香港獨立媒體 - Comments for "做英國公民? 先來考個試! "

Finally......

I wrote it. Please give me some comments. It doesn't matter a lot even if you don't agree.

I know what I wrote was controversal, so just pay a bit more attention and finish reading it, thanks!

Some feedbacks

It would be really nice if Forstig would write another article in Chinese so to invite more comments.

After i left Hong Kong I suddenly find that I am so ignorant and there are so many things that I dont understand, and I dont know how to interpret, one of them is the concept of nationality (and the related concepts of nation, country...). I agree that the concept of country and nation is challengable in itself, not to metion the power dynamics following these terms. Frostig challenges that 'people of common belief should ever form the countries', I just wonder if citizens of the same country share the common belief. If you say the common belief is the need to form a country then it seems like kind of tautology.

Thanks 葉蔭聰

as title.

to:河馬君

Hall, Stuart. 1997. "The Local and the Global: Globalization and Ethnicity." In Dangerous Liaisons: Gender, Nation, & Postcolonial Perspectives. Minneapolis: University of Minnesota Press, 173-187.

Conclusion: I would challenge why 'people of common belief shou

The 'common belief' of nearly all mankind I would like to challenge is the 'certain', accepted status of 'countries'.

Without the concept of 'countries' and 'nations', such 'who should get this citizenship', 'who should immigrate', 'who does not belong to that country' problems would not have appeared at all......

I feel sorry, and even sad to hear that

Well, just personal feeling, please don't mind, but I can't keep it in my heart anymore.

You said, 'I do love Hong Kong and think that I have a sense of belonging, but I know very little about the political structure...... just because I am not interested in all these things.' I feel so sorry about that. A person who is so passionated and so energised to discuss about the politics of other countries aren't interested in the local issues...... I really feel bad. I doubt whether this is a kind of true 'love' and 'sense of belonging' of not.

Maybe this is the common mentality of Chinese, but how can you learn about the culture of a place without knowing its politics (basically, at least)?

Well, don't take it personally, I just feel sorry to hear somebody claiming that.

The truth is, I love Hong Kong, so I care... I care about its development, its politics, its future, the life living here, its composition, its people, etc. etc. I hate studying History also, VERY FRANKLY, still I am very interested in HK history and I am rather familiar with it by now (I will never be an expert, just I know the whole trend and can tell you things from historical events and incidents).

PLEASE, if you can claim that you belong to Hong Kong, try to understand it more, not only where you can find tasty and inexpensive food, but EVERYTHING. I hope anybody who has read this can review (and possibly) revise what you mean by saying that you love a city, a country. (In this sense, in fact, I can very easily tell you that I have no sense of belonging at all when refering to PRC.)

I know the feeling of being away

I had been in CH for a few years, until I came back recently.

I agree that 'national identity' has become more and more meaningful all of a sudden, since you left home (Hong Kong). For me, after all the conflicts and struggles, I just figured out that 'country' is the most unnecessary ideology in the world, even worse than 'family', which at least indicates an inborn physical bond.

I really hate the 'nationalism' and any idea within 'country', 'blood connection', 'race' or anything like that. That's why I basically agree with your stance, yet I can't agree with it.

My point of view is, what you should hate (or we should say 'dislike', to be milder) is the whole ideology and system of 'countries', 'nations' and the politics involved, but not how a 'nation' reinforces its own concept of 'country'/'nation', as it is just a natural development from the illness of 'nationalism'.

That's why I always say (in this whole discussion, I mean), if you are against this kind of 'knowledge test' required for the application of citizenship, you should in fact be against the whole idea, the whole concept of 'countries' and its so-called 'independence' afterall.

The concept of 'nation' is what I am challenging, although I surely know that it is a long way, and a tough one.

I know that discussion in Chinese (traditional) helps the discussion here in In-media, and I am going to type a short paragraph presenting my ideas on this issue soon (hopefully I can finish typing within this week, bless me).

And to Chong Head, thanks for your recommendation, as long as I am not yet dead after I can (if possible at all) squeeze some time to finish my readings and more importantly my presentations and term papers (should be by mid-December), I will definitely read this, thanks a lot!

Is the "common belief" challengable?

I think to certain extent I get your point and I do think that there are sets of rights and responsibilities behind every action, including the application to become a British citizen. As I mentioned in my previous message that this is the rules of the game, if we choose to participate in this game (i.e. the choice to become a british citizen), then we have to follow the rules, and following the rules is the first and most important common value/ norms in the country. If you want to become a member of the country, then the basic thing is you got to obey the law, and the test is part of the legal requirements on British citizenship. So I agree that if we choose to become a British citizen, then we have no choice but take the test, and it's not really such a bad/ difficult thing to make some efforts to get what you want to get. just imagine that the test is nothing but memorising the facts, and it's only 24 questions in 45 mins. Practically it is not something that is so unacceptable, i just think the underlying ideologies are worth to study.

