“

Fujian and Chaozhou: The Other Chinese Diaspora

The Chinese diaspora did not come from one region. If you have followed the story of the Wuyi (五邑, wǔyì) — the five counties of Guangdong whose sons and daughters filled the steamships to Gold Mountain (金山, jīnshān), the Americas — you have been reading one chapter of a much larger book. There were other Chinas that went overseas. Along the coasts of southern Fujian and eastern Guangdong, two regions you may never have studied sent comparable, and in some counts larger, numbers of people into the world — almost all of them sailing south to the Nanyang (南洋, nányáng), the South Seas of Southeast Asia. Minnan (闽南, mǐnnán), the Hokkien-speaking crescent of Fujian, and Chaoshan (潮汕, cháoshàn), the Teochew-speaking delta around Shantou, ran the same machinery you already know: chain migration, clan and dialect networks, letter-remittance, hometowns rebuilt by overseas money. The machines were identical. Only the ocean was different.

You know one chapter. This is the other one.

Here is the promise: the machinery is the one you already know — different boats, different letters, different mansions, but the same grammar. The journey moves through two regions, the boats that carried their people out, the letters that held families together, the houses the money built, and what it all means for a reader who thought the story ended in Taishan. Expect three sensations: recognition, then scale, then kinship.

Two Coasts, One Habit of Leaving

Start with a map and two coastlines. Minnan is the southern third of Fujian province: Quanzhou (泉州, quánzhōu), Xiamen (厦门, xiàmén), Zhangzhou (漳州, zhāngzhōu), a green crescent of harbors and river deltas that has been a maritime civilization for roughly two millennia. When Marco Polo’s contemporaries called Quanzhou “the East’s greatest port,” they were describing a city whose ships already carried resident merchants to Java, Siam, and the Malay world — centuries before any mass emigration began. Chaoshan is its mirror across the provincial border: Chaozhou (潮州, cháozhōu), Shantou (汕头, shàntóu), and Jieyang (揭阳, jiēyáng), the delta plain of eastern Guangdong whose fields fed Southeast Asia’s rice bowls and whose people were documented sailing out for trade from the Song and Yuan dynasties onward. Two regions, two dialects, one habit of leaving.

The dialects are the real borders. Hokkien (闽南语, mǐnnányǔ) — spoken today by an estimated 30 million people across southern Fujian, Taiwan, Malaysia, Singapore, and the Philippines — and Teochew (潮汕话, cháoshànhuà), its close cousin, were the walls and windows of identity in the diaspora. Speech islands abroad, they later became the wiring of chain migration: a man from Jinjiang found his first job, his first bed, his first loan in the words of his own village. And the driver of departure was the same rural poverty math the Wuyi reader knows intimately — dense population, thin arable land, typhoon-season coasts. The equation was identical. The exit door simply faced south.

These were qiaoxiang (侨乡, qiáoxiāng) — overseas-Chinese hometowns — of exactly the social type you have visited in Taishan: remittance-dependent, male-depleted, rebuilt from abroad. The five counties of Guangdong produced one version of that world. Here are two more.

Why the Winds Blew South — Ports, Trade Routes, and the Color of a Hull

Geography explains the split better than anything else. Long before the mass migrations, junk-trade routes had already drawn the lines: Hokkien merchants to the Philippines, the Dutch East Indies, and Malaya; Teochew traders to Siam, where the rice trade made Bangkok the natural terminus of the delta’s ships. The diaspora simply followed centuries of commerce. When the treaty ports opened — Xiamen in 1842, Shantou in 1860 — two harbors became emigration funnels feeding circuits that had existed for generations. The migrants were not pioneers; they were passengers on an established line.

Then the state itself painted the ships. In 1723, the first year of the Yongzheng emperor’s reign, the imperial government decreed that Guangdong’s seagoing junks would carry red-painted bows and Fujian’s green — the famous red-head boats (红头船, hóngtóuchuán) and their lesser-known green-head cousins (绿头船, lǜtóuchuán). The color code was bureaucracy, but it made the provincial shipping lanes visible on the water, and it gave each diaspora its icon. Here is a detail that earns trust: most red-head boats were not built in China at all. They were framed in Siam — teak was cheaper there, and the yards were better — so the trade-route logic was embedded in the hardware itself. A Chaozhou man stepping onto a red-head boat in 1850 was boarding a vessel built in the country he was going to.

