Talk:Malaysian Chinese/Archive 1

Archive 1

What should this page be called?

The expression 'Chinese Malaysian' is unknown in Malaysia. This should be moved to 'Malaysian Chinese'. Andrew Yong 13:48, 15 February 2006 (UTC)

Not really. It's not unknown. Moreover, Chinese Malaysian is the grammatically correct form with Chinese as an adjective and Malaysian as a noun. It's just that many Malaysians managed to confuse themselves with Manglish. __earth ^(Talk) 14:45, 17 February 2006 (UTC)

It could be that they are seen by Malays as Chinese people who live in Malaysia, in which case 'Malaysian Chinese' would be grammatically correct. 81.98.89.195 16:18, 16 March 2006 (UTC)

It could also be seen as Chinese considering themselves as Chinese first and Malaysian second. After all, MCA is Malaysian Chinese Association, instead of Chinese Malaysian Association. __earth ^(Talk) 02:33, 17 March 2006 (UTC)

What do the Chinese Malaysians prefer to call themselves: Chinese or Malaysian? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 12:51, 18 April 2006 172.190.139.38 (talk • contribs)

Malaysian Chinese is far and away the most common form. Also contra User:Earth's assertion, it's not Manglish, since a nationality can be used as an adjective (c.f. American cheese) just as well as an ethnic category can be. The question is whether you want the nationality modifying the ethnic group, or the ethnic group modifying the nationality. That's not a question for Wikipedia to decide, since we're supposed to be descriptive and not proscriptive. The preferred form among many various overseas Chinese groups seems to be xyz-Chinese, as in Thai Chinese, Indonesian Chinese, American-born Chinese, etc. Also, it looks slightly odd to have an article entitled "xyz Malaysian" (meaning "xyz type of Malaysian person") when the Chinese text clearly says "xyz-Chinese person" and the BM text clearly says plain old "Chinese Person" with no reference to Malaysianness at all. cab 05:42, 18 July 2006 (UTC)

Funny though because if you switch the two words, similar arguments that you used could be used against you point. For instance, the word Chinese could be used as an adjective too. And we are not descripting the right group with "Malaysian Chinese". Malaysian Chinese means Chinese citizens of Malaysian descent, which doesn't make sense (i.e. grammatical mistake). With "Chinese Malaysian" on the other hand describes Malaysian of Chinese descent. Therefore, Chinese Malaysian and Malaysian Chinese do not describe the same group. They are not the same. Chinese Malaysian is a Malaysian citizen while Malaysian Chinese is a Chinese (PRC or RC, depending how you want to look at it) citizen.

See how Black in America is described as African American, not American African. The later would mean African of American descent. Or German typy of American, i.e. German American (there's no such thing American German - if there is, then it would be a minority), French Canadian (would there be Canadian French?). Again, it's Manglish, not proper English. Also, notice your American-born Chinese example. That does not goes in line with you argument. In fact, in the article it's linked to Chinese American, not American Chinese Again, Malaysian Chinese is grammatically wrong. It may work in Chinese grammar but not English. __earth ^(Talk) 14:21, 1 August 2006 (UTC)

No, it is not gramatically incorrect, as Chinese can be a noun as well as an adjective: see [1]. It is simply a question of perspective - whether you see yourself as an ethnic Chinese who happens to be a Malaysian, or a Malaysian citizen who happens to be Chinese. Historically, the Chinese here have considered themselves to be Chinese first and Malayan/Malaysian second. Until 1974, the PROC considered all overseas Chinese to be Chinese citizens, and I think the ROC maintained this aspect of Sun Zhongshan's nationality law even later. It is POV and contrary to Wikipedia conventions to insist on "Chinese Malaysian" as this is far less common than "Malaysian Chinese" - certainly it is not used in Malaysia.

The xxx-American comparison does not work as it is just one country's conventions. The UK uses "Black British" but "British Asian" and "British Chinese". Most Chinese communities use xxx-Chinese because the Chinese ethnic and cultural identity is so predominant. Andrew Yong 10:22, 8 August 2006 (UTC)

Regardless, they're are citizens of Malaysia. So, it doesn't matter what ROC says. They don't even have proper representative in the UNGA. It may be relevant if they quit Malaysia and become PRC or ROC citizens. And why it is contrary to Wikipedia convention? Where is this convention that you talk about? __earth ^(Talk) 11:28, 8 August 2006 (UTC)

See Wikipedia:Naming_conventions#Use_common_names_of_persons_and_things. Malaysian Chinese is undoubtedly more common than Chinese Malaysian, and the latter usage is unheard of in Malaysia, which is the important point. There is no grammatical reason to reject the common usage. Andrew Yong 22:15, 17 August 2006 (UTC)

See Wikipedia:Naming_conventions_(common_names)#Don.27t_overdo_it. It says if the common name is misleading, don't use it. The term Malaysian Chinese is misleading because it refers to "Chinese citizens of Malaysian descent" instead of Malaysian of Chinese descent. Morever, it's not unheard of. I hear it frequently. Just because you haven't heard of it doesn't mean unheard of. Do you know where White Wolf in California is? If you haven't heard of it, does that make it a non-existing place? __earth ^(Talk) 08:46, 18 August 2006 (UTC)

More on the fact that the term Chinese Malaysian is not "unheard of". Malaysiakini uses Chinese Malaysian instead of Malaysian Chinese: According to media reports today, Hee Leong had clarified that Khairy had no intention to hurt the feelings of the Chinese Malaysian community, and that the two of them had agreed to “look forward to the greater interest of the nation”. [2]. BTW, Jeff Ooi uses Chinese Malaysian too [3]. The Star uses Chinese Malaysian. [4]. I repeat, Malaysian Chinese is bad English. In Manglish, it might be right. __earth ^(Talk) 13:19, 22 August 2006 (UTC)

@it looks slightly odd to have an article entitled "xyz Malaysian" (meaning "xyz type of Malaysian person") when the Chinese text clearly says "xyz-Chinese person"

No, it doesn't. Chinese-language order is quite normally the precise opposite of English order. Moreover, Chinese involves a very clear distinction between the ethnic (华, 唐) and national (中) adjectives that isn't present in English. Finally, the Chinese have their own reasons for making themselves the more-important noun aspect which really has very little to do with a non-POV encyclopedic article. — LlywelynII 07:11, 4 April 2012 (UTC)

By the way, I have reverted to Malaysian Chinese not because I want to pre-empt debate, but because the last edit by earth used "Chinese Malaysian" in parts of sentences where it should have either been "Malaysian Chinese" or "Chinese Malaysians" (with an "s") in the plural and so "Chinese Malaysian" (singular) was gramatically incorrect. It was easier to replace all with "Malaysian Chinese", which can be singular or plural. Andrew Yong 10:34, 8 August 2006 (UTC)

Easier doesn't mean it's right. Moreoever, the usage of singular and plural was right before you moved the original version prior to debate. __earth ^(Talk) 11:28, 8 August 2006 (UTC)

Dialects

Dialects and census information

There may be a discrepancy in the article relating to the subtopics of dialect groups, census 2000, and the number of people who speaks the dialects. I suggest this to be amended to clarify which dialect group speaks what dialect, how the census 2000 corresponds with the dialect group. e.g. It was mentioned that "Cantonese constitutes the most populous Chinese dialect in... Selangor" yet the Census shows Cantonese people are ranked 3rd. For an average reader who is not a Chinese or not a Malaysian, I doubt s/he would understand. Dat789 11:31, 15 February 2007 (UTC)

Dialect name

• I changed the Chinese dialect Hokchew to Foochow, which is mainly prefered by Fu Zhou group. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 18:45, 27 May 2006 (talk • contribs) 60.50.134.92

• I have moved the 'Chinese educated' and 'English educated' subtopics to a new heading called Education. Education does not fall under the dialect heading.Dat789 09:54, 16 February 2007 (UTC)

Malaysian Chinese vs. Chinese Malaysian

Hi all, I found this page very interesting. Do you know what Malaysian Chinese & Chinese Malaysian is/are?

• Malaysian Chinese is Malaysian citizens (regardless of ethnic origin) who migrated to China (after year 1990), they gave up Malaysian citizenship, they are known as Malaysian Chinese.
• Chinese Malaysian is Chinese citizen who migrated to Malaysia (from 14th century to 21st century, including Badminton World Champion, Han Jian and other new immigrants from China), they gave up Chinese citizenship, they are Malaysian citizens, non-Bumiputra, and they are known as Chinese Malaysian.

Same goes for American Chinese & Chinese American. American Chinese is American/Yankees migrated to China, while Chinese migrated to America is called Chinese American.

Anyway, I do not want to fix anything, this topic is open for discussion. --L joo 08:43, 2 August 2006 (UTC)

That is one interpretation, and perhaps when there are more Malaysians moving to China the distinction will start to be made, but for now the common meaning of Malaysian Chinese is ethnic Chinese living in Malaysia. But judging from past experience, when Malayan/Malaysian Chinese moved to China in previous decades they considered themselves to be moving "back" to China, and and considered themselves to be simply "Chinese". Andrew Yong 10:40, 8 August 2006 (UTC)

As this topic is opened for discussion, consider the position of ethnic Chinese abroad just as L joo has considered because the Chinese ethnic group in Malaysia were immigrated nonetheless.

• While we are familiar with the terms ABC, BBC, CBC, etc. Therefore, we have here American Born Chinese, British Born Chinese, Canadian Born Chinese, etc., it only suggests where the person was born, and borned into which ethnic group.
• the basic formula is XBC where X denotes the person's nationality of the country where s/he is resides as home country).
• The best and closest next example I can relate to help come to a closure on this matter is looking at the African Americans people in, of course, USA.
• When you read the first line, you'd pick up keywords like descendants of a nation, that they moved/brought over from that nation.
• Therefore, I concur with __earth where the notion of the person's origins should first be described and conclude the matters of whether it will be Chinese Malaysian or Malaysian Chinese, the appropriate formula should be

• [/Ethnic or Nationality of Origin] [Nationality of country of residence]
• It should then be conclusive that it should be classed as Chinese Malaysian.
• This should also apply to Chinese Canadians, Chinese British, Chinese Norwegians, Chinese Kenyans, Chinese Africans, Russian Chinese (if he is originally from Russia, and his children and his children's children still lives in Russia), etc.
• There are many Japanese in Brazil or South America and they are known as Japanese Brazilians. Once mentioned, you would immediately know this person is of Japanese heritage, and not vice versa. Bumiputras living in America will be known as a Malay American although as we all know that that term is not even used or heard of.

