and development cooperation between China and the South Asian region. These centers create tremendous scope for not only acquiring China knowledge but also studying China from different perspectives which could contribute to China policy-making at diplomatic level to benefit bilateral ties. The fact that China has no contentious issues affecting its bilateral relations with the two South Asian countries under discussion has also worked to its advantage. All this is aimed at strengthening China’s South Asia policy to counter India’s “Act East” policy, formerly known as “Look East” policy, i.e., as India tries to move eastwards to cultivate the countries of Southeast Asia, China is trying to move southwards to outflank India. So far as the identity strategy of Bangladesh and Nepal are concerned, there are differences in dealings with China and India between these two South Asian countries, which this chapter deals in depth. The objective is to gauge the potential of China Studies for engaging China effectively in South Asia and its strategic implications for Beijing’s neighborhood policy. This may help explore several critical issues confronting the South Asian region as a whole.

Many Vietnamese Sinologists in the modern era have sought in their research to explore a cultural “common ground” in the Sino-Vietnamese relationship while also highlighting political differences between the Chinese and Vietnamese states. Modern Vietnamese Sinology shares a general similarity with Vietnamese and Chinese traditional scholarship, in which “learning from antiquity” was paramount and the Chinese writing system was the tool for acquiring this learning. Language is the key to understanding elements of the shared Sino-Vietnamese tradition, as well as an important tool for distinguishing the strong differences between Vietnamese and Chinese societies. The premodern Vietnamese political elite generally read this scholarship with a practical interest in learning from the day-to-day statecraft of the past.

Even with this general link to traditional scholarship, modern Vietnamese Sinologists have faced unique challenges in their own times. The generation of Vietnamese scholars who received their formal education before 1975 were affected by the social upheaval of wartime, particularly for those scholars educated during the 1960s–1970s. Regarding the community of scholars trained after 1975, one will also note how renewed global linkages eventually shaped their scholarly methods and interests. This post-1975 generation was initially confronted with economic hardships, as well as the effects of the US-led embargo and cold relations with China in the aftermath of the 1979 border conflict. These factors limited scholarly contacts throughout the early 1990s. However, shortly after diplomatic relations with the PRC improved, members of this younger generation interacted more frequently with their Chinese counterparts as visiting scholars at PRC universities or as participants in international conferences. They also participated in other Sinology-focused academic exchanges hosted in Hong Kong, Taiwan, and overseas at various institutions in the West. The focus on Chinese language study remained important, but many scholars in the younger generation were required to develop a more varied set of research skills to address the questions posed by the Vietnamese government agencies that supported their research. In more recent years engagement with Western scholarship has become a significant factor in Vietnamese academic circles. This chapter also examines the differences between scholars who work in the formal academic institutions and those who choose for a variety of reasons to work outside "the Academy."

The chapter ends with the conclusion that Modern Vietnamese Sinology requires a more diverse set of academic skills, but that language training remains a central expectation. An admiration for China as a subject of study, tempered by an An American Perspective on Vietnam's Sinology 289 effort to maintain the historical distinctions that separate Vietnam from China, is apparent in the work of most of the Vietnamese scholarship examined here. Vietnamese Sinologists continue to seek a separate path for Vietnam as the country navigates its own journey into the future through the same waters as its large northern neighbor.

Vietnam as a neighboring country of China has the tradition of studying and researching China since ancient times, and thus gradually forming the Vietnamese intellectual class’ knowledge on China. The Vietnamese intellectual class’ knowledge on China has abundant connotations, including both the knowledge and understanding of China, knowledge and understanding of Vietnam, Vietnamese people, and even the world with China as the media. From the perspectives of history and culture, Vietnamese intellectual class’ knowledge on China was formed during the long-term contacts between China and Vietnam, and was also influenced by the then existing Han culture in Vietnam, Western education’s development in modern times, and Vietnamese scholars who went to China to study from the 1950s to 1970s. The contemporary Vietnamese intellectual class, especially those who are engaged in China research, may be classified into three basic types, which are North Vietnamese intellectuals group, South Vietnamese intellectuals group, and the new generation of intellectuals after reunification. They acquired their knowledge on China through various means and under different conditions. Vietnamese intellectual class’ knowledge and view on China not only helped Vietnam to know and understand China, but also to understand ancient Vietnam’s traditional history and culture, and discuss the social problems and further enrich Vietnam’s treasure house of knowledge.

Sinology, or China Studies, is a subject of much importance to current Vietnam, and there are quite a few scholars engaged in China studies both in the government and among the people. These scholars' knowledge on China could influence both the current development of the Sino-Vietnamese relations and the political, economic, cultural, and social aspects of Vietnam. The study project "Epistemologies for Thinking China" carried out by the Department of Political Science of National Taiwan University includes oral interviews with 25 scholars who are engaged in China studies. The Vietnamese intellectual class' way to access Chinese knowledge and their learning on China could be learned to some extent through 17 interviews out of the 25 interviews. With the invitation from Professor Shi Zhiyu of NTU, the author intends to use these oral historical materials, combined with the history and current status between China and Vietnam, to discuss the Vietnamese intellectual class' knowledge on China, and the view of China formed during the process.

The notion of post-Chineseness is enlisted to analyze Vietnamese Sinology as a comparative agenda. Post-Chineseness refers to the cultural preparation and the political process of mutual acknowledgment among those who consider one another sharing (some kind of) Chineseness, practically defined according to the context and its trajectories, at each time and each site. Chineseness can thus have various, if not entirely irrelevant, meanings. Vietnamese Sinologists have relied on different kinds of post-Chineseness to make sense of their relationship with the encountered Chinese to select and determine the mode of selfunderstanding, the purpose and a strategy to reconnect, and the normative criterion to assess and manage the relationship. Chinese Vietnamese are significantly less than Chinese Southeast Asia elsewhere in number. However, the history of Vietnam is considerably closer to China than those of Korea and Japan are, in terms of the length of merger. The post-Chineseness of Vietnamese scholarship therefore complicates its role identity vis-à-vis China, intellectually as well as practically.