The contrast with the Wuyi reader’s own family history is precise. Wuyi departures ran through the hidden ports of Guanghai and Haikou and out via Hong Kong and Macau toward the Americas — the hidden ports of the Wuyi diaspora are a story in themselves. The Nanyang passage was shorter, inside the monsoon zone, a matter of weeks rather than months. That difference in distance — one structural fact — is a large part of why the letter-remittance loop could work on this route at all.

Fifteen Million — The Numbers That Reverse the Map

Now the numbers, and they should rearrange something in your head. Chaoshan-origin overseas Chinese number roughly 15 million across more than 100 countries and regions — an official estimate published in 2023 and 2024. The caveats matter: earlier provincial figures, from around 2017, put the count closer to 10 million, and no census has ever pinned the true number down; the honest range is “more than 10 million, likely around 15.” At least 70 percent live in Southeast Asia. Thailand alone holds between 7 and 10 million — the exact count is UNKNOWN, with official sources divided between the two figures.

Quanzhou-origin Chinese exceed 4.3 million in Malaysia, Singapore, and the Philippines alone, a figure supported by multiple independent sources; provincial statistics suggest as many as 9.5 million Quanzhou descendants worldwide, depending on how one counts. The emblem of this scale is a Jinjiang saying: 十户人家九户侨 (shí hù rénjiā jiǔ hù qiáo) — “nine of every ten households have overseas kin.” Provincial newspapers add the humbling corollary: overseas Quanzhou descendants may now outnumber the population of the home prefecture itself.

One window, two ports: between 1876 and 1898, roughly 2.85 million departures were recorded from Xiamen and Shantou combined, all bound for Southeast Asia — a region’s exodus in a single generation.

Here is the honest comparison, kept on one counting base. A 1999 survey counted 3.68 million Jiangmen — that is, Wuyi — overseas Chinese, Hong Kong, and Macau compatriots across 107 countries, the great majority in the Americas. The Wuyi diaspora is vast; this is not to diminish it. The point is that the assumption “Wuyi was the big diaspora” reverses under inspection. Different direction, comparable — sometimes larger — magnitude. And for global perspective: more than 60 million people of Chinese descent live outside China today, in 198 countries. The story you know is one thread of a very large story.

Guofan — The Red-Head Boats of Zhanglin

The departure experience begins at Zhanglin Ancient Port (樟林古港, zhānglín gǔgǎng), in Chenghai district on the edge of Shantou. A Ming-dynasty harbor that peaked under the Qianlong and Jiaqing emperors, Zhanglin was styled the “general junction of eastern Guangdong’s sea routes” — and from the late Qing, an estimated 60 percent or more of early Nanyang-bound Chaozhou migrants sailed from its creeks. The port’s layout, eight streets and six neighborhoods, survives in local memory; so does its fleet.

The boats themselves were talismans as much as vessels. A red-head boat carried a vermilion bow — the 1723 color code made law what the eye already knew — a bagua (八卦, bāguà) diagram as a protective charm, and two painted black “eyes” on the bow, so the ship would not lose its course. The day before sailing, the ship’s incense-keeper carried its Mazu statue to the local Tianhou temple for a final worship, then brought aboard a fresh figure; as the boat passed Mazu Island at the mouth of the harbor, the crew knelt at the bow and burned incense toward the island shrine. Every departure was a liturgy.

The people who sailed have left their own record, in song. The guofan songs (过番歌, guòfāngē) of the Chaoshan coast, collected by the Shantou municipal archives, carry the farewell in the migrants’ own voice:

一溪目汁一船人，一条浴布去过番；钱银知寄人知返，勿忘父母共妻房。
Yī xī mùzhī yī chuán rén, yī tiáo yùbù qù guòfān; qiányín zhī jì rén zhī fǎn, wù wàng fùmǔ gòng qīfáng.
“A creek of tears, a boatload of people; a single checkered cloth, and off across the seas. Send money home, and come back — do not forget your parents and your wife.”

