I mean, Shou Zi Chew was grilled by Congress for his "links" to the Chinese Communist Party, and made to state that Tiananmen Square 1989 was a massacre despite being born, raised in Singapore, and served the Singapore military.
The concept seems to have been mostly focused on the Chinese, but that in turn seems to have been largely because they outnumber everybody else.
You can read an essay criticizing the concept at Project Gutenberg: https://www.gutenberg.org/cache/epub/26350/pg26350-images.ht...
(It's in French, written by a Russian in 1897.)
Firstly, ethnicity is not the same as nationality.
Secondly, the CCP and China are two separate things. And then there's your definition of China, but I'm not going there. RoC and all...
Thirdly, Singapore is actually a former British colony, the native people are Malays, and there's four official languages (English, Chinese/Mandarin, Tamil and Malay). Now yes, there's a large erhnic Chinese diaspora in Singapore, but arguing that being Singaporean makes you a CCP spy would be a bit of a reach.
And geopolitical naivety aside, I find it mildly perturbing that somebody might assume that I'm a red under the bed, just because I have black hair, an olive complexion and am lactose intolerant.
if I was given this much easy task on congress hearing, I'd just say it with megaphone and take the lead from there
why is it difficult to say some fact?
is it difficult for you to say so?
Freedom of speech is valuable and fragile. It's always in danger of being eroded by authoritarians.
"Why do you refuse to say this true thing? Are you evil?"
"Why do you insist on saying this false thing? Are you evil?"
Because you're not the boss and don't get to tell people what to say or not say.
Change the race and ethnicity and tell me that it's okay.
Why can't you admit that this is yellow peril?