¹ A party of Southeast Asianists from the Australian National University visited both these centres in September 1980 and received some of their recent publications. There are, in addition, small centres at Chi-nan (Jinan) University, also at Canton and at the Yunnan Historical Institute and other similar institutions in Kunming. A group of Southeast Asian language scholars at Peking University are associated with the Institute for South Asian Studies (a joint institute of Peking University and the Academy of the Social Sciences in Peking) which plans to expand its activities into Southeast Asia. The revival of interest in Southeast Asian studies began with a conference in Amoy in 1978; this was followed by one in Kunming in 1980 and will be followed by the third conference in Canton in 1982.

² The best-known writings of this kind must begin with Ju-kua, Chao, Chu Fan Chih (early 13th century), translated by Hirth, F. and Rockhill, W.W. (St. Petersburg, 1911)Google Scholar; the best of the Cheng Horelated books is that of Huan, Ma, Ying-yai sheng-lan (early 15th century), translated by Mills, J.V.G. (Cambridge, 1970)Google Scholar. The most accessible edition of Chang Hsieh is that published in Shanghai, 1936 Ts'ung-shu chi-ch'eng edition); and that of Ch'en Lun-chiung is that of Taipei, 1958. None of these and other similar works devote special sections to the Chinese residing overseas.

³ Sung-t'ao, KuoKuo Shih-lang chou-shu (Yang-chih shu-wu yi-chi edition 1892), vol. 12, 91–bGoogle Scholar; also see Kuang-hsü ch'ao tung-hua lu, Peking reprint 1958, pp. 298–99Google Scholar. Tsun-hsien, Huang's famous letter of 1893 to Hsueh Fu-ch'eng may be found in Hsueh Fu-ch'eng Ch'üan-chi (Yung-an ch'üan-chi) Taipei 1963 reprint, vol. 3, Hai-wai wen-pien, 1, 18b–19aGoogle Scholar; see also Kuang-hsü ch'ao tung-hua lu, pp. 3241–242.

⁴ On Tso Ping-lung, see Seon'g, Tan Yeok (Ch'en Yü-sung) “Tso Tzu-hsing ling-shih tui Hsin-chia-p'o hua-ch'iao ti kung-hsien”, Nanyang Hsueh-pao 15/1 (06 1959): 12–21Google Scholar. For Lat Pau, see Hock, Chen Mong, The Early Chinese Newspapers of Singapore, 1881–1912 (Singapore, 1967), pp. 28ffGoogle Scholar; Seong, Tan Yeok, Nanyang ti-i pao-jen (Singapore, 1958), pp. 1–12Google Scholar. Also, Siang, Song Ong, One Hundred Years of the Chinese in Singapore (Singapore, 1967), pp. 209–210Google Scholar. See also the work of Tso Ping-lung's friend, Li Chung-chueh, who visited him in Singapore in 1887 and later published his Hsin-chia-p'o feng-t'u-chi (1895), reprinted with annotations by Hsu Yun-ts'iao (Singapore, 1947)Google Scholar.

⁵ For Wang Ta-hai, see Tae-hae, Ong, The Chinaman abroad, trans. Medhurst, W.H. (Shanghai, 1859)Google Scholar. A modern edition of Hsieh Ch'ing-kao, with annotations by Feng Ch'eng-chun, was published in Shanghai in 1938. The Hsiao-fang hu-chai collections in three parts appeared in Shanghai between 1891 and 1897. Wei Yuan's great work was expanded during the 1840s; the 100-chuan edition was published in 1852.

⁶ “A note on the origins of hua-ch'iao” (prepared for the C.R. Boxer Festschrift, yet to appear), published in Tjeng, Lie Tek (ed.), Masalah-masalah International Masakini, no. 7 (Jakarta, 1977)Google Scholar and reprinted in Gungwu, Wang, Community and Nation: Essays on Southeast Asia and the Chinese. ASAA Monographs (Singapore, 1981)Google Scholar.