A Shantou archivist calls the songs “a history of wandering and a history of feeling at once.” A second verse is darker in its humor: the wild geese fly overhead, the younger brother has a wife while the elder has none — so he shoulders his bundle and goes to Siam. And there is the folk ratio, which must be labeled for what it is, a saying and not a statistic: 十去六死三留一回头 (shí qù liù sǐ sān liú yī huítóu) — “of ten who went, six died, three stayed, one returned.” The numbers are folklore; the shape of the warning is real.

The passage itself was the dividing line between two systems of leaving. The Wuyi reader knows the Americas routes: two- and three-month passages, and the coolie trade that ran on coercion. The coolie trade — 卖猪仔 (mài zhūzǎi), literally “selling piglets” — operated recruiting houses in Xiamen and Shantou too, feeding contract laborers to Cuba, Peru, and beyond; on the worst ships, mortality ran between 40 and 90 percent, a documented horror of the Chinese in Cuba. The Nanyang red-head-boat system was different: it ran on kinship and credit, and it allowed return — huiguo Tangshan, coming back to China, was always the imagined end of the story. Two systems, same poverty. The red-head boats were dangerous, but they were not cages.

The past is physically present at Zhanglin: in 2018 a 25-meter replica of a three-masted red-head boat was moored in the port creek, where visitors can stand at the rail and try to see what the migrants saw.

One Letter, One Remittance — The Qiaopi System

Now the letter, because the letter is the heart of this story — and because you have met it before. The qiaopi (侨批, qiáopī) was a letter and a remittance in one envelope, carried across the sea and delivered on trust: the direct twin of the Wuyi yinxin (银信, yínxìn), the “silver letter” system this site has covered in its beginner’s guide to qiaopi. The genre is documented over 150 years, from the 1820s onward — same genre, same function, distinct regional conventions.

The relay was beautifully simple in its early form: itinerant couriers called shuike (水客, shuǐkè), “water guests,” carried letters and silver personally, walking the villages when they landed. From the 1830s, remittance houses — piju (批局, pījú) — formalized the trade, and by 1948 Shantou’s qiaopi guild registered 602 delivery men, the pijiao (批脚, pījiǎo). The courier’s equipment was famous: three treasures, a long-handled umbrella (rain and dog defense in one), a sweat cloth that doubled as wrapper and groundsheet, and a market basket. They walked a hundred li a day, and the claim, made repeatedly by the trade and recorded by the People’s Daily overseas edition in 2021, is that in all those decades, no letter was ever stolen or lost — “not once.”

In the villages, the courier’s arrival was an event. “Whenever the pijiao entered the village, the villagers welcomed him warmly,” a descendant of a qiaopi-bureau founder remembered; “批到” (pī dào) — the letter has arrived — simply meant “the money has arrived.” A letter from a father in Siam with ten silver dollars enclosed, now 151 years old, is the oldest item in Shantou’s qiaopi collection — a single envelope that has outlived everyone it was meant for.

Then the recognition becomes literal. In 2013, on June 19, UNESCO inscribed the qiaopi archives on its Memory of the World Register. Read the composition of that inscription corpus — roughly 160,000 items — and the bridge fact appears: more than 100,000 from Chaoshan, more than 40,000 from Wuyi, more than 10,000 from Meizhou, about 10,000 from Fujian. The two systems this site covers are not parallel stories. They are one world-heritage archive, bound together in a single nomination. The Wuyi letters you have read about elsewhere and the Chaozhou letters described here were filed in the same register, by the same committee, on the same day.

Shantou built China’s first qiaopi museum in 2004, holding some 120,000 items; its motto is 三江出海，一纸还乡 (sān jiāng chū hǎi, yī zhǐ huán xiāng) — “three rivers to the sea, one letter home.” A Jiangmen scholar, Zhang Guoxiong, puts the twin relationship in its sharpest form: Wuyi qiaopi are fewer in number but higher in value — the Americas letters carried bigger money, because the Americas paid better and returned less. The corpora record different worlds: Gold Mountain money and Nanyang money. Same envelope, different oceans.

