The Invisible Identity: Why Hongkongers Deserve Recognition in the Australian Census
There’s something deeply unsettling about being told who you are—or rather, who you’re not. For Kevin Yam, an Australian citizen born and raised in Hong Kong, filling out the census should be an act of self-affirmation. Instead, it’s a stark reminder of erasure. When he writes “Hongkonger” under ancestry, it’s not just a personal statement; it’s a political one. But the Australian Bureau of Statistics (ABS) doesn’t see it that way. According to them, “Hongkonger” doesn’t exist. It’s coded as “Chinese.” And that, in my opinion, is where the problem begins.
The Absurdity of Erasure
Let’s be clear: Hong Kong is not just a geographical location. It’s a cultural, linguistic, and political identity shaped by over 150 years of British rule, a unique education system, and a distinct language—Cantonese, not Mandarin. Yet, the ABS’s classification system lumps Hongkongers into the broad category of “Chinese,” effectively erasing their individuality. Personally, I think this is more than an administrative oversight; it’s a reflection of how easily identities can be dismissed in the name of convenience.
What makes this particularly fascinating is the irony. The ABS prides itself on capturing Australia’s cultural diversity, yet it fails to recognize a community that has been vocal about its distinctiveness. Jane Poon, a third-generation Hongkonger, puts it perfectly: “We treasure our own identities.” But in the eyes of the census, that identity doesn’t matter. It’s as if the ABS is saying, “Your history, your language, your struggles—none of it counts unless we say it does.”
The Political Underbelly of Identity
Here’s where it gets even more complicated. Hong Kong’s identity isn’t just about culture; it’s about resistance. The 2019 protests, the National Security Law, the exodus of activists like Ted Hui—these aren’t just historical footnotes. They’re the reason why Hongkongers are fighting so hard to assert their identity. As Hui points out, “The more oppressed we are, the more we feel the need to maintain that [identity].”
What many people don’t realize is that by categorizing Hongkongers as Chinese, the ABS is inadvertently aligning itself with Beijing’s narrative. China has long sought to subsume Hong Kong’s identity under its own, and the ABS’s classification system plays right into that. If you take a step back and think about it, this isn’t just about a census; it’s about who gets to define who you are.
The Broader Implications
This issue isn’t unique to Hongkongers. The Uyghur community, Tibetans, Taiwanese—all face similar struggles. Ramila Chanisheff, a Uyghur advocate, urges her community to identify as Uyghur, not Chinese, in the census. Why? Because visibility matters. It’s not just about pride; it’s about survival. The Australian census could be a tool for protecting these communities, but only if it acknowledges their existence.
A detail that I find especially interesting is the ABS’s decision to exclude China as a tick-box option under “country of birth.” Apparently, this is to encourage more specific answers like “Hong Kong” or “Taiwan.” But here’s the catch: if “Hongkonger” isn’t recognized as an ancestry, what’s the point? It’s like inviting someone to a party but not letting them sit at the table.
The Language Barrier—Literally
Another layer to this issue is language. The census is only available in English, despite Australia’s multicultural population. The ABS claims translating it would be too complex, but honestly, that feels like a cop-out. If you’re serious about inclusivity, you find a way. The fact that the census is compulsory—with a hefty fine for non-compliance—makes this even more problematic. It’s as if the system is designed to exclude rather than include.
What This Really Suggests
At its core, this debate is about power. Who gets to define identity? Who decides which cultures are valid? The ABS’s classification system isn’t neutral; it’s a reflection of broader societal biases. By refusing to recognize “Hongkonger” as a distinct ancestry, Australia is missing an opportunity to stand up for a community that’s fighting for its very existence.
From my perspective, this isn’t just about a census. It’s about acknowledging the humanity of people who’ve been displaced, silenced, and erased. It’s about saying, “We see you, and your identity matters.” Until that happens, the census will remain a tool of exclusion, not inclusion.
Final Thoughts
Personally, I think the ABS needs to rethink its approach. Adding “Hongkonger” as a recognized ancestry isn’t just a bureaucratic change; it’s a statement of solidarity. It’s saying, “We recognize your struggle, and we’re not going to let you be erased.” In a world where identities are increasingly under threat, that’s not just important—it’s essential.
So, the next time someone asks, “Should Hongkongers be counted in the census?” the answer should be a resounding yes. Because to deny them that recognition is to deny their very existence. And that, in my opinion, is something no census should ever do.