Hua-ch'iao as a noun may have begun in the 1880s. Ma Chien-chung and Wu Kuang-p'ei were both close to it when they wrote of hua-shang ch'iao-yü che and hua-jen ch'iao-yü che respectively during or after their visit to the Straits Settlements in 1881; see Ma's Nan-hsing chi (6b) and Wu's Nan-hsing jih-chi (5b); Hsiao-fang hu-chai yü-ti ts'ung-ch'ao tsai-pu pien, vol. 10 (Shanghai, 1897)Google Scholar. It had been thought that Huang Tsun-hsien was the first to use the term hua-ch'iao 1893; Nanyang nien-chien (1951 kuei, p. 23Google Scholar quoted in Wei-lien, Kao “Huang Kung-tu hsien-sheng chiu-jen Hsin-chia-p'o tsung-ling-shih k'ao”, Nanyang hsueh-pao 11/2 (1955): 1–16Google Scholar; and again quoted in T'ien-jen, Wu, Huang kung-tu hsien-sheng chuan-kao (Hong Kong, 1972), pp. 116–17Google Scholar. But the original of the 1893 letter used hua-min and not huach'iao, see Hsueh Fu-ch'eng ch'üan-chi and Kuang-hsü ch'ao tung-hua lu (note 3 above).

⁷ There was no serious discussion of the idea of chih-min in China except in the context of Social Darwinism, geopolitics, and imperialism (ti-kuo chu-yi) in Africa and the Pacific after 1895. The earliest notable study was Liang Ch'i-ch'ao's “Lun min-tsu ching-cheng chih ta-shih” in 1902; see Taipei reprint of Hsin-min ts'ung-pao hui-pien hsü-k'an (Chin-tai shih-liao ts'ung-shu hui-pien, series one), pp. 243–301, esp. p. 288. Two years later, Liang spoke of hua-ch'iao colonists in Southeast Asia; see note 9 below.

⁸ Ko-ming chün text and appendices in Jung, Tsou, The Revolutionary Army: A Chinese Nationalist Tract of 1903, trans. Lust, John (The Hague, 1968)Google Scholar.

⁹ Text in Ch'i-ch'ao, Liang, Yin-ping shih chuan-chi, vol. 3, no. 8 (Shanghai, 1936), vol. 3, no. 8, pp. 1–5Google Scholar.

¹⁰ Yin-ping shih chuan-chi 3/8: 4.

¹¹ Tung-fang tsa-chih 7/12 (15 12 1910):93–104Google Scholar; Ti-hsueh tsa-chih vol. 4, nos. 10–12:1a–4a, 1a–71, and 1a–7b of Shuo-fu sections.

¹² Min Pao (Minpao Magazine), nos. 25 and 26, pp. 1–35 and 1–40.

¹³ Later works modified this last point by admitting that the ban on overseas travel was introduced not by the Ch'ing but early during the Ming dynasty; e.g., Ch'ang-fu, Li, Chung-kuo chih-min shih (Shanghai, 1937), pp. 100–103Google Scholar.

¹⁴ Nanyang Yen-chiu continued publication until 1944, in 11 volumes. There were other influential journals like the Ch'iao-wu yueh-pao (1933–37) and the Hua-ch'iao pan-yueh-k'an (1932–36), but these were more political than scholarly.

¹⁵ Hsiang-shih, Chang, Hua-ch'iao chung-hsin chih Nan-yang (Hai-k'ou, 1927)Google Scholar; Ch'ang-fu, Li's first version of Nan-yang Hua-ch'iao shih (Shanghai, 1929)Google Scholar; Hsiung-fei, Wen, Nan-yang hua-ch'iao t'ung-shih (Shanghai, 1929)Google Scholar.

¹⁶ Liu and Shu's work was published in Nanking while Li's book appeared in Shanghai. Both were reprinted in Taipei, in 1971 and 1966 respectively.

¹⁷ Taipei, 1954, ch. 2. It also had a chapter on race relations (ch. 7), which may have been the main reason for its being banned in Malaya.

¹⁸ The two series of booklets of particular interest here were Hua-ch'iao hai-wai k'ai-fa shih [Overseas hua-ch'iao development history] Hai-wai ming-jen chuan [Famous Chinese abroad].

¹⁹ Hua-ch'iao chih Editorial Committee, Hua-ch'iao chih: Tsung chih (Taipei, 1954), rev. ed. 1964Google Scholar. The nine volumes for Southeast Asia were Vietnam (1958), Thailand (1959), Malaya (1959), Singapore (1960), Cambodia (1960), Indonesia (1961), Laos (1962), the Northern Borneo States (1963), and finally Burma (1967).

²⁰ Taipei, 1972; esp. the essay “The Present Condition of the Southeast Asian Chinese”, pp. 111–230, esp. the survey of the problems in defining hua-ch'iao, pp. 144–48.

