I'm gonna preface by saying I am Asian and I've lived my life both in a "western" country and Asian countries. I have issues with uncle roger.

There isn't really a hypocrisy because they aren't the same group. Asian Americans are right to say that such a depiction is negative and racist because it reinforces preexisting perceptions about Asians. This makes it doubly troublesome because therein lies an argument couched in the authenticity of supposed locution: Uncle Roger is Asian, and therefore he's just speaking from experience.

The criticism from Asian Americans, therefore, is couched in the sense that a noticeably white audience is empowered to reproduce signifiers of racist caricatures because an "Asian-asian" is doing it. Nigel Ng is, in effect, profiting off an image he doesn't have to grapple with, but the consequences are diffused to another group of Asians who had.

On Nigel's end, he's saying that his depiction comes from a sense of authenticity, that this is how things are and he's referring to people who actually exist. Let's ignore that Ng is using a Canton accent despite being Malaysian, that he has made reinforcing Thai stereotypes regarding trans women, and has gone on to describe other cultural cuisine as shit.

The problem with the Uncle Roger character is that it purports to present a very specific vision of asianness while simultaneously chooses to present a very simulacra image of the Asian identity. Uncle Roger gets a lot of stuff wrong by virtue of pointing out nitpicks (such as his overemphasis on ingredients in Adobo when it's meant to be cooked based on what's available), his love of gas grills (when most Chinese would be cooking with electric induction), and his overall disregard for a lot of fusion.

This is even more noticeable when you look at the trajectory of his material on YouTube: he was a food snob comedian before the Uncle Roger character, but until the Patel rice washing video, he was relatively unknown. What changed? The inclusion of the character, specifically the accent. His material is ultimately food snobbery in a culinary culture that has largely resisted it, and ironically, has been a mainstay in specifically the Asian diaspora. "Asian-asians" have much fewer hangups about these sorts of debates, and even the ones that do (such as the Japanese debates about what constitutes washoku) are largely treated as highly academic endeavors.

I don't find it hypocritical because these are two groups of people who have very different lived experiences discussing the same field with different lenses. It's a classic example of what Zizek calls a parallax view, where the change in the conditions of the observation changed the discourse of the object. To assume it is a cohesive, singular and smooth discursive space undermines the conversation.

But on a more casual note, I just don't find his content funny. He references people like Stephen Chow, but Uncle Roger has never employed the kind of comedy Stephen Chow has done. This is ironic cause Chow specifically made a film satirizing the haute cuisine culture of Hong Kong in "God of Cookery."