Upload
allyssa-jorden
View
218
Download
0
Tags:
Embed Size (px)
Citation preview
Conference on Border Crossing in Greater China: Production, Community and IdentityCenter for China Studies, National Chengchi University, Taipei
13-14 September 2012
Robert Chung, Edward TaiPublic Opinion Programme
The University of Hong Kong
Ethnic Identity of Hong Kong People:An Academic Question turned Political
Ethnic Identity of Hong Kong People
• Methodological Framework
• From dichotomy to one-in-four choices
• From one-in-four choices to strength ratings
• From strength ratings to “identity indices”
• Describing the Trend of Ethnic Identities
• “Hongkongers” versus “Chinese”
• Strength rating for identities – “Hongkongers” vs “Chinese”
• “Identity indices” – Six identities gathered together
• Ethnic Identity turned Political
• What next?2
Study of Ethnic Identity
• Dichotomy of “Hongkonger” ( 香 港 人 ) versus “Chinese” (中國人) was widely used by Hong Kong sociologists in the 1980s
• From a 1985 survey by Lau & Kuan “
• “59.5 percent of the respondents identifies themselves as Hongkongese, 36.2 percent as Chinese.”
• the proportion of those opting for a Hong Kong identity was “striking”
• people’s “sense of attachment to Hong Kong is tremendous”
3
Methodological Framework
From dichotomy to one-in-four choices
• The traditional method: choose from a dichotomy of
“Hongkonger” (香港人) vs “Chinese” (中國人)
• But the concepts of “Hongkonger” and “Chinese” may
overlap with each other
• Instead of using “don’t know”, “hard to say” and other
uncertain answers as the middle choice, two more specific
answers were offered, namely, “Hongkonger in China” (中國的香港人) and “Chinese in Hong Kong” (香港的中國人)
4
Methodological Framework
From dichotomy to one-in-four choices
• “Hongkonger in China” ( 中 國 的 香 港 人 ) = “ethnically
Hongkonger living in China”, meaning a stronger sense of the
“Hongkonger” identityand “Chinese in Hong Kong”
• “Chinese in Hong Kong” (香港的中國人) = “ethnically
Chinese living in Hong Kong”, meaning a stronger sense of
the “Chinese” identity
• Managed to narrow down some ambivalent answers to more
specific labels like “Hongkonger in China” and “Chinese in
Hong Kong”5
Methodological Framework
6
“Hongkonger in the broadest sense”
(廣義香港人)
“Hongkonger”(香港人)
“Hongkonger in China” (中國的
香港人)
“Chinese in the broadest
sense” (廣義中國人)
“Chinese”
(中國人)
“Chinese in Hong Kong” (香港的
中國人)
Methodological Framework
From one-in-four choices to strength ratings
• There is a methodological blind spot regarding the absolute strength of identities when answering dichotomous or one-in-four choices
• Two more rating questions added to rate respondents’ strength of their “Hongkongers” and “Chinese” identities separately using a 0-10 scale
• In June 2007, the survey is further enhanced to include four more identities for strength rating, namely, “citizens of People’s Republic of China”, “members of the Chinese race”, “Asians” and “global citizens”, in order to depict a clearer picture of cultural and ethnic identities 7
Methodological Framework
From strength ratings to “identity indices”
• Separate importance ratings for all different identities are
added in December 2008
• “Identity indices” computed by taking the geometric means
of “strength” times “importance” then multiplied by 10
• The importance ratings are introduced because some people
may give a high rating on an identity, but do not feel that the