²¹ From Hsia-men University: Nanyang yen-chiu so chi-k'an (collected essays), 1980, 2 vols. (I: Politics and Economics; II: History and Hua-ch'iao); Tung-nan-ya shih lun-ts'ung [Essays on Southeast Asian history], 1980; K'ao-ku min-tsu lun-wen hsuan [Selected essays on archaeology and ethnology), 1980; of the 35 essays collected, only five had been published in the 1950s. From Chung-shan University: Tung-nan-ya li-shih lun-ts'ung [Essays on Southeast Asian history], 1979, 2 vols. (I: History of the region; II: History of Chinese relations, including the hua-ch'iao in the region); all 22 essays collected had been previously published and seven had been published in the 1950s.

²² Yu-tsun, Liu et al. , Chu-tsai hua-kung fang-wen lu [Chinese coolie labour: record of interviews], Guangzhou, 1979Google Scholar; also included in the History volume of Nanyang yen-chiu so chi-k'an in note 21 above.

²³ Especially the three essays by Ho Chao-fa on the Philippines (first published in 1962 and 1964) and the three by Liu Yü-tsun on popular uprisings in the 1920s and 1930s in Indonesia, Burma, and Thailand (also published in 1962 and 1964).

²⁴ Essays by Kuo Wei-pai on the economic role of the Chinese in the Malay States and Malaya; Chiang Hsing-tung on Dutch colonial exploitation of the Chinese; Li Yung-hsi on Spanish policies and Ts'ai Hung-sheng on the coolie trade; all published in 1959.

²⁵ Chin-chih, Lin, “Chin-tai hua-ch'iao t'ou-tzu kuo-nei ch'i-yeh ti chi-ko wen-t'i”, published first in Chin-lai shih yen-chiu, nos. 1 and 2 (1980), pp. 199–230 and 217–38Google Scholar, esp. footnotes 2 and 3 on p. 199 (no. 1980).

²⁶ Wang Mu-heng, “Shih-chiu shih-chi mo er-shih shih-chi ch'u Yin-tu-ni-hsi-ya min-tsu kung-yeh ho hua-ch'iao kung-yeh ti ch'an-sheng ho fa-chan”. [The rise and development of pribumi and hua-ch'iao industry in Indonesia during the late 19th and early 20th centuries], pp. 108–16. Compare this with the more conventional approach found in another recent article, Tsao-fu, Ch'en “Shih-chiu shih-chi yi-ch'ien Chung-kuo ho Yin-tu-ni-hsi-ya kuan-hsi k'ao-lueh” [Sino-Indonesian relations before the 19th century], Li-shih yen-chiu, no. 3 (1980), pp. 17–33Google Scholar.

²⁷ For an account of the history of Nanyang hsueh-pao and a list of its contents, see Goh, Koh Soh (Hsu Su-wu), Nanyang Hsueh-hui yü Nanyang yen-chiu (Singapore, 1977)Google Scholar. I have singled out Tan Yeok Seong and Hsu Yun-ts'iao for mention and expect full appreciations of their contributions to appear soon, but there were other dedicated scholars in Jakarta, Manila, Kuala Lumpur, and Bangkok who had a harder time to keep up scholarly work in Chinese.

²⁸ A dedicated, though unorthodox, scholar Fang Hsiu has produced the basis for a reassessment of pre-war literature in Chinese published in Malaya and Singapore, Ma-hua hsin wen-hsueh shih kao (Singapore, 1962–1965)Google Scholar, in 3 volumes, available in an abbreviated English translation by McDonald, Angus W. Jr, Notes on the history of Malayan Chinese New Literature, 1920–1942 (Tokyo, 1977)Google Scholar. Fang Hsiu's use of Ma-hua is controversial and there are times when one wonders if hua-ch'iao is not more appropriate for.his subject and for his period.

Hua-jen seems neutral and is now the most common, though since about 1970 in Singapore, hua-tsu seems to have gained some popularity. It could mean “ethnic Chinese”, using tsu in the same way that China uses it for “minority nationalities”. I am uneasy about that usage, as I am also unhappy that hua-tsu (kazoku) in Japanese means nobility or aristocracy. This could just be misleading in some contexts.

²⁹ Lin Chin-chih (see note 25), no. 1 (1980), p. 200.

³⁰ Ch'en Ching-ho's book was published by the New Asia Research Institute in Hong Kong in 1963, and was translated into English as The Chinese Community in the Sixteenth Century Philippines (Tokyo, 1968)Google Scholar.

³¹ An unofficial translation appeared in Beijing Review 40,6 Oct. 1980.