Just because Malaysian Chinese is popularly known and is common, we should take this opportunity to re-educate ourselves. Dat789 12:07, 15 February 2007 (UTC)

You should take this opportunity to re-educate yourself on WP:OR. =) — LlywelynII 07:17, 4 April 2012 (UTC)

The American standard of naming is not the one that applies world wide. Americans didn't invent the concepts of immigration or minority identity. Further, Chinese in Britain are never referred to as "Chinese British" or "Chinese Britons" (try Google; Chinese Britons has no hits and "Chinese British" is usually referring China and Britain, not Chinese people in Britain), but as "British Chinese" (you want to argue that a name invented by people in the UK is incorrect English and people who use it need "re-education"?). And "Russian Chinese" doesn't have any fixed meaning at all because no one actually uses this term either for the Russians in China or the Chinese in Russia. Your opinion on what "should" apply to ethnic groups worldwide or what is the "appropriate" formula is just that: an opinion not backed up by cited sources. In the end, I don't see any new argument here, just the same thing that's gone on in the archives forever. cab 13:25, 15 February 2007 (UTC)

For all purposes and intentions of this article within Wikipedia, I must assert that I did not intend to establish that the "American standard of naming" is "the one that applies worldwide". That was merely an illustrative example. My main point is such as __earth has said and I agreed to. I, however, intend to establish for the purpose of this article within Wikipedia that this issue should abide in what I have called the formula (the 6th point above) specifically for common sense reasonings.

What is commonly known as Malaysian Chinese can, perhaps, fall under the category of colloquialism, which I think is more appropriate because it is an informal way of speech or writing. I meant "re-education" not in a wide sense but for only for the purpose of this article. Sure we can go introduce ourselves as Malaysian Chinese. Again, for the sake of this article, I do suggest the adoption of [Ethnic origin] [Citizen of country of residence] -- Chinese Malaysian, Korean Malaysian -- if we want to be formally specific about ethnic minorities in the country of their residence. At least for now, we can treat it as common sense approach while leaving time for anyone of us to substantiate it by appropriate sources.

There may not even be Russian Chinese etc. but we both know that I mentioned it only to give examples. I am aware there is no "fixed meaning".Dat789 14:32, 15 February 2007 (UTC)

First, read WP:ENGVAR and change "laborer" back to "labourer". Second, stop trying to insert the change by stealth in the middle of the article. If you want to "prove" that Malaysian Chinese is a colloquialism, give reliable sources, not internet bulletin-board style argumentation. I for one highly doubt that "Malaysian Chinese" is incorrect given that, for example, that the BBC uses "Malaysian Chinese" [5] four times as often as "Chinese Malaysian" [6] and the articles using the latter term are much more informal (a large proportion of entertainment, "Talking Point", etc.). Also, see Wikipedia:Naming conflict#How to make a choice among controversial names for the guideline on this kind of dispute. The criteria are:

1. Most commonly used name in English - proven below by Google searches to be "Malaysian Chinese"
2. Current undisputed official name of entity - on .gov.my, which may be taken as a reasonable sample of official usage, Malaysian Chinese gets 5x as many hits as Chiense Malaysian
3. Current self-identifying name of entity - most Chinese in Malaysia call themselves "Malaysian Chinese", not "Chinese Malaysian". For example, names of groups like the Malaysian Chinese Association, etc.

Regards, cab 21:43, 15 February 2007 (UTC)

I have read and understood the preceding response of cab. I agree. My points are as follows:

• First, when considering the use of UK spellings or American spellings, the Wikipedia:Naming conflict#How to make a choice among controversial names article has also cleared up much of this issue as International English words are also spelled similar to that of the UK's English.
• Second, there is no such thing as "insert the change by stealth in the middle of the article." Whatever changes everybody makes (even those who did not log in) will show in the article's history. The contents I have added or subtracted merely intend to give more relevant information to the general worldwide audience. Corrections as to our everyday use of colloquialisms and/or Manglish have to be made and/or explained. I have also left other statements as they are.
  • One bizarre statement in which I read with full suspicion is found in the THIRD SENTENCE "The British used drug to attract more Chinese to migrate to Malaya to work in the mining sectors". Is there a source for such assertion? Although this may be true (my jaws dropped to the floor), unless proven this sentence may be very sensitive to some locals and/or even the Britons. Because this sentence could also mean that your forefathers or mine were drug addicted slaves!! We will clean up as we go along.
  • I've asked 4 people and friends yesterday. Be patient to read all through.
    • (Person 1: British girl, have families residing in Australia, have dual citizenship) She'd described herself as British Australian. I asked why not Australian British? She agrees it could have been the other way but may raise confusion as to where she comes from originally.
    • (Person 2: Zimbabwean gentleman, started families in the UK) He'd still describe himself as a Zimbabwean. That is the country he is from. As for his children, and his children's children, he said they will be British. I asked if they can be called British Zimbabwean OR Zimbabwean British, which of these two would make more sense. He chose the latter.
    • (Person 3: Malaysian Chinese born in America, but living in UK, holds British passport). He'd still describe himself as Malaysian because his parents are both Malaysian Chinese. He thinks British Malaysian should properly describe him as he's been living in the UK since the age of 4. He'd tell he's borned in the US.
    • (Person 4: Chinese nationale, married to a male British Caucasian) She insists that she's still Chinese even though she's holding British passport for 4 years now. Her daughter, age 3, is (she hesitated for a moment) British Chinese. When her daughter marries a British male Caucasian and have a kid, the kid will British. From here, I realized why some people said they are 1/4 Japanese, 1/4 Chinese, 1/2 British, etc. Whichever percentage you are made up of, you will be known as that. My guess is that as long a the Malaysian Chinese don't inter-marry, they will always be 100% Chinese!

Kudos on using MCA as example.

• As with the term Malaysian Chinese to fall under the category of colloquialism, I withdraw my suggestion in the light of the Wikipedia:Naming conflict#How to make a choice among controversial names article. It is commonly known among Malaysians to be called as Malaysian Chinese. Although search engine results have proven this point, I am still inclined to invoke a subsection in the article explaining the differential meaning of the two controversy terms. Malaysian Chinese and vice versa, as Talk described at 08:46 18 August 2006 (UTC) (above), as having connotation to the person's origin. This can be a subtopic.
• As diplomatic approach, please vote/nominate. All those in favor to start a subtopic explaining "Malaysian Chinese vs Chinese Malaysian" respond in bold with Support; or Oppose then period. Explaining your reason. This poll will open for 3 months.

• Support. To say 'Chinese Malaysian' as oppose to saying 'the Chinese population in Malaysia' does not mean the same thing. There is a need to explain the distinction as with 'Malaysian Chinese' and 'Malaysians who are Chinese'. Dat789 09:50, 16 February 2007 (UTC)
• Oppose. There's no need. The first sentence quite fully captures the definition being used, even if it is quite wrong (Manglish porting over of the Chinese term) or racist (the way Britons consider Chinese to be Other, regardless of nationality). — LlywelynII 07:22, 4 April 2012 (UTC)

Also, kudos for bringing up WP:VAR. Earth was actually the first editor to the page, and someone inappropriately replaced his American English with Britishisms. Will correct and place a label at top of page to avoid any more unpleasantness from the +u crowd. — LlywelynII 07:32, 4 April 2012 (UTC)

Popularity & widely accepted (Google & Yahoo search results)

Google:

• • Results 1 - 10 of about 266,000 for "malaysian chinese". (0.47 seconds)
  • Results 1 - 10 of about 72,600 for "chinese malaysian". (0.25 seconds)

Yahoo

• • 1 - 10 of about 101,000 for "malaysian chinese" - 0.19 sec.
  • 1 - 10 of about 58,700 for "chinese malaysian" - 0.20 sec

- Others -

MSN

• • Page 1 of 19,713 results containing "malaysian chinese" (0.21 seconds)
  • Page 1 of 9,226 results containing "chinese malaysian" (0.08 seconds)

Go.com

• • 1 - 10 of about 102,000 for "malaysian chinese" - 0.13 sec.
  • 1 - 10 of about 59,100 for "chinese malaysian" - 0.11 sec.

Netscape

• • Results from the Web: 1–15 (of ~22000) "malaysian chinese"
  • Results from the Web: 1–15 (of ~5630) "chinese malaysian"

Lycos

• • Web Results: 1 thru 10 of 21,192 (Info) "malaysian chinese"
  • Web Results: 1 thru 10 of 9,295 (Info) "chinese malaysian"

From lead section: The term Chinese Malaysian is rarely (if ever) used in Malaysia.

i think this is misleading. there are chinese in msia using the term Chinese Malaysian. google search for:

• "i'm a chinese malaysian" - 105 hits; "i'm a malaysian chinese" - 665 hits

in fact:

• "is a chinese malaysian" - 280 hits; "is a malaysian chinese" - 143 hits

furthermore:

• "Malaysian Chinese Association" (MCA) - 56,700 hits (boosting "Malaysian Chinese" stat above)

I think the second data above proves that the term "malaysian chinese" as being more popular is inconclusive, and deserve a move, as "Malaysian Chinese" seems more ambiguous gramatically and globally. Or at least mention "Chinese Malaysian" in the first sentence of lead section (eg British Chinese) kawaputra 16:27, 13 March 2007 (UTC)

Put move debate in a separate location

The move debate is getting so enormous that it dominates the talk page and makes it difficult to find discussion about the actual contents of the page. Though the debate is not yet closed, it seems to have died down --- anyone object if I move it to Talk:Chinese Malaysian/Move debate, then prominently link to that page from here? (Please note that location of debate does not indicate endorsement of either name =P). cab 11:11, 5 October 2006 (UTC)

Went ahead and did it since no comment or activity for almost a month. At Talk:Malaysian Chinese/Move debate. cab 23:00, 1 November 2006 (UTC)

Famous Malaysian Chinese

This section is getting very long; most of it should be split out to a separate List of famous Malaysian Chinese and only a few of the most prominent examples retained. The question, of course, is which ones --- comments? cab 11:11, 5 October 2006 (UTC)

Also went ahead and did it. Actually List of Malaysian Chinese. Retained Jimmy Choo (designer), Chin Peng, and Michelle Yeoh as being the most famous or historically significant on that list. cab 23:00, 1 November 2006 (UTC)

Discrimination

how about the affirmative actions limiting the number of ethnic Chinese into top Malaysian universities?

More explanation about this topic please. [13 November 2006]

Or, I dunno, the systemic discrimination of the chinese minority by the racist malay state? Malaysian Chinese are a textbook definition of second class citizen. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 60.242.175.202 (talk) 06:22, 28 December 2007 (UTC)

Talk page belongs here

I've edited out the redirect to Talk:Chinese Malaysian. The article's name is Malaysian Chinese. Hong Qi Gong (Talk - Contribs) 21:37, 5 December 2006 (UTC)

The share of Chinese economic dominance in Malaysia may have been eroded, but they can still continue their businesses as they please so long as they do not breach Malaysian corporate law (e.g. no fraud, illegal money lending business etc.). The government doesn't restrict the Chinese to build as many establishments as they want to generate national the economy. Never have I heard anywhere on the news or on the constitution that discourages specific ehtnic groups in Malaysia to do business. --211.24.155.43 12:51, 31 December 2006 (UTC)

Food and Culture

I have inserted 2 headings to the article. This article, on first instance, tells about the history of Malaysian Chinese e.g. where Malaysian Chinese originates, where they were educated, what dialect groups they belonged to, etc. However, I do feel a strong need to inform general readers that there is somewhat a difference in terms of what they eat and practices from that of China. The article has successfully mentioned that Malaysian Chinese originates from China -- an undisputed fact. But unless we describe, non-Asians might think we are like them in all ways including the way we think, eat, sleep, educated, speak, etc. We have the -lahs while they don't. So, please elaborate on these two subtopics in anyway you see fit. --User:Dat789 13:18, 6 March 2007 (UTC)

History

A brief history of terms use:

• Orang Cina - In use since 100 bc (Langkasuka days) until today, roughly 2000+ years.
• Tang Lang - Used by the Chinese (mother tongue), 1000+ years.
• Malaysian Chinese - Created by British politicians, some 50 years ago (after 1957).
• Chinese Malaysian - Invented by Americans, some 20-30 years ago.

