Tung Chee Wah Resigns. The Constructs of Power and Home.

Awaiting a democratic Hong Kong

Well Tung Chee Wah has resigned. I feel there is an expectation for me to be overjoyed or feel it’s a good thing. The truth is I am completely numb to the recent changes. I don’t find myself caring because whether Tung stays or goes it makes no difference to the current distribution of power. I hope the next person is better at governing, for the sake of sanity but whoever takes over will be chosen by Beijing. We would not have a say about it in any way.

So all this proves again, Hong Kong Ren have no power over our own destiny and space. It’s always done for us, infantiling 7 million people. We remain colonial subjects be it England or China. People talk about how we’re in a post-colonial stage, but really we’re just  recolonized by the different group of people. But I do suppose the recent quest and movement to attaining democracy, is an outcome of the decoloniztion process, an emotional and individual one rather than a political one. Because after all in 1997 power did not get transferred to the people, but instead a grander power.  Which really just proves now or 8 years ago, changing leaders does not make a difference. We need a change of system instead.

How odd it is that, when a Hong Kong ren immigrates to a western country, and become naturalized, they will in effect begin an act of self-autonomy under a democratic system. We are in positions that we gain power by reconstructing the meaning of home outside of the geographical space we are born into.

Yet many immigrants never reconstruct their “belonging,” and thus have more political status in their non-home -a foreign place that they exist in but not a psychological/emotional/personal home. I guess that’s the Diaspora, that’s the concept of displacement. Somewhat akin to the Jewish people before the state of Israel. A “self”-identity removed from the nation state.

I guess maybe that’s why Hong Kong ren and Chinese people in general cling so strongly towards their culture and do not assimilate after immigration. We go to other places to recreate a space of our own, outside of both the country “Middle Kingdom,” as well as under its shadow of control. As the only places Chinese population have the vote, freespeech, no threat or questions towards their “nationality,” and “nation” status is in foreign countries. As we do not have the privilege,  autonomy nor complete freedom within the tri-china areas: CCP ruled China, “Special Administration” of Hong Kong, and the ever tenacious borders and identity of Taiwan, (Should I include Macau also? Which makes it a quad-china area,)

So in many ways, the Diaspora and immigration of Hong Kong Ren is a political one. What makes it not prominently obvious is those who leave are generally well off and do not leave under “refugee” status and do not seek asylum unlike most people who flee due to unrest or persecution of their home country. After all the biggest boost in migration of Hong Kong rens was during the sine British talks, and post Tiananmen in 1989 all leading up to and beyond 1997.

Mr. Tung resigns. Who will take over is to be seen. I don’t have a choice in who it is, and nor do anyone else. But that we know.