8/11/2019 Rachel Ahn: Reflection for Reframing Hong Kong

1/1

The term Hong Konger is definitely not a static term. Nor is it term that can be defined on behalf of anotherperson. It is fair to say that identity is something that can be applied to oneself and by oneself. Thecommonality I found between people who associate themselves with a Hong Kong identity has definitelyrevealed that that the term Hong Konger is not a restrictive nor exclusive classification.

As a South Korean who grew up in Australia and Hong Kong, identity was always a sensitive topic. Despitespending a majority of my pastime in Hong Kong and that my most recent memories are all situated in Hong

Kong, I did not know if I deserved the title of a Hong Konger. It is true that the international community in HongKong is somewhat separated by a language barrier despite the sharing of a common space and cityscape. Asa result, it is often misunderstood that the international community is merely a temporary portion of HongKongs populace and do not associate themselves with Hong Kong. A misunderstanding that I once alsoshared.

But a large majority of these somewhat foreign members of Hong Kongs community are here to stayanddespite their departures from Hong Kong, long to return. Thus, the term Hong Kongers does not merely refer tothe predominantly ethnically Chinese population of Hong Kong but is an inclusive term that does notdiscriminate on the basis of race, age, gender or origin. Just because individuals in Hong Kong have differentexperiences that define an individuals idea of Hong Kong does not mean that their version of Hong Kong is notvalid. They would differ in terms of space, time, location and community. In fact, these different experiences arewhat create the Hong Kong identity.

However, beyond the complex definition of Hong Kongers, another question hovered above the participants ofthe Reframing Hong Kong conference: What should unite these individuals with different ideas of Hong Kongand their respective roles in the Hong Kong community?

For me as well as many of the conference participants, Hong Kongers should be united by a sense ofresponsibility and the common aspiration to take part in Hong Kongs future.In recent times, this sense ofresponsibility has developed an inherent tie with a common fear. Throughout the Reframing Hong Kongconference, the growing influence of China was seen as both a threat and worry to Hong Kongers, bothpanelists and participants alike. The common fear amongst Hong Kongers of losing the Hong Kong we callhome. Despite the different images of Hong Kong as home, the desire to protect and preserve our home shouldbe a sufficient force to unite Hong Kongers. The fatal mistake of delineating who deserves the title of a HongKonger, the common pitfall of trying to put an exclusive definition on Hong Kongers has worked to ourdisadvantage and could ultimately become a fatal flaw that does away with the cohesive unity needed toprotect our home.

Hong Kong is known as a global city and is premised on the idea of a neoliberal identity. As a result, it isimportant to acknowledge the integral role of the international community in the construction of contemporaryHong Kong as well as their role in the collective movement to protect what we all call home.

Everyone has the right to own Hong Kong identity. Despite different definitions of home and what we wish toprotect, whether it be colonialist history, Dennis Kwoks core values of Hong Kong or the freedom of speech.Chinas growing influence in Hong Kong has slowly seeped through Hong Kongs political system and theeffects have been revealed in more frequently over the past decade. The underhand movement of the Chinesegovernment has indeed gone undetected, especially by the international community. However, at theconference, we also explored that Hong Kongs future is not as bleak as one would expect. Over time, HongKongs community has pushed back against the theft of their rights as Hong Kongers. The results of suchmovements are not necessarily quantifiable but they have evolved and will continue to evolve in Hong Kong.The current model of civic participation is built on the work of predecessors. However, one clear difference

between now and then is the need for mass mobilization, civic participation and awareness. The need to beunited by the fear of losing what we call home and the ability to call ourselves Hong Kongers. To move beyondsuch trivial matters about who can be called Hong Konger but rather, unite against a common enemy, acommon threat.

After all, the international community is here to stay.