Feel free to edit/comment. L joo 00:42, 8 March 2007 (UTC)

Why Wiki Project China?

Malaysian Chinese are ethnic Chinese, but not Chinese (it refers to citizenship)

It should be in Wiki Project Malaysia. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Bobk (talk • contribs)

Many of the articles on diaspora populations are monitored/worked on by members of the WikiProject pertaining to the ancestral country. It's just a system for projects to keep track of articles their members may be able to help in, and doesn't have anything to do with citizenship. Also, there is no Wikipedia:WikiProject Malaysia; the closest thing available at the moment is Wikipedia:WikiProject Southeast Asia. Cheers, cab 06:53, 17 May 2007 (UTC)

Culture Differences

Who came up with the stuff there? It's unverified information at best and seems more like POV. - Bob K 08:15, 16 May 2007 (UTC)

Feel free to trash large portions of this article and start over. Long paragraphs of unsourced material are useless for encyclopedic purposes and inhibit real encyclopedic writing on the topic; in my opinion, it's an improvement to replace such material with even a single short sentence which is cited to a reliable source. cab 06:56, 17 May 2007 (UTC)

Okay. I've edited some sections of the article in the limited time that I have with some added references. Will have a look again at this article when I have more time. - Bob K 08:44, 17 May 2007 (UTC)

Chinese name

I have a comment about the name infobox on the right side of the page. It currently reads "马来西亚唐人" (Mǎláixīyà Tángrén， literally "Malaysia Tang people") for the Chinese name. Well it is an acceptable form to refer to ethnic Chinese in Malaysia, it is not in common usage in Mandarin. The terminology usually used in Mandarin is "马来西亚华人" (Mǎláixīyà Huárén, literally "Malaysia Chinese people"). However, the former is more commonly used in other Chinese dialects such as Hokkien (Minnan), Cantonese, etc. Should we add a small note to explain this situation? --Joshua ^{Say "hi" to me!}_{What have I done?} 11:19, 19 September 2007 (UTC)

Intra racial fights among ethnic Chinese in Malaysia (mostly about English Educated vs Chinese Educated issue)

(Removed content as per WP:FORUM)

This article has become a racist joke

This article has become little more than a reinforcement of popular myths and is highly patronising to many people around the globe as a result. In particular, this article:

1.Falsely implies that most Cantonese, Hainanese, Hokkien and Teochew peoples are of Chinese ethnicity. In fact nothing else can be further from the truth. In fact, their ancestors were the victims of one of the worst genocides in world history at the hands of various Chinese armies. Once subjugated, the existences of distinct Cantonese, Hainanese, Hokkien and Teochew ethnic identities (as opposed to 'regional' identities) were 'conveniently' forgotten by most people in the world (and tragically to this day). Thus from this point of view, the label of Han ethnicity was a brutal imposition upon the Cantonese, Hainanese, Hokkien and Teochew peoples against the wills of the said local peoples.

2.Fails to make any real distinctions between the concepts of ancestry and ethnicity whatsoever. There is more to ethnicity than simply being descended from a particular ancestor. Naturally, ethnic identities evolve and may even change over time (but not counting genocides). One could even argue that the concept of ancestry is nothing more than a political and social misconstruct since a recent scientific study has proven beyond reasonable doubt that all modern humans were descended from Africans.

The above points, in particular, MUST be taken seriously. Someone who is an expert on the subject matter of this article must edit this article IMMEDIATELY to remove the blatant biases in the article (including population figures).

Note: I would have attempted to correct some of the biases in the article, but owing to the fact that most of the required references are very difficult to obtain (and generally not found on the internet), I have called for an expert to fix the article instead.122.105.145.169 (talk) 10:56, 18 May 2008 (UTC)

Since no one has responded to the above concerns in a meaningful way, I have flagged the article as biased and inaccurate. 122.105.149.241 (talk) 12:09, 20 June 2008 (UTC)

You come in with no identity bar an IP address and expect folks to take you seriously? - Bob K 16:18, 20 June 2008 (UTC)

Curiously, most members of those Chinese armies spoke cantonese.99.244.189.70 (talk) 09:05, 21 January 2009 (UTC)

Only if one views Hong Kong serials as credible academic and historical sources :) - Bob K | Talk 13:27, 21 January 2009 (UTC)

If anyone is willing to see it they can find some indirect evidence at the Wikipedia article Yue (peoples) that the Chinese were responsible for some of the world's worst genocides directed against the Cantonese and Hokkien peoples. Of course, the Cantonese and Hokkien peoples were not annihilated; however, their native cultures were almost completely destroyed and they now have to suffer the indignity of being associated with the Chinese ethnicity on a regular basis just like how ethnic Egyptians and ethnic Lebanese today have to put up with being labeled 'Arab' on a regular basis. It is hard to believe that many people are simply unaware of the genocides I have just alluded to. Obviously, some of us need to have a long and hard look at some of the disgusting acts carried out against other peoples throughout world history by the genocidal Chinese.
Please note that the ancient Cantonese and Hokkien peoples did NOT speak a language from the Sino-Tibetan family; they spoke languages from a diverse range of other language families such as Hmong-Mien, Tai or Austronesian. Also note that genocides do not necessarily result in the extermination of targeted groups; what does happen, however, is that the cultures of the affected groups are severely damaged or even destroyed.
By the way, can user Bobk - or indeed any other user - prove that the aforementioned allegations (very serious) are false? If that happens, then this section can disappear into oblivion; otherwise, we will keep talking about the allegations until we reach consensus. 122.105.150.183 (talk) 05:28, 21 June 2008 (UTC)

Provide the write up by all means. Just make sure you include the proper citations and references as per WP:VER, which mentions among other things; The threshold for inclusion in Wikipedia is verifiability, not truth—that is, whether readers are able to check that material added to Wikipedia has already been published by a reliable source. Even if the references cannot be found on the internet, you can still cite the publications in which they're published in. Otherwise expect any edits of such nature to be reverted - Bob K 06:00, 21 June 2008 (UTC)

I believe the burden of proof lies with the IP and not us. This claim, really can't go under negative proof. To quote,

X is not proven simply because "not X" cannot be proven.

Chan Yin Keen | ^UT_C 07:59, 21 June 2008 (UTC)

Ethnicity is generally a construct anyway. I don't doubt that indigenous cultures were assimilated by the migration of a larger group of Han migrants. Even the Han themselves are an amalgation of different cultures. The fact remains that it really doesn't fit into this article and it is well documented elsewhere in Wikipedia (Han Chinese for example). We could dig back further and consider theories and hypotheses like the Recent single-origin hypothesis but that would defeat the whole point of this article .. which is to give an overview of Malaysian people who can trace immediate ancestry to relatively recent immigrants from China and their contemporary circumstances. - Bob K 08:35, 21 June 2008 (UTC)

Actually, the problem with the article is that parts of it may be considered offensive to some people, e.g. some people may find the label 'Chinese' offensive for the reasons I have described above. It is also unclear whether 'Malaysian Chinese' as used in the article is just a civic identity (which is somewhat acceptable) or whether it is also an ethnic label, which immediately leads to various issues such as whether we should speak of 'Malaysian Cantonese', 'Malaysian Hokkien' ethnic-wise etc etc and reserve the term 'Malaysian Chinese' to describe the civic identity only.

And by the way, everyone needs to be careful when dealing with terms such as 'assimilated', 'absorbed' and 'integrated'; these terms are often euphemisms that suggest something far more unpleasant.122.105.150.183 (talk) 09:44, 21 June 2008 (UTC)

Still waiting for proof that the Cantonese, Hokkien, Hainanese and Teochew aren't of Chinese ethnicity. Chan Yin Keen | ^UT_C 10:31, 21 June 2008 (UTC)

Hmm .. and terms like genocide and extermination are any less offensive? Anyway, my posit on this is straightforward. Your contributions will be retained IF it meets with the criterias of WP:OR and WP:VERIFY. Otherwise I'd view it as merely disruptive and plain vandalism. - Bob K 11:42, 21 June 2008 (UTC)

It would be virtually impossible to prove with certainty that the Cantonese, Hokkien, Hainanese and Teochew peoples are not of Chinese ethnicity; however, the converse is also virtually impossible to prove with certainty. The point being made is that there are strong arguments for avoiding the concept of 'Chinese ethnicity' where ever possible in an article like this one. Many people would say that it is more accurate to speak of Cantonese, Hokkien, Teo Chew or Hainannese ethnicities rather than trying to impose the label of Chinese ethnicity against these peoples (some of whom would strongly object). Indeed, in Taiwan, it is usual to speak of Hakka and Hoklo ethnicities; the label 'Han Chinese' is used as an ethnic label by Taiwanese officials to describe 'native Taiwanese' (a practice despised by many ordinary Taiwanese) only because not doing so is either against their political views or they are pressured into doing so in order to avoid potential military action from the PRC.

Perhaps it would be also be appropriate to emphasise the fact that 'Malaysian Chinese' is more of a civic identity rather than an ethnic one. 122.105.144.181 (talk) 11:54, 22 June 2008 (UTC)

By the way, if anyone want to see further indirect evidence of the fact that the ancestors of modern Cantonese peoples were subjugated, they can read Nam Viet. Note that contrary to what some seriously ignorant people believe, 'Viet' is NOT a synonym for 'Vietnamese'; so please don't try searching for 'Viet' and expect much information about Canotnese peoples as doing so will lead you to the wrong page. 122.105.144.181 (talk) 12:04, 22 June 2008 (UTC)

(outdent)So let me try and follow this. What you are saying is that people (not necessarily you or me), potentially find the notion offensive that the Cantonese, Hokkien etc are being implied as ethnically Chinese. The offense stems from the fact that many years ago, southern China wasn't part of China, and thus the people there don't identify as Chinese? Am I following right thus far?
From there I'd also like to point out that I'm still waiting for proof and references. Burden of proof lies with you on this because while we can say that we can't prove it either way, it seems quite established that the likes of the Cantonese, etc are Chinese. Now, I'm not saying that just because it seems established it is right. For all I know they're just lumped as Chinese because they, I don't know, happen to come out of a landmass that is known as present day China. The gist of what I'm trying to say is that what you ask for is to challenge the paradigm that the people in the area of south China are Chinese. This paradigm, as near as I can tell without actually doing any real research, is what you would call a theory. What you wish to do is upend the old theory with your theory that the Cantonese, Hainanese etc are not ethnic Chinese. Until substantial proof arises otherwise, I see no reason why there would be a paradigm shift. Personally, I'm waiting for you to dig this rabbit hole as I'm interested to know rather than refute. Chan Yin Keen | ^UT_C 13:01, 22 June 2008 (UTC)

Impossible to prove would make the hypotheses untenable and unverifiable. So it doesn't fit in Wikipedia. We have enough inter-ethnic issues here in Malaysia to deal with. I don't think we need to get bogged down by revisionist anthropology and history (not that revisionism is necessarily untrue) just to score points for the Pan-Green agenda. - Bob K 13:06, 22 June 2008 (UTC)

Could Bob K explain where he got the idea that someone here is trying to 'score points for the Pan-Green agenda' please? If he is referring to the pro-Taiwan independence agenda, then I have to say that I can not find any part of this talk page that is actually promoting it; there is only a small section that states the ROC government's official position regarding the Hoklo and Hakka people in Taiwan.