Building Nanyang — From Laborer to Tycoon

Chain migration worked the same way here as it did in the Gold Mountain story: one migrant financed the next, and the ladder ran labor to petty trade to kongsi partnership to merchant capital. On the Nanyang scale, that ascent produced fortunes that rebuilt entire regions.

The exemplar is Tan Kah Kee (陈嘉庚, Chén Jiāgēng, 1874–1961), whom Mao Zedong called “the banner of overseas Chinese, the glory of the nation” — 华侨旗帜、民族光辉 (huáqiáo qízhì, mínzú guānghuī). Born in Jimei, on the Xiamen coast, Tan made his money in Singapore rubber and returned in 1912 to start schools in his hometown. In 1921 he founded Xiamen University — the first university in China founded by an overseas Chinese. He insisted on the word 倡办 (chàngbàn), “advocate-founding,” rather than “founding,” deliberately modeling the act of giving so that other overseas Chinese would follow. By the end of his life he had funded 118 schools.

The texture of that giving is the point. In the 1929 Depression, with his business empire collapsing, Tan Kah Kee sold his personal assets rather than close a single school. The buildings he sponsored have their own architectural nickname — “wearing a western suit and a farmer’s straw hat” — the hybrid look now protected as national heritage since 2006. His reach extended to museums as well: he proposed Xiamen’s Overseas Chinese Museum in 1956 and presided over its opening in 1959, in his mid-eighties.

His son-in-law and protégé, Lee Kong Chian (李光前, Lǐ Guāngqián, 1893–1967), born in Nan’an in the Quanzhou hinterland, went to Singapore at ten and became the “rubber king.” From 1939 he funded the Guoguang schools in his hometown of Nan’an, and in 1952 he established the Lee Foundation (李氏基金, lǐshì jījīn) with a charter spanning schools, hospitals, cultural institutions, and disaster relief. His descendants’ Furong Foundation has been active for more than 30 years, donating over 300 million RMB across the region. The scale of this hometown philanthropy is staggering: overseas Chinese from Nan’an alone have donated more than 100 million RMB per year for 30 consecutive years. (One note of honesty: the widely repeated claim that Lee’s support extended to the institution that became the National University of Singapore remains UNKNOWN in the confirmed record — his verified philanthropy runs through Xiamen University, the Guoguang schools, and the Lee Foundation.)

The Wuyi reader recognizes this pattern at once — the diaspora-funded public good is the story of the Sunning Railway and Taishan’s overseas-funded schools. Chaoshan ran the same play: the tycoon Gao Shengzhi built Shantou’s water and electric utilities, and overseas donors from the Chaoshan region have given more than 1 billion RMB to their hometowns since 1979.

The Houses Remittances Built — Fanzi Lou and Diaolou

The money’s first stop was always the house. Remittance spending followed a stable hierarchy across a century: housing first, then land, then education, then ceremonies. The mansions of Minnan and Chaoshan are that hierarchy made visible — the built proof of diaspora wealth.

The Minnan version is the fanzi lou (番仔楼, fānzǎilóu), “foreigner-style mansion”: the hybrid houses returned Nanyang migrants raised on 闽南红砖 (Mǐnnán hóngzhuān) — the region’s red brick — fused with Western and Nanyang details, often with materials imported from Southeast Asia. In Shishi’s Yongning town, the Liuyeting mansion once housed more than 300 people. In Zhangzhou’s Jiaomei, the Zeng family’s fanzi lou, built over 14 years from 1903, is now a national key cultural relic — and next to it stands the Tianyi General Bureau, China’s earliest qiaopi remittance house, which at its peak turned over ten million silver yuan a year. The letters and the houses, it turns out, were built by the same hands.

