{'fraction_non_alphanumeric': 0.02774774774774775, 'fraction_numerical': 0.013693693693693694, 'mean_word_length': 5.381609195402299, 'pattern_counts': {'":': 0, '<': 0, '<?xml version=': 0, '>': 0, 'https://': 0, 'lorem ipsum': 0, 'www.': 0, 'xml': 0}, 'pii_count': 0, 'substrings_counts': 0, 'word_list_counts': {'cursed_substrings.json': 0, 'profanity_word_list.json': 0, 'sexual_word_list.json': 0, 'zh_pornsignals.json': 0}}
Introduction: Interrogating regionalisation in relation to ethnicity and capital

From 1978 to the present, the relative positions of China and Southeast Asia in global capitalism have been altered by three key events: (1) China's economic growth after the reforms of 1978; (2) the end of the Cold War in 1990; and (3) the Asian financial crisis in 1997 that ended the high growth of the Southeast Asian economies. Two broad and cumulative phases of change may be discerned. In the first phase, from 1978 up to the 1997 Asian Financial Crisis, China was a site for Southeast Asian investments, mostly by privileged Southeast Asian Chinese. The second phase, following the Asian Financial Crisis, sees China combine its role asan investment site with becoming-an economic competitor to Southeast Asia, especially for foreign direct investments and export markets. More recently, these two roles have been combined with China also becoming an investor in Southeast Asia, as well as a market for Southeast Asian products. Since 2002, this rapidly developing relationship has been formalised with the signing of the many agreements between ASEAN and China; the two sub-regions are now appear to be engaged in a formal process of regional integration. As a result of these changes, there is increased interest in so-called "Chinese capitalism" as an ethnicised variety of capitalist practice, as well as in the nexus between Chinese ethnicity and Chinese capital as a vehicle for regional integration. "Regionalism" and "Chinese capitalism" have become fashionable terms in studies concerning the economic development of the region and expanding supra-national capitalist developments in China and Southeast Asia. Many such studies focus on the rising economic power of both China and ethnic Chinese in Southeast Asia, thereby implying a supposedly homogeneous "Chinese" pattern of organising businesses and economic interests. Disturbingly, this discourse conveys the constructed appearance of a seemingly omnipresent Chinese power that is articulated in the 2"orm Of cross-border, transnational Chinese nationalism. As Ong (1999:18) has noted, such a discourse expresses Chinese triumphalism, amounting to a re-orientalisation of "Chineseness." On the other hand, this kind of discourse can also feed revived fears of the so-called "yellow peril." The collection of articles in this feature section attempts to debunk such mythical claims of Chinese power, "Chinese capital" and homogeneous "Chineseness." Rejecting a simplistic culturalist view of Chinese ethnicity which treats all those labelled "Chinese" as an intrinsically homogenous group, we argue for the need to anchor analyses of socalled "Chinese capitalism" in dynamic interactions between economic capital, social_