If Hong Kong did lose its soul as critics claim, history is to be blamed. One hundred and fifty six years of British rule have politically desensitized Hong Kong people. Under the guise of stable social and economic development, the colonial regime left people with no room for development of a people's identity. Hong Kong was a reduced to a puppet under conflicting British and Chinese regimes. She was a land for exploitation and profit. Hong Kong people did not attempt to find out who they really were because the answer could be fatal to the society as a whole. Instead, generations indulged themselves in the world of materialism, in hope that by working overtime and embracing economic power the shame and vulnerability induced from a lack of identity could be forgotten. Today many people in Hong Kong are indifferent toward their lack of identity. Indeed, decades later, this seems to have been successfully forgotten and transformed into a form of pride. Not having to identify with their counterparts in China nor with anyone else in the world, they stand unique, a rare fusion of Eastern and Western culture. The Hong Kong Tourist Association calls it "the world on a plate". However, is Hong Kong merely chop suey, a cheap m�lange of odd bits and scraps? A few ago, Hong Kong was also portrayed as a "Shopping Paradise" in a commercial broadcasted around the world. Is this all Hong Kong is about? A materialistic ghost with no soul?P>

Some people may argue that Hong Kong does have its soul: they can find it in the temples at Wong Tai Sin, while some others find it in the commercial skyscrapers at Central; some find the soul in the Cantonese styled restaurants at MongKok while others find it in the bistros at Lan Kwai Fong. As a metaphoric indicator of improvement, the same Tourist Association today touts Hong Kong as the "City of Life". Their web site now lists mainly historical attractions, where the soul of Hong Kong is supposed to lie, rather than capitalistic districts like Tsim Sha Tsui or Central, where the soul is eroded away with the overwhelming working hours. However, a soul should not simply be something imposed from some authority figures; instead it should be searched with the effort of the whole masses. Given that only a small portion of Hong Kong people knows about the existence of these attractions and have actually visited them, the soul of Hong Kong is being neglected.

Hong Kong's is often characterized by its metropolitan image, comprising a variety of cultures. If metropolis is a microcosm of a cosmopolis, would the citizens of Hong Kong qualify as world citizens in the larger sense? So that how much do they see the duty to improve their home -- the society and the world � as something pressing? However, as much as Hong Kong claims itself to be cosmopolitan, in what sense is it exactly to be one? How many of its people are aware of the globalization and international order out there? How many of them feel sympathetic to disturbances in South America and the Middle East? How many of them understand the regime of their motherland? And how many of them even care for the political and economic climate in their own backyard?

In many cases people are not even sure what Hong Kong is to them. Thus, I see the fundamental problem lies in their lack of self and national identity. Just as a home is essential, each person must have a state. When the majority consider themselves citizens of a vigorously changing society rather than an integrated nation, their collective soul will drift away through the nomadic sail of individualism. Today the concept of nationalism is seen to be a notorious manipulative political rhetoric, and it is in essence what Hong Kong lacks the most in contrast to the strong chauvinism in China.

The soul of a place should be something collectively owned and shared. Presently, the un-unified identities are scattered all over Hong Kong. One unifying force would be to give them a national identity. Only when people identify themselves as a nation, that they are the same as other counterparts in Hong Kong and Mainland China, can they understand their origin, and thus themselves and ultimately their soul. Therefore, soul lies in national identity. In this aspect, parallels can be drawn between Hong Kong and Taiwan. Despite their similar historical backgrounds, both having ceded away from the Mainland, the Taiwanese are brought up in a very different political culture and education system. Even though not all of the new generation identifies with their Mainland counterparts (just as people in Hong Kong), the Taiwanese are taught about their history and origin, and clearly acknowledge that they are Taiwanese (or Chinese, though that is another debate in itself). Some may call it manipulative propaganda of the ruling government, but it does provide its people with a clear identity, which I see as an integral part of a soul. This element is what Hong Kong lacks.

Three centuries ago Rousseau has posited his insight on identity having to grow from community. His republican sentiments for brotherhood are particularly demonstrated in his work Emile. "There can be no patriotism without liberty, no liberty without virtue, no virtue without citizens; create citizens, and you have everything you need; without them, you will have nothing but debased slaves, from the rulers of the State downwards." he states. One maxim he postulates is that identity is collectively developed through the role of citizens in a community, and that the citizens must be patriots. By creating the identity, citizens come to a common will that prevents political decay, which is a loss of soul in this context.

If what Rousseau suggests mirrors a solution to Hong Kong's situation today, a national identity is definitely what is required. Of course, Hong Kong has its own historical account for blaming the occurrence of this identity crisis, but it has been over four years since Hong Kong returned to its motherland. It is time for the people of Hong Kong to break out from the post-colonial and individualistic chains of political isolation.