故事 活動 主題 量度 團體/項目 影片 聯絡我們 登入/註冊 ENG
故事 活動 主題 量度 團體/項目 影片 聯絡我們 登入/註冊




香港人 Hongkongers

簡介 Introduction

中國滿清政府在1842年將香港島割讓給大英帝國成為殖民地,直到1997年,英國將香港主權移交中華人民共和國。在這百多年殖民地歷史中,人群從中國大陸及其他地區移居香港,因此“香港人”並不直接指涉特定族裔或國籍。回歸後,華裔居民逐漸佔更大比例,根據香港2016年的人口普查,92% 人口是華裔,其中31% 出生於中國大陸、臺灣或澳門。在5萬非華裔人口中,最大的族群是菲律賓人、印尼人和白人,分別占非華裔人口的31.5、26.2% 和10.0%,其他亞洲族群包括印度人、巴基斯坦人和尼泊爾人 (HKSAR, 2017)。

“香港人”一詞 在中文語境中使用多年,但英語專有名詞 “Hongkonger”則是在2014年才被《牛津英語詞典》正式收錄 (South China Morning Post, 2014)。“香港人”本身並不是法定用語,在政府文件中,通常被稱作“香港居民”。香港居民包括不同類型,例如:i) 非永久香港居民是指持有香港身份證但沒居留權的人士,ii) 香港永久居民是持有香港永久居民身份證及居留權的人士,iii) 大部份港人持有中國護照及香港永久居民身份證,iv) 也有部份港人持有香港永久居民身份證但並非持有中國護照 (HKSAR, 2019) 。

自1997年回歸20多年後,香港人的國族身份認同仍然是個未解決的問題。一項在2017年發佈的調查顯示,香港居民對“香港人”這身份的認同感最強,其次是其他國族文化身份,例如亞洲人、世界公民、中華民族、中國人等等。在所有身份選項中,香港居民對“中華人民共和國公民”的認同感最弱,這在18-29 年齡組中尤為明顯 (HKUPOP, 2017)。

小部份政客倡議香港應被視作一個獨立於中國的民族,並意圖透過各種策略達到目的,包括使用暴力,個別人士更煽動香港居民公開仇恨中國大陸民眾 (Lam & Lum, 2018; Quackenbush, 2018)。中國政府強烈反對香港獨立,香港政府亦宣佈香港民族黨為非法組織 (Lum & Chung, 2019)。

一些學者認為公民民族主義目前被香港民間社會接受,它比中華人民共和國中央政府提倡的種族民族主義更民主 (Bhattacharya, 2005; Veg, 2017)。這二元對立的思路認為種族民族主義是相當 “自上而下”的,因為它是一種基於基因或語言等定義元素的歸屬身份形式。相反,公民民族主義更多的是 “自下而上”,因為它的基礎是共同的價值觀和公民之間的集體互動。

另一些學者則不認為中央政府主張狹隘的種族民族主義,而指出“中國公民”一直是個複雜多變的概念。沈旭輝 (2007) 認為中國民族主義是複雜而多元,而且往往是由下而上得到大陸公民支持。Zhao (2006) 指出自清朝以來,及至今天的中華人民共和國憲法,“中國人”這概念在官方定義中一直指涉多民族 (多元一體)。Brubaker (1999)則認為公民民族主義和種族民族主義的內容基本上大幅重疊,根本不宜用作二元比對。

Hong Kong became a colony of the British Empire after Qing Empire ceded Hong Kong Island in 1842, and its sovereignty was handed over from Britain to People’s Republic of China (PRC) in 1997. For more than a hundred years in this British colony, people from mainland China and other parts of the world resided in Hong Kong, and Hong Kong people do not comprise of one particular ethnicity or nationality. After the 1997 handover, the proportion of ethnic Chinese has obviously increased, according to Hong Kong's 2016 census, 92% of its population is ethnically Chinese, with 31% were born in Mainland China, Taiwan or Macau. Among the 0.58 million non-Chinese, the largest ethnic groups in Hong Kong were Filipinos, Indonesians and Whites, constituting 31.5%, 26.2% and 10.0% of the non-Chinese population respectively, other south Asians include Indian, Pakistani, and Nepalese (HKSAR, 2017).

The Chinese term “xianggangren” has been used for years in Chinese contexts, but the English term “Hongkonger” has just recently been officially added to the Oxford English Dictionary in March 2014 (South China Morning Post, 2014). The term “Hongkonger” itself has no legal definition by the Hong Kong Government. More precise terms such as Hong Kong Permanent Resident and Hong Kong Resident are used in legal contexts, in which there are different types of Hong Kong residency, such as: i) non-permanent Hong Kong residents who are people holding Hong Kong Identity Cards but they have no right of abode, ii) permanent Hong Kong residents are those holding Hong Kong Permanent Identity Cards and having the right of abode, iii) most residents hold permanent Hong Kong Residents Identity Cards and Chinese passports, iv) but there are also permanent Hong Kong residents who do hold Chinese passport (HKSAR, 2019).

More than two decades after the 1997 handover, the subjective ethno-national identity of Hongkongers is still an unsettled issue. A 2017 survey showed that citizens continue to feel the strongest when identified as “Hongkongers”, then followed by a number of ethno-cultural identities, such as Asian, global citizens, Chinese, etc. The feeling of being “citizens of the PRC” is the weakest among all identity options, and this was particularly obvious in the 18-29 age group (HKUPOP, 2017).

Some radical activists have defined Hongkonger as an independent national identity (and an ethnicity). They have openly declared an endeavor for independence from the PRC, and have triggered local incitement of open hatred against mainland Chinese people through various strategies, including the use of violence (Lam & Lum, 2018; Quackenbush, 2018). The Chinese government has firmly opposed Hong Kong independence, and the Hong Kong government has announced Hong Kong National Party as an illegal organization (Lum & Chung, 2019).

Some scholars suggest that civic nationalism is now embraced by the local civil society, and it is more democratic than the ethnic nationalism promoted by the PRC central government (Bhattacharya, 2005; Veg, 2017). This dichotomized conceptualization assumes that ethnic nationalism is rather “top-down”, as it is a form of ascriptive identity based upon defined elements such as genes or language. Conversely, civic nationalism is more “bottom up”, as it is based upon common values and collective interactions among its citizens.

Some others suggest a much more complex interpretation. Shen (2007) sees that Chinese nationalism is complicated and diverse, and it is often bottom-up, supported by mainland citizens. Zhao (2006) sees that the term Chinese has denoted multi-ethnicities and multi-nationalities since the Qing dynasty (diversity in unity, “duoyuanyiti), and Brubaker (1999) suggests that the contents of civic nationalism and ethnic nationalism in fact largely overlap, and therefore it is not appropriate to be used for dichotomized comparisons.

作者/Author: Chitat Chan


lorem ipsum

curabitur vulputate

cubilia rhoncus

pharetra condimentum eu

erat facilisi vivamus

nibh ligula diam

donec semper egestas sagittis parturient

libero nunc maecenas

adipiscing vestibulum

lobortis leo feugiat tortor

inceptos sed condimentum

quis aptent cubilia primis varius

curae ipsum class sit

mattis amet massa lorem



* 必須填寫

! [姓名] * 必須填寫

! [電郵] * 必須填寫

! [網址] * 必須填寫

! [我有以下回應/補充] * 必須填寫