新加坡的中國研究有別於其他地區的中國研究，有其特殊的建構脈絡及歷史軌跡。事實上，在整個中國知識體系建構過程中，主政者的意志及主持中國研究者形塑了整個新加坡中國學研究特色。影響所及，政府的政策乃至於學術界的研究走向均看得見東亞所的痕跡。本文從離散理論的視角深入分析長期擔任新加坡東亞所關鍵角色－黃朝翰學術所長的著述論述與東亞所研究員的學術產出，作為呈現新加坡中國學研究的一種途徑。黃朝翰來自香港，曾身處歐美知識界，其缺乏新加坡本土性的特色，正是領導者所意欲的身分策略。而東亞所挑選的研究員，在身分上也大多具備如此特性，其知識產出提供了新加坡政府與西方學界關於中國的情報。顯見華裔離群學者處在中、西之間兩邊力量的拉扯下，的確會呈現出與單純來自中方或西方學者的不同研究視角，研究者身分的差異對於中國知識的詮釋存在分殊性，這也有助於理解方興未艾的中國研究之研究者處在不同位置與身分對「中國」理解的差異。

The China studies in Singapore is distinct; it has evolved from specifichistorical contexts. Both political and academic leaders have playedimportant roles in shaping China studies. The East Asian Institute（EAI） isparticularly critical to China studies in Singapore. This has to do with itsfunction as well as its leadership. This paper introduces the EAI and itsleadership from the point of view of the diasporic theory. Professor JohnWong, together with colleagues he has recruited and advised, represented theSingaporean style of China studies. John Wong, originally from Hong Kong,received his training in the West. His as well as his colleagues’ lack of localconnection fits perfectly well into Singapore’s strategic choice, that is toattend closely to China’s growth, avoid ethnic sensibilities among SoutheastAsian neighbors, and remain its Western outlook. The diasporiccharacteristics is present both in the design of the institute and thecomposition of its staff. By tracing the three stages in the institute’s history,the paper explains the transformation of China Studies in Singapore.