Ethnic tensions brewing for decades culminated in bloody riots recently. I came across a good article in Singapore’s major Chinese paper 联合早报 (Lianhe Morning Post) which provided some good assessment of the very complex issue. The article addresses a key problem as laid out in the title ‘the most generous ethnic policy in China results in clash’. Generous indeed. This is the essence and problem of the policy. Xin/jiang has received many favorable policies in economic development, education and employment. It’s not too dissimilar to affirmative action in the US, which has created somewhat similar problems. Neither the Uighur nor the Han Chinese feel the system is fair. Taking employment as an example, state run enterprises have a quota that stipulates they must have a certain amount of Uighur employees. Since it is not based on merits but ethnicity, some Han Chinese feel they are denied of a job that they are more qualified for. Quite often, this can create a culture where Uighurs do not work as hard because their job is secured by the favorable policy. It in turn creates a biased thinking amongst Han Chinese that Uighurs are lazy employees. So private businesses don’t hire them. Of course, that further perpetuates prejudice and tension. But it’s flawed to think that the tension is caused by Uighurs disgruntled over the Han Chinese’s grip of money and resources. In fact, the central government has poured money to the region and the majority of Uighurs are financially better off than in the past. What they are really concerned about is the restriction concerning their faith. Although mosques are prevalent, preaching is censored. There are also other restrictions limiting the role of religion. But this is an area that Beijing is determined to keep its control over. Thus the article makes the argument that the biggest mistake of in the policy is equating faith to benefits. They think by creating wealth in the region, people will be willing to pay the price, i.e. religion. Now, policy makers have to bear the consequences.
After reading the article, it got me thinking about the give and take game. Why does it work so well with the Han Chinese though? Why are we so pragmatic? I guess the lack of faith for a lot of people is a key condition. In the absence of a higher being, we answer to ourselves and loved ones. After many decades of turmoil, we are primarily concerned with stability and comfort. The price we have to pay seems small compared to what we could have. But the future generations who are born into prosperity and wealth might aspire to something different.
« Prev：A Nation of Self-medicators China’s Love and Hate Relationship with History：Next »
July 9, 2009 9:02 pm
I think restrictions on religion is certainly one part of the problem, though there are other issues. During my admittedly short trip almost ten years ago, the Uighurs I spoke to said they viewed Han Chinese as foreigners. They resented having policies forced on them from ‘outside’ in general. For example, although the government was building new apartments for them, they preferred their old homes. They couldn’t afford the new ones anyway and had to move out of town. Perhaps the reason the ‘give and take’ game works so well with Han Chinese is simply that the government understands them better and gives them what they want. It either doesn’t understand what many Uighurs want or isn’t prepared to give it to them.
July 9, 2009 10:02 pm
Jenny thanks for providing insight into this situation.
July 9, 2009 10:59 pm
very good and disturbing. I hope you change these policy against religion. things can get so much worse.
July 10, 2009 9:48 pm
If money and economic development is everything then the people in Xinjiang would be happy.
Seems like money and economic development isn’t everything.
July 12, 2009 12:20 am
I don’t believe religion has much to do with it. It is well documented that people are innately hyper-sensitive to income/wealth/status disparities. They are much more sensitive to differences than to absolute levels. Sociologists and economists have heavily studied this phenonomenon.
Take two corporate CEOs. The one who gets paid $4.0M per year will be livid if he finds out the CEO at a competing company earns $4.2M. He will complain about how unfair the situation is, and will demand to be paid at least as much as the other.
Most people are generally satisfied with whatever their status is, if everyone else around them is also at the same level. But, if they see their neighbor rise to a higher level, they will no longer be happy.
July 12, 2009 1:13 am
It also probably doesn’t help that Tibet and Xinjiang are ruled by old, Han Chinese men. And, they are policed primarily by Han Chinese forces. Similar to largely-minority US cities that had predominately white mayors and police forces a few decades ago. They also experienced race riots at the time. Now, most such cities in the US are governed by mayors and public service agencies (police, fire, etc), who look much more like the citizens who live there. Doesn’t solve all the problems, but it helps temper them.