Also, when I raised the point about parts of the article being offensive to some people, I was actually talking about the distinction (or lack thereof in the article) between 'Malaysian Chinese' the civic identity and 'Malaysian Chinese' the ethnic identity. There is nothing wrong with the concept of the civic identity as put forth in the article; the problem is that the article makes it look as though that the ethnic identity actually exists as well when there are arguments against the existence of the later identity. I could direct you to two more sources that explicitly state that the Cantonese and many other peoples were forced into submission centuries ago (they are both listed together in Talk:Han Chinese, i.e. forced to identify themselves as part of an ethnic group that they despised; unfortunately, both of these sources are from the World United for Formosan Independence website, which would stir up many editors here. So I will not list them here.

By the way, does anyone know what is the predominant position (if any) of Malaysian Chinese (in the civic sense of course) with regard to whether Taiwan is part of China (in this context, 'China' does not have to mean either the PRC or ROC) and the ethnic identity of 'native Taiwanese'? I ask this because if the answers are 'yes' and 'most Taiwanese are Han Chinese' respectively (or variation thereof), then it says something about their attitudes towards notions of Chinese ethnicity (i.e. if they claim that native Taiwanese are ethnically Chinese, then they will invariably claim that Cantonese and Hokkien peoples are ethnically Chinese too). 122.109.121.8 (talk) 06:50, 23 June 2008 (UTC)

I have just edited the article so that its main body does not imply that Cantonese, Hokkien or other peoples within the Malaysian Chinese community are ethnically Chinese. If everyone agrees with this change, then the templates should be cleaned up in the same manner as well.

Some dubious statements have also been deleted (especially statements that are undecipherable due to poor grammar). 122.109.121.8 (talk) 07:16, 23 June 2008 (UTC)

At this point I believe if you're about to change the paradigm of what constitutes a Chinese ethnically, I suggest you do so at the relevant pages. The notion of these people not being ethnically Chinese on this page only arose when you raised the issue, I've yet to see any hard references explicitly saying they aren't ethnically Chinese, and trying to change the notion here to suit your view that they aren't ethnically Chinese without consensus will only bring us further into dispute. Hard verifiable reference or no go. Chan Yin Keen | ^UT_C 07:32, 23 June 2008 (UTC)

I was under the impression that when I edited the article that I actually avoided the concept of Chinese ethnicity altogether; I did not attempt to implicate a definition for the concept of Chinese ethnicity itself. I had simply altered the article so that 'Malaysian Chinese' is used in a civic sense only, some statements that lack citations no longer appear in the article, the clarity of some sentences are improved and the article uses the expressions 'Cantonese ethnicity', 'Hokkien ethnicity and so on in place of '...dialect' and the like. Note that the use of terms such as 'Cantonese ethnicity' does not imply that a particular people are not ethnically Chinese; it just simply reflects the fact that such a group (or sub-group) meets the criteria to be considered an ethnic group. In summary, I was trying the make the article more neutral by avoiding contentious issues whenever possible.

... or may be one of the transliterations in one of the template boxes already implies that 'Malaysian Chinese' are ethnic Chinese in which case we are stuck with it for good or for bad. Someone needs to check this.

Yes, I am well aware that the word 'Chinese' itself is subject to linguistic problems. For a real-world example of just how muddled things can become, one can investigate the two different interpretations of 'Chinese' in the term Chinese Taipei. 122.109.121.8 (talk) 11:02, 23 June 2008 (UTC)

...still waiting for information about the transliterations. I am quite sure that someone out there can tell everyone here precisely what they actually mean. 122.105.147.157 (talk) 23:33, 26 June 2008 (UTC)

The transliterations are generally self identification labels used by Chinese Malaysians and they imply a Chinese ethnicity. While the question of the viability of ethnicity as a unique identifier is still up for grabs, I believe it is safe to assume that the identification goes beyond civic identity but also a cultural one. The Malay labels are even more specific, identifying Chinese Malaysians as China People (a literal transliteration of Orang Cina). The alternative term Orang Tionghua used by some quarters, seeks to classify Chinese Malaysian as a cultural entity (ie. Zhonghua minzu) but it has not caught on in official or non-official usage whether among Chinese Malaysians or Malaysians of other distinguishable cultural identifies. - Bob K 00:06, 27 June 2008 (UTC)

.. Some references would be The Chinese in Malaysia (ISBN 9835600562), China and the Ethnic Chinese in Malaysia and Indonesia, 1949-1992 (ISBN 8170271967), Chinese Adaptation and Diversity: Essays on Society and Literature in Indonesia, Malaysia and Singapore' (ISBN 9971691868) and Histories, Cultures, Identities: Studies in Malaysian Chinese Worlds (ISBN 9971693127). - Bob K 00:11, 27 June 2008 (UTC)

• Please all of you, just stop feeding THIS Vietnamese troll here. He has been to Chinese separatist movement article and Nanyue artical calling Southern China part of Vietnam. What is this Fujianese is not Chinese BS? I'm Fujianese and i'm a proud Chinese so stop tell "Us" what to do and start listening to us that we are CHINESE!!--Lennlin (talk) 15:08, 2 May 2009 (UTC)

• Cantonese, Hakka, Hokkien are all Han Chinese. They migrated from the north and their migration was recorded in history books. They all have the same ancestors.

Stop feeding some trolls.

60.49.75.33 (talk) 14:26, 3 November 2015 (UTC)

Chinese

Just a bit of researches of the word CHINESE. The word Chinese derived from Chin which was the name of Chin Dynasty (modern People's Republic of China's pinyin: Qin Dynasty)

Qin (modern pinyin) or Chin (Wade-Giles) (778 BC-207 BC), the unification of China in 221 BC under the First Emperor Qin Shi Huang (Wade-Giles: Chin Shih Huang) marked the beginning of Imperial China.....

Read carefully the Wade-Giles pronunciation of Chin, is Cheen, not Tchai. This Chin emperor united/conquered 7 states, the southern Yue state was conquered by Chin, and thus they were assimilated by the Chin and thus they became known as Chinese.

The word Chin was first introduced to the ancient Indian, Persian and Roman traders, such as: Cina, Zhina, Shina, etc.

Parameswara himself visited Cina 2-3 times and he brought back the yellow regalia stuffs, thus the name Orang Cina appeared in Malaya.

Teoh SK 60.48.230.117 (talk) 03:53, 25 August 2008 (UTC)

This discourse on the word chinese is interesting, but probably better off elsewhere. Chinese People, Zhonghua Minzu or something. Probably not here though.Chan Yin Keen | ^UT_C 15:03, 25 August 2008 (UTC)

My reverts regarding "Victims of inherently undemocratic restrictions"

As I understand, an IP believes I'm out to make a point while disrupting this article. I've been meaning to discuss the revert but it's a different IP everytime so let's just get down to the gist of it. It looks like I'm moving the goalposts a bit but the whole section isn't just reverted because it's got no citation. I didn't want to go and write a whole paragraph on the edit summary so I just tossed up ONE reason for why the section shouldn't be there. Anyway, the issues;
1. The citation. Can we at least properly put it down to the right page of the book? My apologies, you did your work.
2. WP:WEIGHT. It feels like not all POVs are being represented.
3. Tone.

The gist of what I'm trying to say here is, I have no inherent issues against it. What I do not agree with is how the section is presented in a sensationalist fashion over a plight that some of the minority written about in that book isn't even aware of. I'm sure what you want to put into the article has a place somewhere, I'm just not sure it's deserving of a place in it's current state until it comes off a little more NPOV. Feel free to disagree. Chan Yin Keen | ^UT_C 13:21, 26 August 2008 (UTC)

关于马来西亚华人、中华文化的讨论

被专制的白种蛮夷亚当子孙基督迷信邪教徒（维基百科管理员）删除的内容

关于马来西亚华人的信仰

马来西亚华人主要信华夏传统信仰、道教、佛教吧？以及无神论、无信仰吧？。只有少数是基督教、回教乃至其它各种教之类的吧？ -Dicting (留言) 2008年9月18日 (四) 10:18 (UTC)

以我的感觉，改信了基督教、伊斯兰教之类的华人，是不是背叛华族？或者是在极端艰难的社会生存环境下的被迫选择？ -Dicting (留言) 2008年9月18日 (四) 16:58 (UTC)

• {{回应}}： 我说尤其改信了基督教、伊斯兰教之类的华人，是有背叛华族的，原因是他们已经完全百分百的相信伊拉克的伊甸园是他们的根，而不是炎黄华夏文化发源地，可是，在马国，这是敏感课题，我看就算你有可靠来源，写得再好，也是会被人删除掉的。至于“无神论、无信仰”在马来西亚是违反马国的【国家五大法则】（Rukunegara）[7]，我在这里大概翻译给你看：
• 第一条： KEPERCAYAAN KEPADA TUHAN （信奉安拉神）
• 第一条： KESETIAAN KEPADA RAJA DAN NEGARA （忠于君主）

基本上，马国人是不敢公开大声说：“我不信神，我无神论、我无信仰”。那些信神的人们认为“不信神，无神论、无信仰”比任何一切的坏人更坏。 阿华仔 (留言) 2008年9月19日 (五) 04:55 (UTC)

这一点完全赞同你。不过，你所说的“信神的人们认为“不信神，无神论、无信仰”比任何一切的坏人更坏”，应该是指的是信犹太系统的一神教神的人。信玉皇大帝、土地神这些神的人不会。不过，在我看来，在很大程度上，信犹太系统的一神教神的人比任何一切的坏人更坏，因为他们终极的最高的标准不是仁爱、正义和真理，而是是否信他的神，他们主要关注的是是否排他性地效忠于他们的主和门派，而不是普世的理性的全人类都能接受的思想价值观。但是，信玉皇大帝信城隍观音菩萨信关帝等等这些神的人不会。至于无神论者、自然神论者，更不会。而且，按照民族的标准，如果华人信了伊斯兰教，应该就不再是华族人了，而是回族人了；华人信了基督教，应该就不再是华族人了，而是基族人了。有人说这是混淆民族和宗教，其实完全不是，因为文化认同发生了根本性的改变。就如同印度民族（比如印度斯坦人）不信印度教了，改信伊斯兰教，你还能说他是印度斯坦民族的人吗？显然不是。而是穆斯林民族。巴基斯坦（以及孟加拉）从印度分裂出去，其实就是巴基斯坦人被叛印度斯坦民族改信伊斯兰教的结果。如果一个华人信佛教，没有人会说他不是华人，因为佛教并不会让一个人产生这样的改变，道教也一样，外族人信了也不一定会背叛他的民族。华人就应该信中华宗教信仰，或者是无神论等等，信犹太系统一神教的很显然不应该被认为是华人，只能说是有华裔血统的人。 -Dicting (留言) 2008年9月19日 (五) 05:11 (UTC)