Chaoshan’s answer is grander still. The Chen Cihong Residence (陈慈黉故居, Chén Cíhóng gùjū) in Qianmei village, Chenghai — “the finest overseas-Chinese mansion in Lingnan,” “Chaoshan’s little Forbidden City” — was built over roughly 30 years by a family that had grown rich in Siam’s rice trade across four generations. It has 506 rooms and covers 25,400 square meters, laid out in the classic Chaoshan 驷马拖车 (sìmǎ tuōchē) plan — “four-horse cart” — with Italian and Spanish tiles that are still lustrous after a century, and roofs crowned with 嵌瓷 (qiàncí), the region’s inlaid-porcelain ornament. The money that built it sailed on red-head boats; the tiles sailed back on them.

The comparison with home is the point of this section. The Wuyi diaolou (碉楼, diāolóu) of Kaiping — the watchtowers the site’s readers know, the echoes of home in Kaiping and Taishan — were defensive towers and status displays at once, UNESCO World Heritage since 2007. The fanzi lou are lower, wider, and less fortified: wealth display and residence rather than fortress. Different threat environments, same remittance-funded building boom, same skyline dominance over the qiaoxiang. One diaspora, two architectures.

The houses are now protected with unprecedented seriousness. Quanzhou’s “Citong overseas-Chinese houses” (刺桐侨厝, cìtóng qiáocuò) program, launched in 2023, was followed in 2025 by China’s first municipal law specifically protecting overseas-Chinese heritage remains: 682 buildings identified, 101 renovated, about 100 activated as cafes, halls, and experience spaces, and more than 200 village-level overseas-Chinese history museums opened across the prefecture.

One Story, Different Directions — The Machinery You Already Know

Pull the two strands together and the pattern is unmistakable: this is one story with different directions. Chain migration ran on identical machinery — kinship financing, one migrant paying for the next, village and surname networks carrying the load. The sociologist Chen Da documented it in Fujian villages in the 1930s; the Wuyi reader has seen it in the surname histories published on this site, and in the journey from surname to ancestral village.

Abroad, the huiguan (会馆, huìguǎn) — hometown associations — were the diaspora’s first self-governance: welfare, burial, dispute resolution, capital pooling. Bangkok’s Thailand Chaozhou Association, founded in 1938, is the world’s largest overseas hometown association, running schools, a Teochew cemetery, and a heritage hall, and organizing famine relief for Chaoshan during the terrible 1943 famine. Singapore’s Ngee Ann Kongsi (义安公司, yì’ān gōngsī) is the earliest and largest Teochew charitable body, ancestor of a web of associations that spread across Malaya, Thailand, North America, and Australia. These were institutions of solidarity — and, as dialect boundaries hardened into occupational niches, of rivalry too. The speech islands that carried men overseas became both infrastructure and border.

The family cost was gendered, as it was in Wuyi. The left-behind wives — 番客婶 (fānkè shěn), “aunties of the sojourners” — became de facto household heads for decades: farming, raising children, managing remittances, holding lineages together. Scholars such as Shen Huifen of Xiamen University and Liu Bozi of the Quanzhou Overseas Chinese History Museum have shown, reading the qiaopi themselves, that the letters give these women the only unmediated female voices in pre-1949 migration records. The 番客婶 is the direct sister of the Wuyi Gold Mountain wives — same role, same letters, different ocean. The households they ran were “two-headed” — 两头家 (liǎng tóu jiā) — split between village and Nanyang; the parting phrase was “常记唐山妻，莫等头毛白” (cháng jì Tángshān qī, mò děng tóumáo bái) — always remember your wife at home, do not wait until your hair turns white. Children were sent south to join fathers they barely knew; siblings coordinated by letter. The separation was the price of the machinery.

And the diaspora was political. 蚁光炎 (Yǐ Guāngyán, Ng Yi Kwong, 1879–1939), a Chenghai-born Siam shipping and rice tycoon, organized anti-Japanese fundraising and boycotts as chairman of the Thai Chinese Chamber of Commerce; Japanese agents assassinated him on November 21, 1939 — the first overseas-Chinese leader martyred in the war. Like the Wuyi emigrants who funded the 1911 Revolution, Chaoshan and Minnan communities financed the republican cause before it existed. Different dialects, different fortunes, different oceans — but the same grammar of leaving, sending, building, and remembering.