July 12, 2009 3:19 am
A third dynamic (still ahead of religion, I think) is colonialism. For hundreds/thousands of years colonialism was a common strategy and practice. But, over the last seventy years it has mostly disappeared. Defeat of Japan in WWII, break-up of the Soviet Union, independence for European colonies in Africa, independence of the Phillipines from the US, etc. The exception is China. It is the last major colonial power. Tibet and Turkestan/Xinjiang are two of its largest colonial holdings. It has become hard to maintain and control colonies in the world today.
July 14, 2009 6:34 am
Some overseas Chinese in Southeast Asia adapt more than one religion as their own in the hopes that such religious diversification will result in blessings in fortune. I know a few Chinese in the Philippines who are both Catholic and Buddhist.
July 21, 2009 12:29 am
Good blog, but I have several points of disagreement.
“Xin/jiang has received many favorable policies in economic development, education and employment”
–Sure, but whether the policies are evenly distributed among residents of Xinjiang is another issue. Most of the financial benefits are concentrated in Urumqi, where over 70 percent of residents are Han. However, I admit, the issue of fairness of financial/development policies is prominent in many parts of China.
–benefits such as regional government, economic development, and gas pipelines/other energy development, again, are run by Han (as stated in the article you read: 中共在新疆扶持许多维族干部，但“一把手”仍然由汉人主政). Though being run by Han does not mean the benefits are for only Han, it does show that Uyghurs are disproportionately absent from political positions in the region.
While “majority of Uighurs are financially better off than in the past,” the proportion of improvement in financial conditions between the Uyghurs and Han Chinese is very skewed. The overwhelming majority of Uyghurs are still poor. You can see Tyler Christian’s book for specific statistics on the financial conditions of Uyghurs.
Regarding employment, while what you described may be true in some cases, I believe the overwhelming majority of places, regardless of what’s stipulated in law, do not hire Uyghurs (or other ethnic minorities) because they do not want events like Shaoguan to happen. They are afraid that once they extend jobs to ethnic minorities, they will group together, misconstrue events/perceptions/words/conversations/etc, and end up clashing with others. This is true even among Han, where in they do not want to hire too many from the same village to prevent clashes between groups from different villages. While this is unfortunate, I am confident that this line of thinking is true amongst factory owners.
Additionally, I do not believe the affirmative action for Uyghurs will “create a culture where Uighurs do not work as hard because their job is secured by the favorable policy.” If Uyghurs don’t work, the boss would have no problem replacing him with another Uyghur or someone else willing to do the job. For every lazy Uyghur worker, there are 10 willing ones.
Is your argument that the Uyghurs are upset because of the restriction on religion? While that is part of the problem, I believe it has equally as much (if not more) to do with grievances on social, cultural, educational, and economic factors as well.
July 21, 2009 9:53 am
@Chang,
Very insightful reply. We all hope the events will lead to some rethinking in Beijing. But maybe that’s not likely.
July 21, 2009 4:00 pm
@prez life,
I think socio-economic inequality is definitely a key factor. And top that with limited religious freedom, the anger is elevated all the more.
July 23, 2009 8:10 pm
This article is interesting:
Riots in Xinjiang point to a new dimension to ethnic conflict in China
It suggests that economic policy rather than ethnic policy may be the root cause of conflict.
Enjoy.
June 11, 2010 3:10 pm
It is a complex issue. Based on similar situations elsewhere, autonomy usually lies at the heart of the issue as it allows the region to be governed largely by local people, for local people, while still belonging to a larger entity (the country) as well. This is important as it strongly relates to education, official language policies, religion, etc.
Aceh in Indonesia, for example, seems to be doing better since Jakarta implemented some meaningful autonomy.