• {{回应}}：哈哈，小心得罪“神的孩子”。其实根据历史，犹太教，基督教、伊斯兰教，三教都是 亞伯拉罕諸教 “Abrahamic Religion”，都是源自同一个古犹太教。阿华仔 (留言) 2008年9月19日 (五) 05:26 (UTC)
  • 我才是神的孩子呀，龙的传人，龙神的孩子。 -Dicting (留言) 2008年9月19日 (五) 05:29 (UTC)

极端艰难的社会生存环境下的被迫选择？ 是的，有很多当年穷，为了吃饭，就投靠教会了。阿华仔 (留言) 2008年9月19日 (五) 05:39 (UTC)

除了穷，更大原因是迫害！犹太系统一神教都是拉帮结派的宗教，他们有他们的组织，又极端排外，往往又很残忍、血腥（看看他们的教义、他们的历史）。所以华人往往遭受歧视、迫害。华人虽然有道教、佛教系统，但并不是拉帮结派组织，而且主张无为、慈悲的宗教，很难对抗残忍的具有严密组织的犹太一神教。华人虽然有宗族组织，但是太分散，各有各的宗族，又没有统一的炎黄教或者轩辕教，可以完整地凝聚起来互帮互助整体行动。 -Dicting (留言) 2008年9月19日 (五) 05:43 (UTC)

在马来西亚，除了穆斯林受回教法律限制而不能轻易改教之外，其它族群都有信仰任何宗教的自由。大马的华裔除了传统民间信仰、道教、佛教之外，也有不少天主教、基督教等等，当然也有回教。马来西亚也有少数的回族、维吾尔族华人。马来西亚华人的信仰是多元的，没有人有权规定华人的信仰必须是什么。此外，除了回教被定为国教外，马来西亚法律并没有注明或定义其他宗教信仰必须是什么。因此，即使信仰无神论等等，也是没有法律限制的。——白布 (留言) 2008年9月19日 (五) 07:57 (UTC)

我们中国应该如何帮助马来西亚华人

刚才看了前面的讨论，看到一段：

---

中国解决了台湾的问题后就会来救我们（指救马来西亚华人）

• 这群马来西亚的“华社老人”专门利用“民族情绪”来欺骗年轻华人，他们对付年轻人的方法都是一样的，一句：“中国解决了台湾的问题后就会来救我们”，“老的”最厉害就是这一招。年轻人要是不服从，“老的”就会使出另一招 “你知不知道什么是汉奸！？ ”等等。尽管中国方面已经表明了立场“华裔不是中国人，中国政府也不会关心海外华裔的一切事情”，“老的”还是坚持要继续欺骗年轻华人，他们坚持不要学好当地的语言，坚持要利用“民族情绪”来巩固他们的“华社”地位。很多外国人也会受骗，“老的”一看见中国或是台湾人就马上扑上去，先来一句“民族情绪”的“大家都是中国人”，这群第一次出门的中国人就这样被他们的“大家都是中国人”骗到手了。转过头马上就在背后说“他们中国人到处吐口水，哎呀！”。试试看叫“老的”搬去中国住，你马上就可以看穿他们的底牌了，那张底牌就是美国护照或澳大利亚公民。外国人，别受骗啦！“老的”专门利用“民族情绪”来欺骗年轻华人，为了他们自己的利益。阿华仔 (留言) 2008年4月15日 (二) 10:28 (UTC)

---

我觉得历来海外华人对祖国（祖先之国）帮助很大，而我们中国政府对海外华人同胞做得却很少，对不起他们，特别是老一代的华侨。

中国过去受制于马列主义意识形态，政府的专制连本国人民的权益都不能保障，再加上比较实力弱，基本没有考虑在海外的华人同胞的权益。将来恢复中国，强大以后，应该如何帮助海外华人？像马来西亚华人等等？我觉得最起码要敦促这些国家取消歧视政策，实现公民平等、自由权利吧？还有，帮助当地土著变得文明起来，不要那么野蛮，动不动就是骂啊威胁啊打啊杀的。如果是那样，只能采取对待野蛮人的办法。 Dicting (留言) 2008年9月18日 (四) 10:28 (UTC)

• {{回应}}：实不相瞒，从我7岁懂事开始，我就跟随我父亲到乡团、姓氏会馆、机械公会等等华人团体跑。我的中学老师是国民党军官（内战失败逃来马来西亚），上华文课等于听中国历史。在这么多场合，我从来没听过有马来西亚华人，甚至是中国来的华人曾经说过“会等中国来救我们”。关于这句“会等中国来救我们”根本是毫无根据的说法。阿华仔的言论，只有两种可能性：1）他是懂得利用中文的马来人，因为只有马来人才会叫一个华人“回中国”。2）就算他不是马来人，他可能只是拥有华人血统的马来西亚人。除了对中文和一些中文娱乐之类的东西有兴趣之外，他根本不懂马来西亚华人和华裔的分别，他允许他人抹掉马来西亚华人的历史，提倡利用违反人权的内安法令，这种人是不需要自称本身为马来西亚华人，他只是马来西亚人。--Ongss (留言) 2008年9月18日 (四) 15:52 (UTC)

• {{回应}}：丁学良博士老早已经揭穿你们这群“假中华文化华人”的底啦，你（白布的傀儡）继续“假”吧， 哈哈哈。

还有，你的国民党军官要等中共来救的理论太可笑了吧？ 看来你很幼稚，我们通常对付幼稚的人就是直接揭穿他的底。其实，这位Ongss是巫统派来当卧底的“网络监察人员”，他们是属于公务人员领取月薪的一族，他当然是马来人，他也是日本人后裔，因为他的名字“白布飘扬”就是典型日本人的名字，很大可能性他的上一代在日本侵略马来亚的那段期间生下了他。巫统的人最拿手玩弄种族政治，派了一位懂得中文的卧底来删除我们编写的一切真相，同时又挑起种族歧视言论来让各界议论纷纷，让某族群仇视某族群，而趁机鱼翁得利。Ongss确实是一位巫统卧底，也当然是白布的傀儡，他提倡违反人权和违反言论自由，一再地把我们所写的真相删除掉，至今，被他删除的文章包括 《回到馬來亞：華馬小說七十年》所提到的“华裔馬華文學、华裔馬英文學、华裔馬來文學，这三个语言不相同的华人老死不相往來”，华文教师欧宗敏写的《那一群华人》，还有很多，很多，就连华人取洋名，英文教育，中国情意结，这些都是有可靠来源的文章，都一一被他删除了，这已经足够证明他提倡违反人权和违反言论自由的人了。他根本不懂马来西亚华人和华裔的分别，他允许他人抹掉马来西亚华人的历史，这种人是不需要自称本身为马来西亚华人，因为他是日本人后裔和马来人混杂的人种。这，就是写给你这种幼稚的人读的。 阿华仔 (留言) 2008年9月18日 (四) 16:29 (UTC)

你们为什么会有分歧？都是华人吗？我倒觉得，海外华人，不管入了哪一国的国籍，如果整个群体受到这个国家的歧视对待或者欺负的时候，期待中国来就帮助他们、救他们是非常正常的心理。同为炎黄子孙，中国在这方面的确应该有责任。只不过过去中国一直自保都困难，后来又有内乱，这二三十年才比较快地发展。 Dicting (留言) 2008年9月18日 (四) 16:53 (UTC)

我看过不少南洋华侨的故事。许许多多老一辈华人的故事、精神，让我非常感动。总感觉生活在外族人以伊斯兰教为主的马来、印尼的华人，以及外族人以基督教为主的菲律宾的华人，尤其是前者，相当的不容易。不知道你们是不是有一种受压抑的感觉？ -Dicting (留言) 2008年9月18日 (四) 17:03 (UTC)

• {{回应}}：Dicting 您好，是中国公民吗？你是好奇，学者，中共派来的? 因为我们还没有看见你在维基百科的贡献呢？总之，欢迎参与讨论。阿华仔 (留言) 2008年9月18日 (四) 18:14 (UTC)

国民党军官要等中共来救

太无聊了吧，还有什么国民党军官要等中共来救 什么什么的，太好笑了。你自己先玩个够吧，我过几天才陪你玩，bye bye。阿华仔 (留言) 2008年9月18日 (四) 19:45 (UTC)

这可笑吗？不要坐井观天。注意，这些年来中共正在逐步抛弃马列共产主义意识形态。恢复中国的时间不会太久。现在国共不是已经又开始合作了吗？ -Dicting (留言) 2008年9月18日 (四) 20:02 (UTC)

这当然可笑啊。请问你，马国人对“这些年来中共正在逐步抛弃马列共产主义意识形态。恢复中国的时间不会太久”了解有几多呢？ 我们马国人了解的是马国的政治，我们现在关心的是【９１６】，你有兴趣吗？　 阿华仔 (留言) 2008年9月19日 (五) 01:47 (UTC)

你可以不了解中国发生了什么。在需要的时候，我会了解马来西亚发生了什么。 -Dicting (留言) 2008年9月19日 (五) 04:36 (UTC)

• {{回应}}： 你当然可以多多了解马来西亚，很欢迎。我们也会要多多了解中国。

还有，你所发问的一些问题其实是敏感的课题，几乎大大小小的事情对于马国人都可以是敏感课题。

• 将来恢复中国，强大以后，应该如何帮助海外华人？ 马国华人是必须要时常把“我爱大马，大马时我的国家，我效忠于大马”告诉自己也告诉别人，一般相信，只有这样才能够让马国政府相信“华人不是寄居者”。你可以参看 User:Ongss的用户页面，他写：“爱护中华文化但不代表支持或效忠中华人民共和国”

阿华仔 (留言) 2008年9月19日 (五) 05:16 (UTC)

• • 我觉得马来西亚华人效忠马来西亚、效忠马来西亚高过效忠祖国（祖先之国）中国，是完全应该的，可以接受的，前提是马来西亚必须真正成为马来西亚华人的祖国（出生之国、家园之国），一视同仁的接纳、对待、爱护马来西亚华人（如果该国歧视华人，华人显然应该效忠中国高于其所在地国）。同时，海外华人对中国（指不含意识形态的中国，有了意识形态就会有歧视迫害，就会有分裂，我最反感意识形态）友好以及有一定的忠诚度，是非常正常的，是人都应该这样，是人都应该对自己的祖先之国有一定的好感和忠诚度，是人都可以接受这一点，不应该以此作为歧视的理由。 -Dicting (留言) 2008年9月19日 (五) 05:34 (UTC)
  • 我会对马来西亚感兴趣。最大的原因是因为那里有华人，以及很多值得尊敬、怀念的前辈（虽然我没有一个亲戚在海外，我的家乡远离大海）。我对那些信了犹太一神教的土著没什么兴趣，当然我可能对没有被犹太一神教污染过的土著原始文化感兴趣。 -Dicting (留言) 2008年9月19日 (五) 05:47 (UTC)