If one choose to become a British citizen, then certainly (s)he would share some of the social values. But does it mean that (s)he has to agree with all the values and beliefs of the country? It is quite difficult to determine what are the common beliefs, especially in a diversify society. It's true that there's no point to become a citizen if you dont really think that you are part of the community/ society, and if you dont share the values as other people do, but the society is heterogenous and there are always space for reformation.

Of course this is personal choice. some may think that if you dont agree or support these values, you have to think twice whether you should become a citizen. Nobody is focing you to become a part of the country or take up this identity. This is just to reinforce the mainstream and dominant ideologies and for me, I would consider it as an obstacle to social change.

Individual is so vulnerable and powerless under this power dynamic, practically I dont think we can do anything to change the rules of game, what we can do is, maybe, to challenge the ideas and see whether there are better alternatives.

You may read from the lines that I still consider all these as the "rules of the game" that one may have to follow but not neccessarily have to obey, rather than some "common beliefs" that act as kind of prerequisites as a citizen.

Full citation?

Can I have the full citation of the reference that you quoted?
I found that there are quite a few books with the similar title and this article should be edited in other books as well. I just want to make sure I get the right one. Thanks!
National identity is never my interest but it becomes much more important when you are away from your home country.

建議看一篇文

拗左咁耐，不如大家一起讀下書．
我知Frostig正在讀文化研究的東西，提起英國，不妨讀一下：
Stuart Hall. 1997. "The Local and the Global: Globalization and Ethnicity." in Dangerous Liaisons.

內裡有很深入討論"Englishness"，有時input好緊要，唔好淨係output，唔係會乾塘，或者不停重複又重複老調，或某種自以為自然不過的常識．

Stuart Hall一文我正在讀，遲D分享一下心得也不錯．

Right & Responsibility

Maybe I am wrong, if so, please tell me.
I think that the rights and responsibilities (R&R hereafter) of the 'green card holders' (permenant residents) and 'citizens' are not that different, so that is not a point specifically facing 'citizenship'; while the 'identity' is a main problem.

If you are to get the 'identity', you should agree with certain things. Just like, you can co-habit with your BF/GF, then you don't need to vow to him/her, and even when you two break up, you don't need to divorce. But once you two are married, you have your promise binded with the concept of 'marriage' (and practically a 'contract'), so you two can't just break up, but need to follow the law. If you disagree with 'marriage' or any consequences it may bring, you can continue to be together, you can raise your children, you two can still be happily together for the rest of your life. Then why are you blaming the 'marriage system'?
This is just an example, what I really mean is, if you don't become the citizen of a country after staying there for long time, does it take away your right of abode? If no, you have the right to choose to become a citizen or not. I agree that there are many considerations, just if you really want the identity (maybe the passport, I don't know), reciting a few facts about the history and geography of the country you're becoming a part of is not a big deal.

The only valid point would be the choice of contents. I agree that this may be the problematic, but as it requires only MC questions, it doesn't cause too much pain even if the context of the 'syllabus' is a bit too diffcicult.

When you challenge the concept of 'requirements to become a citizen', you are challenging the system of 'countries', just like me, as we can easily refer back to the apperance of 'nation states', when the consolidation of such 'groups' are due to agreements and ceratin common believes. Like now, PRC still doesn't allow foreigners to get its citizenship, so should we complain about that? Or we can easily list out countries which allow and not allow multiple-nationalities, so, tell me, which party is right and which is wrong? I just want to point out that the problems you all have listed are the fundamental problems of the concept of 'nation', which has already set up the 'boudaries'.

So, it is a matter of choice. If you are not born to be its national, and you don't have to be become one, why are you saying that they have set up obstacles when you want to get this nationality? Just like, if you are not born into a Catholic family, and now you enjoy going to Catholic church every week, still no one forces you to become a Catholic (to be baptised), then the church has certain requirements for the people to be baptised there, if you don't agree with it, why you want to become a part of it?
If you don't agree with the common belief of a 'society' or a 'party', what good does it do to you joining it?

Here, I use the final example in this comment.
If you have read Harry Potter I (HP I), then you know that HP could have chosen to enter Slytherin, but he didn't. He refused just because he couldn't agree with the behaviours and belief (pure blood is better) of the founder as well as the whole House, so he refused to join. The 'Sorting Hat' can choose, right, but the person can also choose, to a certain extent. In other words, a 'power relationship' also exists here, because the 'central' has always got the power. But for a government, it doesn't ask you to join their 'game', their 'club', but you are the one who is keen to join. THEY set the rules because 'their rules' are what countries have ever been for, since this whole concept begins.

Sense of belonging as a requirement for citizenship

The third thing I would like to mention is on our assumption on the sense of belonging. Should sense of belonging be an essntial part of one's citizenship? How can we measure our sense of belonging?

