sorry. i don't find it reasonable. one applies for a particular citizenship for many many reasons. New immigrants are always bringing elements into a country. this kind of test is only an attempt to narrowly define what Britian is, in an official way. but this is far away from people's experience in reality. why is the knowledge about the Church of England important? why not "Sex Pistol" (a famous and classic english punk band)? why not "Ecstasy" (one of the most popular designer drug in the 1990s)? why not the history of Chinese immigrant, indian immigrant, african immigrant in Britain...?

I feel so sorry that you fail to differentiate people's senses of belonging from the official-national defintion of sense of belonging. I don't see the importance of the Church of England to sense of belonging. if you knew more about its history, you would not associate it with sense of belonging. It's about the political history (Henry VIII, Queen Elizabeth, religious conflicts between catholics and protestant, ... ...).

You don't mind learning about national history. but you really mind somebody who doesn't know or is not willing to know "one's own country". even though you really do, it's not a problem. but supporting that kind of official-national definition and sanction is really a problem. you're supporting a state imposing its power over new immigrants and national culture. i'm sorry that i could not agree with this stance.

These two things are different. The former is very clearly a political status, which the latter I would say it as a kind of 'right'.

Now, by vowing, you join a country to be its citizen, and you are becoming a part of it, while residents, even permenant residents aren't voters and can't take part in many big issues in the country. It is an agreement, and you really can choose (not always, and not freely, of course) whether to be a citizen of this country or not. So far, I haven't heard of one single country that forces all its permenant residents to become citizens. Most of the cases, even if you don't want to get this nationality, you can still live there, work there...... If it is a choice, why do you think that it is unreasonable to set up certain requirements? Like, if I say, all citizens have to pay the taxes, then you have to make the decision to choose. I totally understand that there are some cases which the person has to live abroad or have to get another passport for political or other reasons, yet it doesn't make a difference when we are only talking about 'nationality', not 'right of abode'. For instance, I know some Chinese who finally get legal status in Italy, and they would never be able to (and they have never thought about it in fact, as they don't really live in Italy so they don't speak Italian at all) get Italian citizenship.

Nationality is something stupid, yet there is a price for each country, and that's why there are so many fake marriages every year, which cost so much each.

如果有一個人不喜歡香港，但這個人卻想與在港的家人一個團聚呢？這個人可能不喜歡香港的生活、不喜歡香港的文化、對香港的歷史甚至是政治制度毫無興趣。但香港卻可能有這個人覺得最珍貴的東西──家庭。這個人不愛香港這個「城市」，卻可以愛與家人一起住在香港。

Frankly, I think this is the normal case, but even THIS is not universal truth.

'係邊度出世就自動擁有該國民身分和居留權' is just a common practice, only as far as I know, Switzerland doesn't allow this (there are many more countries whose immigration policies are unknown to me). At the end of the day, ridiculous enough, some people would really have no nationality at all, or have to stick with very, very strict rules to keep the nationality. I mean, is it ridiculous? The extreme case can be that scary, while I just think a balance is what we need.

If there is no more boundaries between countries, then people still wouldn't move that far. Think about it, then you know why. (Also, for immigrantion laws, 大頭仔 has written a very informative and interesting article in In-media a couple of months ago.)
There are many problems living abroad, and for the poor people (those who can only earn less than 1USD per day, by definition), they might never know how wealthy the rich countries are (they might never get the opportunity to go to school), not to say whether they can buy an airticket to go to a developed country.

Just let me ask one question, you see how vague and fluid the concepts of 'country' and 'nationality' are.
'What is your ethnic group (/race), your birthplace, your current country (/city) of residence, your permenant country of residence, your nationality and your mother tongue?'
There are so many minorities in China, even I can't tell how many percents of my blood is 'Han' genes, so who has the power and right to say that Korean living within Chinese boundary, e.g. Heilongjiang is Chinese, even if his/her mother tongue is Korean, while across the border, everybody is Korean?

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?

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?

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．

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.

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.)

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.

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.