Nearly all Britons commented on how the move to China had been the first time they had really considered the issue of ‘national identity’, this is in comparison with the Singaporeans who due to government rhetoric and publicity campaigns, are very familiar with the concept of ‘national identity’. Both Britons and Singaporeans did comment on how in most cases they felt ‘more British’ or ‘more Singaporean’ since they had arrived in China. This was partly because the nature of expatriate society means that you are categorised according to your nationality (as appears on your passport), but also because being in a minority tends to make migrants more aware of their national identities.

The ‘national identities’ adopted by migrants in China show interesting variations from those promoted, to various degrees, by the Singaporean and British governments. The Singaporean government has focused on Singapore as a multi-ethnic nation, based on ‘Asian’ values, with a population working together for rapid economic development. Many Singaporeans in China said that they ‘appreciated’ their home country far more now they were away, particularly the efficiency, cleanliness and politeness of the population, as well as the economic achievements.

In contrast, the notion of ‘Britishness’ adopted by many Britons in China, focused on a ‘nostalgic’ vision. Many references were made to the countryside, the National Trust and ancient monuments, as well as royalty and associated ceremonial occasions. However, there were important regional distinctions between the Welsh, Scottish and Northern Irish, as well as within England. These views of Britain, or parts of the UK differ greatly from the image of a country of diversity and modern innovation presented in government rhetoric .

The intersections of ‘ethnic’ and ‘national’ identity were clearly seen in relation to the Singaporean migrants as all Singaporeans interviewed were ethnically Chinese . A couple of Singapore Clubs reported an Indian or Malay Singaporean member, but they could not be contacted for interviews. Many Singaporeans had expected to ‘fit in’ relatively easily in China, partly because of continued family ties, or grandparents who had migrated south from China to Singapore. However, the sharp divide between the two Chinese groups was commented upon by almost all Singaporeans, usually involving some assumption of superiority in moral and economic terms.

This recognition of clear differences between Singaporean Chinese and mainland Chinese and Hong Kong Chinese were often represented in gendered, as well as national terms. Women’s behaviour, including dress, was often highlighted as indicative of the ‘superiority’ of Singaporeans compared to their PRC counterparts. While PRC Chinese women were represented as dressing ‘shamefully’ and chasing men, Singaporean women were regarded as family-centred and modest (see also Yeoh & Willis, 1999).

The majority of Britons in China were White British, but there was a small, but significant number of British-born Chinese. For the three interviewed the ‘culture shock’ of being in China was not as great as that experienced by many Singaporeans who had not anticipated feeling so ‘out of place’ in the land of their ancestors. For British-born Chinese, although they had often chosen to work in China because of interests in their ‘roots’, they certainly did not arrive with the intention of ‘fitting in’. They regarded themselves as ‘western’ and therefore as unlikely to fit in as their White counterparts. Their experiences bore this out, and all three commented on how local Chinese easily spotted their ‘otherness’.

For British migrants the use of gendered behaviour as a marker of ‘Otherness’ was also used, although not as explicitly in the context of reasserting national identity as among the Singaporeans. The behaviour of local Chinese women on the mainland and the Thais and Filipinas in Hong Kong in relation to expatriate men was used to draw a sharp dividing line between expatriates and non-expatriates. Interestingly, the same women were often used to highlight the more ‘enlightened’ attitudes of ‘Westerners’ as many British migrants commented on how they paid their domestic servants far more than the locals or the Asian expatriates.

The concept of ‘flexible citizenship’ (Ong, 1999) has been applied to migrants, particularly highly-skilled ones, as a way of describing how individuals can navigate their positions across national boundaries using formal citizenship rights. Five migrants to Hong Kong had dual nationality due to marriage, place of birth or parental background. Migrants used this to their own advantage.

This webpage is maintained by Dr Katie Willis, Department of Geography, Royal Holloway, University of London, Egham, Surrey TW20 0EX

Email: Katie.Willis@rhul.ac.uk

HOME