identity has too much relevance in their political or social life8
Methodological Framework
9
Identity Indices
Strength Ratings
Importance Ratings
X 10
Describing the Trend of Ethnic Identities
10
26-2
7/8/
1997
28-2
9/10
/199
7
3-4/
6/19
98
14/8
/199
8
21/1
2/19
98
15/4
/199
9
6/8/
1999
13-1
5/12
/199
9
6-7/
4/20
00
21-2
5/9/
2000
22/3
-2/4
/200
1
13-2
1/9/
2001
12-1
3/3/
2002
2-5/
9/20
02
1-4/
3/20
03
10-1
4/12
/200
3
6-9/
12/2
004
9-14
/12/
2005
6-12
/12/
2006
11-1
4/12
/200
7
9-12
/12/
2008
8-11
/12/
2009
13-1
6/12
/201
0
12-2
0/12
/201
1
0%
5%
10%
15%
20%
25%
30%
35%
40%
45%
50%
身分類別認同(按次)Ethnic Identity (per poll)
(8/1997 - 6/2012)
香港人 Hong Kong Citizen
中國人 Chinese Citizen
香港的中國人 Hong Kong's Chinese Citizen
中國的香港人 China's Hong Kong Citizen
調查日期 Date of survey
百分
比 P
rece
ntag
e
Describing the Trend of Ethnic Identities
11
26-2
7/8/
1997
28-2
9/10
/199
7
3-4/
6/19
98
14/8
/199
8
21/1
2/19
98
15/4
/199
9
6/8/
1999
13-1
5/12
/199
9
6-7/
4/20
00
21-2
5/9/
2000
22/3
-2/4
/200
1
13-2
1/9/
2001
12-1
3/3/
2002
2-5/
9/20
02
1-4/
3/20
03
10-1
4/12
/200
3
6-9/
12/2
004
9-14
/12/
2005
6-12
/12/
2006
11-1
4/12
/200
7
9-12
/12/
2008
8-11
/12/
2009
13-1
6/12
/201
0
12-2
0/12
/201
1
0%
10%
20%
30%
40%
50%
60%
70%
80%
身分類別認同(按次)Ethnic Identity (per poll)
(8/1997 - 6/2012)
廣義香港人 "Hong Kong Citi-zen" in broad sense
廣義中國人 "Chinese Citizen" in broad sense
調查日期 Date of Survey
百分
比 P
rece
ntag
e
Describing the Trend of Ethnic Identities
12
26-2
7/8/
1997
28-2
9/10
/199
7
3-4/
6/19
98
14/8
/199
8
21/1
2/19
98
15/4
/199
9
6/8/
1999
13-1
5/12
/199
9
6-7/
4/20
00
21-2
5/9/
2000
22/3
-2/4
/200
1
13-2
1/9/
2001
12-1
3/3/
2002
2-5/
9/20
02
1-4/
3/20
03
10-1
4/12
/200
3
6-9/
12/2
004
9-14
/12/
2005
6-12
/12/
2006
11-1
4/12
/200
7
9-12
/12/
2008
8-11
/12/
2009
13-1
6/12
/201
0
12-2
0/12
/201
15.0
5.5
6.0
6.5
7.0
7.5
8.0
8.5
9.0
「香港人」、「中國人」身分認同程度評分(按次)Strength of “Hong Kong citizen” & “Chinese citizen” identity (per poll)
(8/1997 - 6/2012)
香港人 Hong Kong Cit-izen
中國人 Chinese Citizen
調查日期 Date of Survey
認同
感 S
tren
gth
Rat
ing
Describing the Trend of Ethnic Identities
13
26-2
7/8/
1997
28-2
9/10
/199
7
3-4/
6/19
98
14/8
/199
8
21/1
2/19
98
15/4
/199
9
6/8/
1999
13-1
5/12
/199
9
6-7/
4/20
00
21-2
5/9/
2000
22/3
-2/4
/200
1
13-2
1/9/
2001
12-1
3/3/
2002
2-5/
9/20
02
1-4/
3/20
03
10-1
4/12
/200
3
6-9/
12/2
004
9-14
/12/
2005
6-12
/12/
2006
11-1
4/12
/200
7
9-12
/12/
2008
8-11
/12/
2009
13-1
6/12
/201
0
12-2
0/12
/201
1
5.0
5.5
6.0
6.5
7.0
7.5
8.0
8.5
9.0
「香港人」身分認同程度評分(按次及按年齡組別)Strength of “Hong Kong citizen” identity (per poll, by age group)
(8/1997 - 6/2012)
18 - 29
30+
整體 Overall
調查日期 Date of Survey
認同
感 S
tren
gth
Rat
ing
Describing the Trend of Ethnic Identities
14
26-2
7/8/
1997
28-2
9/10
/199
7
3-4/
6/19
98
14/8
/199
8
21/1
2/19
98
15/4
/199
9
6/8/
1999
13-1
5/12
/199
9
6-7/
4/20
00
21-2
5/9/
2000
22/3
-2/4
/200
1
13-2
1/9/
2001
12-1
3/3/
2002
2-5/
9/20
02
1-4/
3/20
03
10-1
4/12
/200
3
6-9/
12/2
004
9-14
/12/
2005
6-12
/12/
2006
11-1
4/12
/200
7
9-12
/12/
2008
8-11
/12/
2009
13-1
6/12
/201
0
12-2
0/12
/201
1
5.0
5.5
6.0
6.5
7.0
7.5
8.0
8.5
9.0
「中國人」身分認同程度評分(按次及按年齡組別)Strength of “Chinese citizen” identity (per poll, by age group)
(8/1997 - 6/2012)
18 - 29
30+
整體 Overall
調查日期 Date of Survey
認同
感 S
tren
gth
Rat
ing
Describing the Trend of Ethnic Identities
15
Ethnic Identity turned Political
• 28 December 2011, the POP released its latest finding that “in