• {{回应}}：这（华人有分支）有很大可能要研究海外华人移民历史。马国有早期土生华人和后期华人。前者母语是五四运动普通话未通用之前的“半同化华人”，他们接受早期明朝的方言当母语，由于当年的皇帝没有能力保护海外华人，而后又受到英国政府的宠爱（大约160年之久），造成他们效忠英国，轻视后来华人，英国政府至今还仍然承认他们为“女王的华人”（Ｑueen's Chinese），今天的“女王的华人”有大量定居在英国。后者，1900年到来，他们直接接受民国思想和教育，两者在思想上有巨大差别，语言方面也不能很完全的沟通，所谓【华裔馬華文學、华裔馬英文學、华裔馬來文學，这三个语言不相同的华人老死不相往來】。

阿华仔 (留言) 2008年9月19日 (五) 06:12 (UTC)

• • 原来是如此。我主要看的是早期的华人。可惜了满清时代以后中国衰落了。否则现在的国际秩序不知道会是什么样，很可能马来西亚是中国的藩属国，或者英国成为中国的藩属国也是可能的。将来中国复兴起来以后，国际秩序会是怎么样，现在很难想象。但是我相信东南亚会是中国的势力范围。（除了菲律宾因为信基督教现在成为了美国的附属国外） -Dicting (留言) 2008年9月19日 (五) 06:19 (UTC)
  • 华裔馬華文學现在怎么样，是否在华裔文學中占主流？华裔馬英文學、华裔馬來文學有多少中国文化的元素，中国文化的程度如何？ -Dicting (留言) 2008年9月19日 (五) 06:22 (UTC)

华文仍然还是没能够被马国政府承认为官方语言，所以情况还是没有差别。　阿华仔 (留言) 2008年9月19日 (五) 06:26 (UTC)

我是大陆人。如果国民党军官及其后代在马来西亚受欺负，我就非常希望去帮助他们。现在缅甸的果敢人，有的是明朝官员、军队以及平民的后裔，有的是国民党军队后裔，现在和大陆关系很好。真正的国民党，是爱民族、爱同胞的人；真正的共产党，就像基督徒，某种意义上都是犹太教的产物，他们都是撕碎家庭、民族、国家的人（同时往往被独裁者愚弄、压榨、奴役，如党组织、教会）（马列共产主义是基督教的产物，见Oswald Spengler的著作）。不过，因为大陆曾经是共产主义国家的缘故，不少海外华人出于华族的根本原因而倾向支持共产主义，也是可以理解的，就像果敢人曾经通过果敢共产党求生存一样。但是，当政治意识形态时代结束以后，应该立即转变思维，不要忘记根本。我们的根本在于中华文化。而共产主义和基督教、伊斯兰教一样，本质上是专制的、摧毁自由、摧毁民族文化、摧毁多样性的。 -Dicting (留言) 2008年9月19日 (五) 06:34 (UTC)

• {{回应}}：我们来做个假设，我先反问回你，你现在是马国公民身份，身在马国，土生土长的你身边同事，上师，朋友，邻居，同学，顾客，等等都不是华人，你的沟通语言也不是华语，你在这种环境长大，你也没有很多华文书可选择，你会如何呢？ 阿华仔 (留言) 2008年9月19日 (五) 07:27 (UTC)
  • 摧毁一个民族就摧毁其民族的历史、其民族的书。这是伊斯兰教、基督教干的事情，伊斯兰教用犹太民族加上少许阿拉伯民族的历史文化，基督教用犹太民族的历史文化，来强奸其他民族，使其成为穆斯林民族、基督教民族。极端的，如果没有华文的书，没有接触华夏文化思想，我觉得也不可能认为自己是华人，顶多认为自己是黄种人。如果我知道我的祖先是华人，我有华夏文化意识（应该是通过家庭传承培养起来的），那么在周边大环境是这样的情况下，我会适应当地环境，学习当地的语言以求生存发展，同时保持自己的华夏信仰，学习中华语言文化，至少在我的家庭族人中间，在我的私生活里，在我的心灵深处，我可以用华语，一代一代传承。-Dicting (留言) 2008年9月19日 (五) 07:39 (UTC)
  • 像马来西亚华人的比例这么高，完全可以把中华文化在马来西亚发扬光大。如果马来西亚来连华人的文化信仰都不尊重，那我为何要效忠马来西亚？ Dicting (留言) 2008年9月19日 (五) 07:42 (UTC)
  • 至少现在开始，慢慢应该对海外华人有利。第一是中国的复兴，无论是经贸上，科技上，都会带动汉语的国际地位会逐步提高。第二，中国的政治和军事力量的复兴，加上脱离马列共产主义恢复中华文化本位（其实现在大陆的共产党正在变成过去的国民党乃至青年党），在武力上，将会阻止一些无赖国家对华人的歧视、迫害，帮助华人赢得平等地位、自由权利。 -Dicting (留言) 2008年9月19日 (五) 07:47 (UTC)

• {{回应}}：马国多数华人现在就是大概如你所说的方法生存。至于你所说的要发扬光大某文化，首先是先要有 -- 语言国家和国际地位。而要获得语言国家和国际地位，的确很不容易，这需要靠极强大的国家和国际势力，那就要看中国了。马国华人一般上能往西方发达国家跑的，几乎都跑了。阿华仔 (留言) 2008年9月19日 (五) 08:00 (UTC)

其实无论国民政府也好，明朝也好，为什么不保护海外华人？因为当时国家实力弱，明朝虽然实力强，但是一度没有制海权，沿海也曾长期遭受“倭寇”侵扰，所以根本无力保护海外华人。但是，当郑和的时代，海军世界第一，不会保护吗？明朝的郑成功在台湾，有能力也会保护南洋的华人。这里面有很多历史，体现真正的中国传统，可以研究一下。至于清朝，比较复杂，一则弱得被西方任意欺凌，二则满清带有种族统治的性质，满清皇帝是否会真正关怀海外汉人族群的利益，很难说。海外华人要了解真正中国政府的传统，中共和清朝都不要去考虑，主要研究明朝、民国政府。 -Dicting (留言) 2008年9月19日 (五) 08:07 (UTC)

• {{回应}}： 还有，马国人由于有必要天天练习至少三种语言 （马来语，英语，华语，福建话，广东话，等等）为了找两口饭吃，很多华人其实，白天工作辛苦，晚上回家还能够超出时间来自修语言的人几乎太少了，这也造成语言表达能力差，而一旦有语言表达能力差的问题出现，要发扬光大某文化就会更难。阿华仔 (留言) 2008年9月19日 (五) 08:12 (UTC)
  • 其实也不用着急。关键在于中国的发展。如果中国的经济实力稳步上升，到某一天，我相信不仅是海外的华人，就是那些马来西亚土著为了混口更好吃的饭，可能也要不得不学习中文。儒家文化的人群，只要有自由的私有制市场经济环境，基本人没有不在经济上大发展的。中国已经吃够了意识形态的苦，相信民富国强、理性思维，将会是未来的主流，因此中国会有一个好的发展环境，会发展起来。这个我比较乐观。 -Dicting (留言) 2008年9月19日 (五) 08:19 (UTC)

：所以就有华人干脆把孩子送到英文学校让他长大后可以进入国际大公司，而选择在家里自己教自己孩子华文。阿华仔 (留言) 2008年9月19日 (五) 08:17 (UTC)

• • 这可以理解。大陆也一样。国际大公司普遍薪水高，所以现在大陆人也是很早就让小孩学英语，而共产党政府更是强迫中国人在学生时代（很多从小学三年级开始）学习英语。官民都是这样（读一读颜氏家训，感觉这个时代的这些人挺可悲的，像北朝种族统治下的某些汉人，以胡语为荣，甚至鄙视华语。不过，天下熙熙，皆为利来，可以理解）。 但是，大陆的民族企业也在稳步成长，有的已经逐渐成为跨国公司，而现在要求政府取消英语作为必修课的呼声越来越高，更出现了要求恢复正体字的声音。一个语言的地位，取决于这个语言所在的人口的购买力以及工业科技上的创造力。这些方面，中国都在稳步地成长。而且，政府回归中华本位，将来也会变得理性，包括民众也是。可以看一下民国时代，当时学术界，其实已经有一些科学方面的中文学术杂志，越来越有很多学术水平很高的论文。而现在大陆的学术界，主流上还是洋奴思维，可以说在自然科学方面（社会科学在这种体制环境下就不要指望了）没有一本真正有一定国际水准的中文学术期刊（当然，这和中国仍处在抄袭、模仿发达国家的科技工业的工业化起步阶段有关），和民国时期的趋势完全不能比。这种情况，总会改变的。比如，日本就有不少高水平的自然科技方面的日语学术刊物。中国迟早也会这样，当然我觉得以中国的人口日本的能量应该只能相当于中国的一个大省 -Dicting (留言) 2008年9月19日 (五) 08:31 (UTC)

今天就谈到此啦，谢谢，拜拜，下次再谈。阿华仔 (留言) 2008年9月19日 (五) 08:25 (UTC)

非常高兴，下次再谈。 -Dicting (留言) 2008年9月19日 (五) 08:32 (UTC)

::English, do you speak it? - 60.49.104.219 (talk) 09:28, 28 March 2009 (UTC)

• @ anonymous IP editor, please don't be condescending towards other editors here on WP, thank you. --Dave ^{♠♣♥♦1185♪♫™} 21:31, 8 July 2010 (UTC)
  • @♠♣♥♦1185♪♫™, please don't miss the point and encourage long sections of Chinese-language discourse in the talk pages of the English wiki. The editors above absolutely should have translated their discussion or removed it elsewhere. — LlywelynII 06:55, 4 April 2012 (UTC)

Untitled comment by User:128.135.36.161

Why isn't there a page on race relations in Malaysia? It would seem that with such great documentation of the each of the races, there should be an informative page regarding relationships among the different races. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 128.135.36.161 (talk) 02:33, 18 March 2009 (UTC)

One particular explanation to this is perhaps that M'sians are generally lazy SOBs who have poor proficiency of English and no initiative to write anything (if copypastas, Akademi Fantasia contestants, greasy food, shitty local cars or underbones are not taken into consideration). To put it simply, they are utterly useless as far as wiki editing is concerned. - 60.49.104.219 (talk) 09:37, 28 March 2009 (UTC)

Lack of integration

The article should explain why after so many years of living among local population of the Malays the Chinese didn't and are not integrated or assimiliated and prefer to keep their chinese traditions and language. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 115.129.21.2 (talk) 06:08, 25 April 2009 (UTC)

1971 National Culture Policy?

Can anyone explain more about the 1971 National Culture Policy? I thought that the policy was rejected at some point of time. Besides, if that was not the case, how come the Malaysian Government promotes all cultures (Malay, Indian, Chinese, Malaysian Borneo Indigenous) as a Malaysian identity? The article lacks information whether the policy is enforced and how it affects (or affected) the ethnic Chinese culture and community.