We assume that if you want to become a citizen, then you have to love that country, and develop a kind of sense of belonging. But in reality, the sad truth is it is always an economic consideration, or even a political consideration to become a citizenship of a country. Sometimes people want to become a citizen of a particular country simply because it is much more beneficial. For intance those people who gain permanent residence as investment migration.

One can love the country, the local community, the lifestyle, the living environment and the "culture" of a country, without having a sense of belonging to the government. There are many different levels in the concept of "country", and i believe the idea of "nationality" is just much more complicated.

"Sense of belonging", "nationality", "Britishness", so on and so forth, is kind of abstract ideas, what really affect our real life is, on the other hand, some practical issues.

Some how I think the test is a selection process and would lead to some cultural exclusions. People have to know what they supposed to know to become the British, and no matter whether you are interested in history or politics, you've got to study the "test guide" beforehand. This is to recognise and reinforce some kinds of British values and cultures (and reject others) in an implicit way.

I do love Hong Kong and think that I have a sense of belonging, but I know very little about the political structure, or even something people consider as common sense (there's nothing can be called as common sense in my view), just because I am not interested in all these things. I do willing to explore and understand HK as I love my home country, so I like to discover the local culture. My ignorance in HK history and politics should not challenge my ability, and qualification as a HK citizen. Maybe it is just the same when considering the case of the issue on British citizenship.

And also, how much you can know by reading/memorising the guidebook? And what can be tested by the computer-based test which you are just supposed to do multiple choices questions?

Britishness

The second thing is, what is sense of belonging by the way? Should it be defined by our understanding on the history, politics and culture of a place? And what culture (whose culture) is it?

I am a bit annoyed by the "official definition" on what you should know to become a British. Though the officials claimed that it is not to test one's Britishness, everybody would consider it as a kind of qualifying test. And it is a fact that only if you pass that test you can become a British. So the officials and government have already told you what you have to know to become a member of the country, regardless of whether you idenitify yourself as a member of the community or whehter you have the so called "sense of belonging".

Regarding to the British culture, I wonder if there's a homogeneous culture. If not, why should we know and agree to these cultural elements but not the others? What are the implications and underlying ideologies? If you say you better know more about the country before you become a citizen, and I think maybe you better know "what is a Chav?", " Which city is named as the gun city?" , "what are the ways to participate in the local council?" and so on. These are some practical things that you have to know to live here in UK.

When you become a citizen, what you have to know is your rights as well as responsibilities. So why are this test related to one's citizenship? Only if you say that one of the responsibility of British citizen is to uphold the traditional values and to maintain the general knowledge on british history and politics would make all these more resonable. If this is so, then I think the message behind is kind of elitism.

Everyone may have their own definition on sense of belonging, and their own definition on British culture. What should be included in the test is thus debatable.

Britishness and sense of belonging

There are some points that I would like to make:
First we should not assume that all the people who have lived in the UK for more than 5 years should know all the answers of the test. Indeed the test requires you have some general knowledge on the British history and government, and many people, especially old people, really dont know these facts. Some of the answers are quite specific and they are not even covered in the general education in the school. The knowledge on the history and political culture on one's home country is rather a middle class concept, in which old people and people from the lower class may not really interested in these apects of their country. If you know these facts, maybe you will find yourself easier to integrate into the British life, but it is not a must to know it. So, even if you really want to be a British, or even if you have integrated into the local community, it doesnt mean that you should know all these things.

On the other hand, whether you have already known all these historical facts and political organisation, and whether you are willing to learn and know, is two different things. It may be reasonable to say that if you love this country, you should be willing to learn more about her, or at least make an effot to integrate into the local culture. And if you considerate British citizenship as simply a political identity, then one who are interested in becoming a British citizen should follow the rules of game and be prepared for the test. This is one of the qualification to the citizenship, just like the requirement on the years of residence in the country.

However, while the officials claimed that this is not a qualification test for one's ability to be a British, and it is just to test whether you are prepared to be a British, then we would ask: what should we know to be a British? When the local British people even dont know all the answers to these question, how important is this knowledge?

If your 'other half' is from another country......

So, you two can choose whose country of origin you two are going to live in.

If you choose to follow him/her, at least you like something there, and 'in total' you two prefer to live there than to live in your own country (Maybe that is another power relationship, like you have to follow your husband, I don't know, but that's not our focus here. We may discuss it later, if you want.).

愛屋及烏, if you like your spouse so much, you shouldn't hate the locality. And even if you really hate that place (maybe both of you do, who knows?), you have the right not to become its citizen. Like in Hong Kong, except the owning of an HKSAR passport and the right to vote, I frankly can't tell the differences between a permenant resident and a citizen. We all pay the same amount of tax (in proportion, varies by amount of income, not political status, I mean). (If you know anything else, please tell me.)

And for example, even if a foreigner marries a Chinese Chinese (should I say 'Mainland Chinese' instead?), and the couple decides to live in PRC afterwards, until forever, the foreigner can NEVER BECOME CHINESE NATIONAL (/Chinese citizen), as far as the information I get. So, what do you call it?