terms of absolute rating, people’s identification with
‘Hongkonger’ has reached a ten-year high, while that of
‘Chinese’ has dropped to a 12-year low”
• One day later, Hao Tiechuan, Director of the Publicity, Cultural
and Sports Department of the Liaison Office of the Central
People’s Government in Hong Kong openly criticizes the survey
as “unscientific” and “illogical”, because it uses a dichotomous
measurement of “Hongkongers” and “Chinese”, which is not
mutually exclusive
• Severe criticisms from leftist commentators followed16
Ethnic Identity turned Political
• All Cultural Revolution type rhetoric and accusations can be summarized into three lines of arguments:
1. Because the survey requires people to choose between the identities of “Hongkongers” and “Chinese”, it is unscientific and illogical
2. The survey conducted before Hong Kong’s handover was not of a problem, but when carried out after the handover, it becomes “unscientific”
3. The survey advocates the independence of Hong Kong and thus has an ulterior motive
• The criticism was seen by some analysts in Hong Kong as a prelude to leftist commentators’ attacks on the “3.23 Civil Referendum” Project proposed near the end of 2011, and scheduled to take place on 23 March 2012
17
Ethnic Identity turned Political
A six-point rebuttal:
1. Asking people to choose the most desired identities among four
overlapped options, namely, “Hongkongers”, “Chinese Hong Kong
citizen”, “Chinese” and “Hong Kong Chinese citizen” is not
unreasonable, even though it may have problems of “subsumption
and inclusion”
2. The results released come from two separate and independent
questions, they are single-item questions which do not involve any
“logical” problem
3. The “scientific nature” or “logical dimension” of a study is
impossible to be changed with the political climate
18
Ethnic Identity turned Political
4. If the above survey methodology is “unscientific” in Hong Kong,
then similar surveys on ethnic identity cannot be “scientific”
elsewhere in the world
5. The study comprised of 13 opinion questions plus 9 demographics
variables, the study is already very comprehensive and useful. Hao’s
complete denial of the 22-question strong survey, straddling over 15
years, with one single question which he considers “illogical”, is just
too arbitrary and dogmatic
6. The proposition that the author is splitting the country in the name of
academic research, against all academic ethics and morals, is a direct
discredit of the author’s research achievements; academic institutions
should pay attention to this, and should even consider to provide
appropriate legal protections for the innocent academics
19
What next?
• Six months after the leftist commentators launched their attack, in
June 2012, the Public Opinion Programme at the University of Hong
Kong again releases its latest findings of the same survey
• “People’s identification with ‘Hong Kong citizens’ has dropped back
a bit compared to 6 months ago, but their identification with
‘Chinese citizens’ has dropped to a 13-year low since the end of
1999. Indepth analysis shows that the rating of those under 30 years
of age continues to drop since mid-2009, and plunges to just over 5
points in the past 6 months. This warrants special attention…”
• The release concurred with the 15th anniversary of the HKSAR. This
time, the leftist commentators remain silent20
THANK YOU !
21