PUBLIC OPINION WHERE EAST AND WEST HAVE MET

New Zealand Times, Volume LIII, Issue 12425, 20 April 1926, Page 6

PUBLIC OPINION

WHERE EAST AND WEST HAVE MET

(To the Editor, “N.Z. Times.”) Sir, —The vegetarian who read your article an Saturday, the 17th, must have been pleased when he was told that many white residents will gladly join issue with others in the Dominiou who seek to secure the exclusion of the Asiatic from the trade of market gardening, but his hopes must have been dashed to the ground when he found hat in the ever changing course of linguitics the words “join issue” appear to have turned a volte-face.

The vegetarian of mature years will recollect that until the Chinese established market gardens in Wellington in the late ’sixties it was almost impossible to buy a cabbage. If particular inquiry be made it will probably be found that very few Chinese hold the freehold of their gardens. Except, perhaps, the Christians who have set aside the traditions of their fathers, few Chinese care to die away from China, and as a consequence they do not seek to make permanent investments abroad. They prefer to take land on lease, and to pay to the “white freeholder” as much as fifteen pounds per acre per annum by way af rent, and then seek thoir fortunes out of the manures and seeds they must buy and the hours of toil which must bo undergone before the results of their labours can he taken to market.

The conditions under which they live are ostensibly uncomfortable, but that is due to the rapacious “white freeholder,” who null not supply his tenants with a bungalow house and grand piano; but under the tin shed you will probably find more oomfoit than a “white farm labourer” would install in the whare put at his disposal. The article in question suggests that the partnership plea is a mere subterfuge, hut “any stick to beat a dog” ; the truth being that the Chinese have long recognised the good in cooperation and their partnerships are real. No discussion on the East and West question seems possible without reference being made to that most indefinite of abstractions “the of living.” To bring us to earth let it be put in this way: Should turtle soup with meringues and waste be preferred to roast duck with rioe and economy? There is no such thing as a standard of living. Nq two families live and feed in the same way, and hence no standard can be established. With similar resources one family will appear in comparative affluence, and the rent will he paid punctually, while another will he in rags and tatters, with the bailiff in possession. The only solution is for the white to realise that his labour is worth only the market value of the work done, and that if he lives in a mansion and buys his vegetables he can never compete successfully with his fellow who lives in a cottage and grows cabbages in his back yard.—l am, etc., YANG KWEL