In this well-written monograph based on extensive archival research and fieldwork, Chien-Wen Kung explores how the Philippine Chinese became the “world’s most exemplary Cold Warriors” (p. 1). Borrowing from Stephen Krasner’s concept of “shared sovereignty” (p. 9), Kung convincingly argues that the Kuomintang, often with the cooperation of the Philippine government, instigated a “re-organization” of institutions and networks such that “threads of anti-communism [were] woven into the fabric of Philippine Chinese society” (p. 122). Along the way, Kung shows how the Communist left became increasingly marginalized as Philippine Chinese in different social classes “practice[ed] anti-Communism” for both “ideological and self-interested ends” (p. 78).The first two chapters trace the prewar history of the KMT, Chinese society and Chinese Communism, as well as the subsequent triumph of KMT vis-à-vis Chinese Communist influence in the Philippines. The remaining five core chapters examine select individuals, organizations, and activities.Kung’s analyses underscore two main points. The first focuses on the KMT’s dominant influence in Philippine Chinese society, with the tacit acceptance of the Philippine state, which in turn allowed the Republic of China (ROC) to assert non-territorial sovereignty over the Chinese. The clearest example lies in Kung’s examination of the Quintin and Rizal Yuyingtung case. As publisher and editor of Chinese Commercial News, they deviated from the dominant anticommunist discourse and were arrested for publishing pro-Communist material and deported to the ROC to be tried as ROC nationals.The second centers on the Philippine Chinese’s adaptation to the anticommunist climate by practicing anticommunism in myriad ways and for a variety of reasons. Kung examines individuals and groups to try and assess their motivations. Alfonso Sycip, a wealthy businessman with no hardline ideological leanings, likely assumed leadership of the Philippine-Chinese United Organization in Support of Anti-Communist Movement in 1951 to establish his “credentials” in the new geopolitical climate. Shih-I-Sheng, who did not come from an elite background, opportunistically positioned himself as a “go-to expert” on Chinese communism even though the information he provided was questionable (p. 92). Among those Philippine Chinese who participated in tours to Taiwan arranged by the ROC/KMT were those who viewed their trip in “sentimental and ideological terms” (p. 167) and others who viewed it in practical terms associated with professional development (p. 174). Taken together, the individual cases exemplify the ways in which Philippine Chinese negotiated their own paths in the anticommunist climate of the Cold War.Kung’s monograph makes important contributions to the scholarship of the Cold War in Asia. By delving into Philippine Chinese society and culture, the study provides us with a nuanced view of how the Cold War was experienced by individuals on the ground. In analyzing the influence of the KMT and the ROC in shaping the seemingly uniform anticommunist orientation of Philippine Chinese in collaboration with successive Philippine governments, Kung also shows how the influence of the KMT/ROC in the Philippines was exceptional when compared to its neighbors such as Malaya and Indonesia. More importantly, Kung’s work rightly focuses our attention on intra-Asian connections that are often overlooked in studies that center on the role of the United States in the Cold War.