And I do agree with the comment stating that more explanation is needed as to why the Chinese community do not integrate with the local Malay community (and some do not even speak Malay well or are unwilling to speak the language.) Is it the same reason as to why the local Chinese do not marry inter-racially? (cultural, religious reasons?) —Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.69.0.91 (talk) 09:22, 21 May 2009 (UTC)

That would be my question too. How does the IMHO discredited National Culture Policy play a role in the organic development of Sino-Malaysian culture, which to my knowledge is not regulated by any body, statutory or voluntary. - Bob K | Talk 16:01, 26 April 2010 (UTC)

New Coherent Organisation

The sections are reorganised for more logical organisation and easier flow of reading. Some topics are merged to eliminate redundancy eg. history and ancestral origin sections. The language section is edited for conciseness and organised by dialect dominancy, some people may not be interested in the history (ancestral origin) section but do want to know what dialects are currently spoken by the Chinese in different regions.

There is a new section on Malay (BM)-educated as you cannot call yourself 'English educated' if you have only one subject taught in English and the rest in BM.

—Preceding unsigned comment added by 202.73.10.66 (talk) 02:38, 17 October 2010 (UTC) 

--202.73.10.66 (talk) 16:49, 18 November 2010 (UTC)

Malaysian chinese name format

A new section of the various diversity of Malaysian Chinese names is included. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 202.73.10.66 (talk) 04:52, 16 November 2010 (UTC) --202.73.10.66 (talk) 16:50, 18 November 2010 (UTC)

Food section

Food section is reorganised to show more relevant and important information such as origin of cuisines. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 61.4.125.88 (talk) 16:49, 4 January 2011 (UTC)

Some Clarification Re: Medium of Instruction in Schools

Until 1982 (way after Independence), there were up to 4 types of public schools in the primary level and 2 types in the secondary level divided by medium of instruction (Malay, English, Chinese and Tamil). In 1974, English language public schools were phased out on a year to year basis and this process was completed in 1982 when the last Upper Six classes were conducted in English for that academic session. This is quite well documented. The way the current section is written assumes that English medium schools ceased to exist post-Independence and does not acknowledge the existence of a sizable percentage (albeit dwindling) of Malaysian Chinese that speak English either as a first or second language. - Bob K | Talk 15:37, 20 March 2011 (UTC)

Firstly, no Chinese or insignificant go to Tamil schools so that can be ruled out as 'Tamil educated'.

Secondly, 1969 was indeed the last batch of English medium for standard one kids until form six. It will take 11 years for this last batch to complete their MCE education. 1969 + 11 = 1980. In 1982, both English and Malay medium was done in parallel, the last batch was at form six. But std one upto form five were all educated in Malay.

Speaking English as a first language doesn't qualify you as a fluent speaker. There are many broken English spoken in Malaysia for these 'first language speakers'. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 60.49.75.33 (talk) 14:37, 3 November 2015 (UTC)

60.49.75.33 (talk) 14:40, 3 November 2015 (UTC)

Population number is incorrect.

I'm looking at the chinese population table "By state & territory". These numbers do not look anywhere close to correct.

For example, it says 46.5% of Penang population is Chinese, but the population number is only 44,323. The entire Penang population is 1,520,143, so the correct population should be 706,866. I agree there may be difference between 2000 population census and 2010 total population number, but the difference should not be out by 1600%! Somebody should go back to the reference material and re-check the number. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Hiaw c (talk • contribs) 13:21, 23 December 2011 (UTC)

Sources are bad

There are links to the Malaysian census and some Indian woman's conference paper labelled as being from the US Department of State. Further, the cited paper does not support the 24.6% number, although the Malaysian census data does. Someone probably needs to go through and check the other refs to make sure they haven't all been tampered with. — LlywelynII 06:53, 4 April 2012 (UTC)

The malaysian census is more accurate so 24.6% is correct. It used to be much larger at nearly 50% during independence.

118.101.201.147 (talk) 11:13, 30 June 2012 (UTC)

Pages missing

Several important info were moved into separate pages but they were mysteriously deleted. Please move them back into main page if they cannot be separated. They are important info. (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by 124.82.59.80 (talk)

What info? CMD (talk) 22:24, 20 May 2012 (UTC)

Malaysian chinese languages and list of malaysian chinese communities (demographics) were both moved to separate pages. However, these pages were deleted by somebody. So I suggest they be moved back to main page. They contain important info for people to understand malaysian chinese. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 124.82.59.80 (talk) 09:38, 24 May 2012 (UTC)

I've readded a lot of information. The pages were deleted as they were made by a banned user, but unfortunately that users edits were not rolled back here. Is that all that was missing? CMD (talk) 10:11, 24 May 2012 (UTC)

Thanks for adding the info back. It should be complete. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 124.82.59.80 (talk) 09:33, 26 May 2012 (UTC)

Teochew lingua franca in penang mainland ?

As far as I know the predominant language used in seberang prai and bukit mertajam should be penang hokkien and not teochew.

Can any natives staying in these two areas verify which is the predominant ie. most people use the language to communicate with strangers (not friends).

I stayed there for a year but didn't hear anybody use teochew in pasar malam to talk to strangers. But I am not a native there.

118.101.201.147 (talk) 11:09, 30 June 2012 (UTC)

History section

Really, Tom? The least you could do is tag the copyvio so someone would notice the problem and rewrite everything. Since you hollowed out the section with any substance all that was put in place was some poorly-written college writing, probably by some local college student, that constantly repeats facts and is completely unsalvageable. If this is the current trend of Wikipedia, its editors have completely failed. - 175.139.153.1 (talk) 12:07, 1 November 2013 (UTC)

If you want lot more details of each wave, you should add into another wiki page as you can write so much more.

eg. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Chinese_emigration

added by 175.140.91.60 (talk) 07:41, 2 November 2013 (UTC)

Civil war under British wave

For the person who wrote the civil war in China under the British wave, could you create another wiki page as it is too long and not everyone wants to read it. What some of us need are the summary of the four waves.

If you want more details of each wave, that should be another page. Eg. a baba/nyonya page exist separately.

Or add it onto this page on Chinese emigration. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Chinese_emigration

— Preceding unsigned comment added by 175.140.91.60 (talk) 07:41, 2 November 2013 (UTC) 

photo of famous malaysians

can somebody replace those photos with more famous malaysians known internationally like lim goh tong (genting highland founder), wu qi xian (singer, songwriter) — Preceding unsigned comment added by 118.172.30.249 (talk) 14:58, 13 February 2014 (UTC)

Fix the "Economics" & "Taxation" sections

"Chinese Malaysians also contribute almost 90 percent of the country's income tax?" You can't be serious, right? Do not forget those with mix-blood ancestry (Brit, Dutch, Portugal "leftovers"). There are about 8.8% of other ethnicities. The figure is skewed, simply because the Malays, Muslims, Orang Asli (with Islam religion) have a different taxation system called zakat. Why no mention of that? And most of the cites are MISLEADING and UNRELATED. These sections need major updating.

https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Malaysian_Chinese&diff=615765302&oldid=615001124 — Preceding unsigned comment added by Jing345 (talk • contribs) 23:42, 4 April 2015 (UTC)

Religion

Please note that a lot of people don't know that na tuk gong, maoshan, hu xian are all grouped under Taoism. na tuk gong is just the local Malay name for what the Chinese in China called 'tu ti gong' 土地公.

There is no clear cut lines between Taoism, Maoshan, hu xian, Buddhism. All of them incorporates elements from each other. For example, you can also see Kuan Yin which is a Buddhist deity in Taoist temples. Taoism just mean Chinese folk religions in a broader sense.

Whereas, Chinese Buddhism incorporates both Buddhism and Taoism which includes incense burning, dead ancestors respect and Taoist deities. Taoist deities don't contradict Buddhism because Buddhist believe in many deities. They are called 'devas' and reside in the heavens.

1.32.71.5 (talk) 00:59, 4 August 2015 (UTC)

Requested move 15 October 2015

The following is a closed discussion of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. Editors desiring to contest the closing decision should consider a move review. No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the move request was: Not moved due to lack of support. Tiggerjay (talk) 19:26, 22 October 2015 (UTC) Tiggerjay (talk) 19:26, 22 October 2015 (UTC)

---

(non-admin closure)

Malaysian Chinese → Chinese people in Malaysia – If we use Chinese people in Italy, Chinese people in the Netherlands, Chinese people in Germany and many more similar articles as standard naming article, what is your opinion? Alexander Iskandar (talk) 11:25, 15 October 2015 (UTC)

• Comment Chinese American, Chinese Canadian, British Chinese, etc. We use the form currently used in the title for English speaking countries. And Malaysia is nominally one of those as it uses Malaysian English; as the ordering depends on the dialect, that is why English speaking countries use endemic names, while non-English countries use COMMONALITY names, due to the differences in ordering. -- 70.51.44.60 (talk) 05:13, 16 October 2015 (UTC)

• Oppose The Malaysian Chinese community is a very long-established community in Malaysia. I know a lot of Malaysian Chinese people and they all identify themselves as that. I would further second the above argument in favour of the current title. 122.1.52.125 (talk) 05:33, 16 October 2015 (UTC)

• Comment
  • Malaysian Chinese = Malaysian-born stay in China, "Malaysian-citizen" stay in China.. Chinese people(citizen or non-citizen) of full or partial Malaysian descent. Malaysia is their homeland. They are of Malaysian diaspora regardless of their ethnicities
  • Chinese Malaysian = Chinese-born (born in PRC) stay in Malaysia, "Chinese-citizen" stay in Malaysia, Malaysian people(citizen or non-citizen) of full or partial Chinese descent. China is their homeland. They are of Chinese diaspora regardless of their ethnicities
• I found the new dilemma.. How about a person who born in Mainland China before 1940, immigrated to Malaya after that, granted Malayan citizenship in 1957 because they stay in Malaya at that time. He/she referred as Chinese-born Malayan or simply Chinese Malayan.. However in 1990s or 2000s, he/she want to go back to his/her homeland/country of origin (China). He/she applying Chinese citizenship and renounce Malaysian citizenship. What the appropriate identification for them? Chinese-born former Malaysian citizen / Chinese-born Chinese (omit Malaysian)?? Alexander Iskandar (talk) 11:26, 16 October 2015 (UTC)
• Malaysia's approach to citizenship was based on principle namely jus soli (right of birth) while People's Republic of China was based on another citizenship principle called jus sanguinis (right of blood). Technically, people of Chinese descent who live overseas / Chinese diaspora may return to People's Republic of China and become one of 1 billions PRC's citizens. Alexander Iskandar (talk) 09:49, 18 October 2015 (UTC)
• See also: Chinese nationality law and right of return#China

• Oppose per WP:UCN. "Malaysian Chinese" is the common English name for the people (note the Malaysian Chinese Association) and, as 122.1.52.125 notes, the Malaysian Chinese are a long-standing community and not just some random Chinese in Malaysia. —  AjaxSmack  00:28, 20 October 2015 (UTC)

---

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on this talk page or in a move review. No further edits should be made to this section.

