Which foods divide Asia the most? - Asia Specific podcast, BBC World Service

Key Concepts

Food Disputes: Conflicts arising over the origin and ownership of culinary dishes and traditions.
National Dish: A dish considered representative of a country’s cuisine and cultural identity.
Hawker Centres: Open-air food complexes common in Southeast Asia, offering a variety of affordable dishes.
Cultural Appropriation/Amnesia: The adoption or claiming of another culture’s elements, often leading to disputes over authenticity and ownership, sometimes stemming from a forgotten shared history.
Soft Power: The use of cultural influence to achieve political goals, with food being a significant component.
Pao Cai (Sichuanese Pickle): A fermented vegetable dish from China, central to the recent kimchi dispute.
Bibimbap: A Korean rice dish with seasoned vegetables, meat, and gochujang (red pepper paste), served in a stone pot (dolsot bibimbap).
Kimchi: A traditional Korean side dish made from fermented vegetables, typically cabbage, with spicy seasonings.
Durian: A tropical fruit known for its strong odor and creamy texture, contested between Malaysia and Indonesia.
Chicken Rice: A Singaporean dish consisting of poached chicken served with fragrant rice cooked in chicken stock.

Food Disputes in Asia: A Deep Dive

The episode of Asia Specific from the BBC World Service explores the surprisingly intense world of food disputes in Asia, particularly between neighboring countries. The core argument presented is that these disputes aren’t typically about the food itself, but rather about national identity, ownership, and a sense of cultural belonging – often triggered when another country attempts to claim a dish as its own.

The Trigger: Claims of Ownership

The discussion begins with the observation that citizens of Singapore, Malaysia, and Indonesia generally don’t concern themselves with defining a “national food” until another country lays claim to a dish they consider their own. This sparks passionate reactions, fueled by a feeling of cultural theft. As Derek Cai states, “Honestly, I don’t think Singaporeans and Malaysians and Indonesians care that much about what the national food is until a country claims one as their own, that’s when we get passionate about it because we feel like it’s stolen.”

Case Studies: Durian, Kimchi, Bibimbap, and Hawker Centres

Several specific examples illustrate the complexity of these disputes:

Durian: The “king of tropical fruits” is a source of contention between Malaysia and Indonesia. Malaysia sought UNESCO recognition for durian as a national fruit, prompting Indonesia to assert its own claim based on higher production volume. This dispute even reached the United Nations level.
Kimchi: A seemingly straightforward Korean staple has become a flashpoint with China. The issue arose when the International Organization of Standardization (ISO) certified a recipe for pao cai (a Sichuanese pickle) without explicitly excluding kimchi. Chinese state media then began referring to kimchi as a type of pao cai, sparking outrage in South Korea. Rachel Lee explains that this is particularly sensitive due to the recent surge in global popularity of Korean food (“K-food”) and the resulting increase in kimchi imports from China, creating a trade deficit.
Bibimbap: South Korea’s beloved rice dish is also claimed by China, specifically Jilin province, which designated it as a provincial-level heritage item. This is seen as a stepping stone towards national recognition, raising concerns in South Korea about potential misattribution.
Hawker Centres: The origin of these ubiquitous Southeast Asian food markets is also debated. While Singapore has heavily regulated and formalized hawker centres, similar street food traditions exist throughout the region (e.g., Bangkok), leading to questions about who can truly claim their invention. Derek Cai highlights that pre-colonial Southeast Asia had a “free flow of trade, free flow of people, free flow of communities, free flow of recipes,” making definitive claims of origin difficult.

Historical Context & Shared Culinary Heritage

A key point raised is the shared history of Southeast Asia and Northeast Asia. Derek Cai emphasizes that before the imposition of modern national borders in the 19th century, there was a fluidity of culture and cuisine across the region. The current disputes, therefore, represent a form of “cultural amnesia,” where countries forget their interconnected past. This shared history is echoed in the discussion of ramen, which originated in China but became a staple of Japanese cuisine.

The Role of Branding and Soft Power

The episode highlights how food disputes are not solely about historical accuracy but also about branding and national promotion. Jenny Dorsey, a chef and food historian, points out that the desire to claim a dish is often about “feeling a certain sense of belonging” and “ownership.” Derek Cai notes that Singapore’s efforts to promote chicken rice and chili crab as national dishes are linked to its ambition to be the “kitchen of Southeast Asia” and attract tourism. Food, therefore, functions as “soft power,” influencing perceptions and attracting economic benefits.

National Identity and Emotional Connection

Rachel Lee articulates the strong emotional connection Koreans have to their food, particularly kimchi. She describes how food evokes feelings of “home” and is a source of national pride. This emotional investment explains the intensity of the reaction to China’s claims. She also notes that Koreans are particularly sensitive to claims about their cuisine due to a history of colonization and external influence.

Japan’s Approach: Adaptation vs. Appropriation

A contrasting perspective is offered regarding Japan’s relationship with foreign cuisines. The panelists suggest that Japan tends to adapt dishes from other countries (e.g., Japanese curry, yakiniku) rather than claiming them as its own. This is contrasted with the more assertive claims made by China and, to a lesser extent, Malaysia.

Step-by-Step: The Dispute Escalation Process

While not explicitly a “step-by-step” guide, the discussion reveals a common pattern in these disputes:

Initial Coexistence: Dishes are shared and enjoyed across borders with little contention.
Claim of Ownership: One country asserts exclusive rights to a dish, often seeking official recognition (e.g., UNESCO).
Counter-Claims & Media Coverage: Neighboring countries challenge the claim, leading to media attention and public debate.
Nationalistic Reactions: Online discussions and social media amplify nationalistic sentiments.
Economic Implications: Disputes can impact trade, tourism, and branding efforts.

Notable Quotes

Derek Cai: “Honestly, I don’t think Singaporeans and Malaysians and Indonesians care that much about what the national food is until a country claims one as their own, that’s when we get passionate about it because we feel like it’s stolen.”
Jenny Dorsey: “It’s not really about the dish anymore. It’s not about claiming the dish. It’s about how they feel about it… I want to claim that aspect of my identity. I don't want you to take it away from me.”
Rachel Lee: “Food is like it feels. It makes you feel like it’s your home.”

Conclusion

The episode concludes that food disputes in Asia are complex phenomena rooted in national identity, historical connections, and economic interests. While often fueled by online debates and nationalistic fervor, they ultimately reflect a deeper desire to preserve cultural heritage and a sense of belonging. The disputes highlight the fluidity of culinary traditions and the challenges of defining ownership in a region with a long history of cultural exchange. The panelists suggest that these disputes, while sometimes heated, are often a form of “friendly rivalry” – a testament to the importance of food in Asian cultures.