The Diaspora Today — Dialect, Archives, and Roots-Seeking

The institutions of identity are alive today, and the state courts them openly. Shantou was made a special economic zone in 1981 on the explicit logic that the city was “established by overseas Chinese and prospered by overseas Chinese” — 因侨而立、因侨而兴 (yīn qiáo ér lì, yīn qiáo ér xīng) — and in 2014 the central government approved a full Overseas Chinese Economic and Cultural Cooperation Pilot Zone on its waterfront. When Xi Jinping visited the qiaopi museum in 2020, he asked that the letters be protected: “We must preserve these qiaopi cultural relics,” he said, “and teach people not to forget the humiliations of the modern era and the hard pioneering history of the older generation of overseas Chinese.”

The kinship is institutionalized on a biennial cycle. The International Teochew Convention (国际潮团联谊年会, guójì cháotuán liányì niánhuì), meeting since 1981, returned in 2024 to Shantou itself — the first time in the gathering’s history that it was held in the homeland city — with more than 150 global Teochew associations taking part. And roots-seeking — 寻根 (xúngēn) — has become a civic program with a tourism engine: Shantou’s “most beautiful overseas-Chinese villages” program highlights Zhanglin itself and the neighboring village that produced the Chia Tai Group founder — both in Chenghai — along with the community known as “the hometown of qiaopi,” while Quanzhou’s 200-plus village museums make genealogy a walking trail. Quanzhou’s Song-Yuan port sites were reportedly inscribed as a UNESCO World Heritage site in 2021 — the precise scope of that inscription is PROBABLE rather than verified, and worth confirming before travel plans depend on it.

Identity is carried in food and sound as much as documents: Teochew opera, the dialect, the cuisine, Mazu worship, the guofan songs now listed as intangible heritage. But honesty requires the complication. Since 1980, a new wave of emigration from Fuqing and Changle — to Japan, Europe, Africa, and the United States — has renewed the qiaoxiang story even as the old villages thin out; the Fujian saying is “wherever there is seawater, there are Fuqing people,” and some of that new migration has been irregular, the subject of smuggler tragedies such as the Golden Venture in 1993. The diaspora is simultaneously thinning and renewing, generation by generation.

Here is the closing thought, echoing the opening. The reader’s family letter, the reader’s rebuilt village, the reader’s clan hall — all of it exists here too, in Minnan and Chaoshan, pointed at a different ocean. One Chinese diaspora, many doors. You knew one chapter; now you know the shape of the book.

Sources

1. 陈达 (Chen Da). 《南洋华侨与闽粤社会》 (Overseas Chinese of the South Seas and Min-Yue Society). 商务印书馆, 1938.
2. 李宏新. 《潮汕华侨史》. 暨南大学出版社, 2016.
3. 庄国土, 张小倩. 《福建华侨华人简史》. 福建人民出版社, 2026.
4. 王炜中 (ed.). 《潮汕侨批集成》. 广西师范大学出版社, 2007–2020.
5. 林金枝, 庄为玑. 《近代华侨投资国内企业史资料选辑·福建卷》. 福建人民出版社, 1985.
6. 福建省档案馆. 《福建华侨档案史料》(1912–1949). 档案出版社, 1990.
7. Yow, Cheun Hoe. Guangdong and Chinese Diaspora: The Changing Landscape of Qiaoxiang. Routledge, 2013.
8. UNESCO Memory of the World — Qiaopi and Yinxin Correspondence and Remittance Documents — 2013 inscription.
9. Qiaopi — Wikipedia
10. Teochew people — Wikipedia
11. Tan Kah Kee — Wikipedia
12. Lee Kong Chian — Wikipedia
13. 侨批 — 百度百科

Continue Reading

• Wuyi Diaspora: Migration, Heritage, and Overseas Chinese
• Taishanese Migration History: Zhuzai and Shedan
• Wuyi Diaspora Clans and Brotherhoods: Survival and Solidarity
• Guangdong Five Counties: The Diaspora Legacy

Stay Connected

Follow RootsOfChina on Facebook and Instagram for new article updates, behind-the-scenes from Kaiping, and stories from the Chinese diaspora.

“