Wave History

There is no proof of any Chinese wave occuring during the Fujian massacre in 1651 and 1652. The Ming loyalists fled to Taiwan instead and not Kedah. Kedah in 1652 was under the Malacca sultanate and there were hardly any economic reason to immigrate so far from China instead of Taiwan, Vietnam, Thailand which is much nearer to China.

It was during the British Malaya where there are economic reasons to migrate so far away instead of nearer countries such as Taiwan, Philipines, Vietnam, Thailand.

Bkjalng (talk) 14:36, 30 November 2015 (UTC)

Bak Kut Teh

At the moment an editor Xng keeps adding a supposed inventor of the dish Bak Kut Teh in the article, an assertion that is contradicted by other sources. For example, in this source here, it was claimed by the Tourism Minister that the dish was invented in the 1930s, earlier than the one the editor preferred (late 1940s) but the editor simply removed the source, and just add others that supported his claim (along with name-calling, issuing non-existent ANI notices, etc.) I would propose deleting the names of this and other dishes, since there is minimal research on these apart from talking to the people claiming to have invented it, and are therefore highly unreliable. Hzh (talk) 01:17, 9 December 2016 (UTC)

Dr Ng even claimed Chili crab and Hainanese Chicken rice are invented in Malaysia. What are her sources? Did she do any research?

Unless you have a specific shop name, it's not reliable. The fact that you don't want to call Dr Ng to verify her sources show that you're a troll. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Xng (talk • contribs) 01:30, 9 December 2016 (UTC)

It's easy to verify the inventor of Bak Kut Teh, just go to the shop itself and speak to the old residents who have been living there for 60 years or more. That was what Thestar newspaper and Axian food show did.

That's unlike you who keeps unediting reliable sources and doesn't give any reliable source with reliable shop name. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Xng (talk • contribs) 01:33, 9 December 2016 (UTC)

Whatever Dr Ng may say, it is not for me to question what she says. We don't take any position what someone may have said or claimed, whether it be Dr Ng or the shop owner. The only thing we are interested in is that when there is doubt, we do not state it as a fact. We can go to the shop, but someone claiming it to be true is not evidence that it is true. Hzh (talk) 01:38, 9 December 2016 (UTC)

Edit wars by Hzh

To Hzh,

Dr Ng even claimed Chili crab and Hainanese Chicken rice are invented in Malaysia. What are her sources? Did she do any research?

Unless you have a specific shop name, it's not reliable. The fact that you don't want to call Dr Ng to verify her sources show that you're a troll. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Xng (talk • contribs) 01:30, 9 December 2016 (UTC)

It's easy to verify the inventor of Bak Kut Teh, just go to the shop itself and speak to the old residents who have been living around thatarea for 60 years or more. That was what Thestar newspaper and Axian food show did.

That's unlike you who keeps undoing reliable sources and doesn't give any reliable source with a shop name.

Given that you are the one who is reverting all my recent edits, it is you who are conducting an edit wars. I will repeat that I don't question what Dr Ng says, merely that she stated something different from what you asserted. If you want to question her, then do so, it is none of my business. I'm only interested in stating what is undeniably true in the article. Given that that are contradictory information, you cannot state it categorically to be true. Hzh (talk) 01:47, 9 December 2016 (UTC)

Many Singaporeans called up Dr Ng when she claimed chilli crab was invented in Malaysia. When asked for the name of the shop and other claims, she couldn't give any. This proves that her words can't be trusted and she simply say things without much research. Please note that chilli crab is Singapore's national dish.

Back to Bak Kut Teh, it is well known that in Chinese culture, your signature dish have your name in it eg. Zhu Yuk Wing 豬肉榮 (in Cantonese) is from a seller called Ah Wing 榮. Similarly, Bak Kut Teh 肉骨地 has the name of the seller called Ah Teh 地. But most people forgot the origin and think that 地 means茶 (Chinese tea) because both have the same sound Teh in Hokkien. Chinese drink Chinese tea with every food and not just Bak Kut Teh so this assumption is wrong.

For those who want to argue further like Hzh, please watch some Chinese food programmes from Singapore who traced the origin of all Chinese food in Singapore. The links given by Xng is reliable and Ah Teh was the one who popularised Bak Kut Teh in Klang first which then spread to whole of Malaysia and Singapore. His shop is still there in Klang and anyone can visit him and his competitors to verify.

Peace to all.

Bkjalng (talk) 11:10, 10 December 2016 (UTC)

You are essentially saying the same thing as Xng and introduced nothing new. The etymology of the word in any case is completely illogical. The teh of 地 is pronounced differently from the teh of 茶 - they are pronounced in different tones. The Klang Hokkien pronunciation of teh 地 is similar in tone to in the 3rd tone of Mandarin, while the teh of 茶 is pronounced similar in tone to the second tone of Mandarin, and the different tones of the two words have been confirmed by a native Klang speaker of Hokkien I asked. The only way people can make such a leap in connecting the two teh would be if they are only looking at the English spelling, which would be nonsensical because the word is Hokkien. Hzh (talk) 14:40, 11 December 2016 (UTC)

Just need to note that Bkjalng has been blocked as a sock of Xng. Hzh (talk) 23:13, 11 December 2016 (UTC)

Evaluation of this article

Most are the information are up to date especially the statistics, most of them are from 2016. All of the sources listed works, and they are neutral sources for educational purpose. Most sources are not bias, it was more of an overview of the topic. Thought it had too much words so maybe add more pictures so that the audiences can relate. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Jtey3 (talk • contribs) 06:20, 19 March 2017 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 5 external links on Malaysian Chinese. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

• Corrected formatting/usage for http://www.thelex.com/sibu/history.html
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20130927115542/http://www.asiawind.com/forums/read.php?f=1&i=4039&t=4028 to http://www.asiawind.com/forums/read.php?f=1&i=4039&t=4028
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20110824062034/https://www.statistics.gov.my/portal/index.php?option=com_content&view=article&id=1215&Itemid=89&lang=en to http://www.statistics.gov.my/portal/index.php?option=com_content&view=article&id=1215&Itemid=89&lang=en
• Corrected formatting/usage for http://www.theborneopost.com/2014/02/08/state-statistics-malays-edge-past-chinese-in-sarawak/
• Added archive http://www.webcitation.org/679mGikZK?url=http://www.jac.gov.my/jac/images/stories/akta/federalconstitution.pdf to http://www.jac.gov.my/jac/images/stories/akta/federalconstitution.pdf

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

Y An editor has reviewed this edit and fixed any errors that were found.

• If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
• If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 14:22, 29 April 2017 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 2 external links on Malaysian Chinese. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

• Added {{dead link}} tag to http://www.thestar.com.my/news/story.asp?file=%2F2011%2F7%2F29%2Fnation%2F20110729203217&sec=nation
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20160812014710/https://www.statistics.gov.my/index.php?r=column%2FcthemeByCat&cat=155&bul_id=OWlxdEVoYlJCS0hUZzJyRUcvZEYxZz09&menu_id=L0pheU43NWJwRWVSZklWdzQ4TlhUUT09 to https://www.statistics.gov.my/index.php?r=column%2FcthemeByCat&cat=155&bul_id=OWlxdEVoYlJCS0hUZzJyRUcvZEYxZz09&menu_id=L0pheU43NWJwRWVSZklWdzQ4TlhUUT09
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20120209082211/http://kyotoreview.cseas.kyoto-u.ac.jp/issue/issue3/article_280.html to http://kyotoreview.cseas.kyoto-u.ac.jp/issue/issue3/article_280.html

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 18 January 2022).

• If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
• If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 03:11, 31 May 2017 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 5 external links on Malaysian Chinese. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20120412094547/http://www.malaysia-today.net/mtcolumns/letterssurat/39979-malaysias-malay-dilemma-to-chinese-dilemma- to http://www.malaysia-today.net/mtcolumns/letterssurat/39979-malaysias-malay-dilemma-to-chinese-dilemma-
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20070112134157/http://www.encyclopedia.com.my/volume9/contents.html to http://www.encyclopedia.com.my/volume9/contents.html
• Corrected formatting/usage for http://thestar.com.my/news/story.asp?file=%2F2011%2F7%2F29%2Fnation%2F20110729203217&sec=nation
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20120321151844/http://dmscairo.net/download/Economy/New%20Economic%20Policy.pdf to http://dmscairo.net/download/Economy/New%20Economic%20Policy.pdf
• Corrected formatting/usage for http://www.jac.gov.my/jac/images/stories/akta/federalconstitution.pdf

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 18 January 2022).

• If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
• If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 09:29, 5 September 2017 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 8 external links on Malaysian Chinese. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20140222130924/http://www.asiaexplorers.com/malaysia/chinese.htm to http://www.asiaexplorers.com/malaysia/chinese.htm
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20120314172717/http://thestar.com.my/sports/story.asp?file=%2F2012%2F3%2F13%2Fsports%2F10904579&sec=sports to http://thestar.com.my/sports/story.asp?file=%2F2012%2F3%2F13%2Fsports%2F10904579&sec=sports
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20081025043502/http://www.thestar.com.my/news/story.asp?file=%2F2008%2F10%2F22%2Fnation%2F20081022164700&sec=nation to http://thestar.com.my/news/story.asp?file=%2F2008%2F10%2F22%2Fnation%2F20081022164700&sec=nation
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20120910053106/http://thestar.com.my/columnists/story.asp?file=%2F2011%2F5%2F8%2Fcolumnists%2Fonthebeat%2F8641370&sec=On%20The%20Beat to http://www.thestar.com.my/columnists/story.asp?file=%2F2011%2F5%2F8%2Fcolumnists%2Fonthebeat%2F8641370&sec=On%20The%20Beat
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20160216032954/http://www.themalaysianinsider.com/features/article/chap-goh-mei-a-night-for-courting to http://www.themalaysianinsider.com/features/article/chap-goh-mei-a-night-for-courting
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20160216032919/http://www.themalaysianinsider.com/gallery/view/the-making-of-lion-head-mask to http://www.themalaysianinsider.com/gallery/view/the-making-of-lion-head-mask
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20110723202348/http://www.malaysianews.net/story/308459 to http://www.malaysianews.net/story/308459
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20120329023413/http://www.malaysia-today.net/mtcolumns/from-around-the-blogs/48289-where-are-the-malays-headed to http://malaysia-today.net/mtcolumns/from-around-the-blogs/48289-where-are-the-malays-headed

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 18 January 2022).

• If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
• If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 10:26, 15 December 2017 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 2 external links on Malaysian Chinese. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

• Added {{dead link}} tag to http://www.portal.mohe.gov.my/portal/page/portal/ExtPortal/Agencies/Study_in_Malaysia/National_Education_System
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20120813080031/http://www.jomoks.org/research/pdf/New_Economic_Policy.pdf to http://www.jomoks.org/research/pdf/New_Economic_Policy.pdf
• Added {{dead link}} tag to http://www.epu.gov.my/documents/10124/669145a4-1b34-4f04-9043-31b24d1c3442
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20140124195805/http://www.undp.org.my/uploads/mdg1.pdf to http://www.undp.org.my/uploads/mdg1.pdf

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 18 January 2022).

• If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
• If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 00:32, 14 January 2018 (UTC)