2026-09-25
Qiaopi Currency and Fees
For a specific qiaopi, the amount is not a simple number to convert into today’s money. Start with the currency label on the paper, then separate exchange service fees, postage, conversion, bureau services, and industry rewards. That approach makes the remittance detail in 《給阿嬤的情書》 easier to read without turning one historical example into a universal rule.
Read the currency label first
The film-related material cited by HKCNA says 《給阿嬤的情書》 depicts Museng sending a qiaopi home from Siam, or Thailand, and that the qiaopi bore the words “港幣,” Hong Kong dollars. That detail matters because the written label tells viewers which currency frame the amount belongs to.
The same HKCNA feature, published on May 16, 2026, also recorded a qiaopi exhibition at the Hong Kong Chiu Chow Association. One displayed letter included the line “茲付去中央國幣貳拾元,” referring to a payment of 20 in central national currency. “港幣” and “中央國幣” are different labels, so the first step is identification, not modern conversion.
Large face values need period context
The HKCNA feature describes qiaopi remittance currencies changing over time: silver dollars, local Southeast Asian currencies, Republican-era legal tender, and later Hong Kong dollars as a core settlement currency. It also states that late Republican devaluation and the early PRC period, when RMB did not yet circulate internationally, helped make Hong Kong dollars common for Teochew remittances back to China for a long period.
One example in that feature shows why face value alone can mislead. Three qiaopi sent by the same person rose from 20,000 national currency in 1946 to 500,000 the next year and 20,000,000 in 1948. Those figures should not be treated as a neat purchasing-power scale or exchanged into present-day money without a specific historical method.
Fees, postage, and rewards are separate
Cheng Xi’s research distinguishes the exchange service fee collected by qiaopi bureaus from postage. In other words, a qiaopi’s money service was not identical to ordinary mail. When a document or discussion mentions a fee, the reader should ask whether it refers to currency exchange, delivery, or another part of the bureau’s work.
Cheng Xi records that an October 1950 meeting set a fee at 12.5 per mille. That figure belongs to that policy setting and should not become a universal qiaopi rate. Cheng Xi also records that in the second half of 1951 a South China measure granted a 5 per mille reward to the qiaopi industry based on received remittances. That reward went to the industry; it was not a customer fee or an exchange rate.
Bureau services and conversion also differ
In The Paper's May 12, 2026 interview, Wang Yujiao said writing on behalf of senders, delivering letters, and reading letters aloud were usually included in qiaopi bureau service and did not carry extra charges. The same interview also notes that bureaus allowed letters to be sent on credit and allowed unpaid fees. So “no extra charge” for those services does not mean the whole remittance system was free.
Wang also described a Thailand-to-Chaoshan-related process: Chinese senders brought Thai baht to a bureau, the bureau stated an exchange rate, the baht was converted into Hong Kong dollars, and the letter directly wrote the Hong Kong dollar amount. HKCNA describes another mechanism in which local currency moved with qiaopi to Hong Kong, was exchanged into Hong Kong dollars, and then went to the mainland. These are different descriptions with different scopes, not one universal physical route.