what I am thinking about is quite in a mess

When Chong King Mansion was mentioned, perhaps several images would come to my mind before I finally paid a visit there. One is about Wang Karwai’s film Chung King Express and several shots are from Chung King mansion. It is also said that Wong used to live in Chung King guesthouse right after he arrived in Hong Kong. The second image is that I recalled my experience when I was checking the youth hostels of Hong Kong from worldwide traveling websites only to find hostels in Chong King Mansion received great reviews with top ratings. The third image is about a cubic building divided into lots of boxes where visitors perform their own life. These three pictures came in collision in my mind once I stepped into this building. Although some people feel nervous when stepping to an unknown world especially with people with color, actually I was very excited to feel pressure unloaded. Travelers with backpacks (maybe they are westerners who has also checked the hostel info from web, without any awareness that refugees living next door) were busy getting their money exchanged and shops there are seldom with any decoration. This informal and casual environment made me relaxed a lot. Actually I like this place when firstly stepping in.

(I have to say that my mind jumps over a little bit in disorder….)

Actually the people in shops from south Asia are neither refugees nor asylum seekers and Chong King Mansion is symbolic for Hong Kong interacting with Indians, Sri Lanka and so on. Living in an imagined hybridized community, people from South Asia with legal right staying in Hong Kong should have become part of the existing system, and every culture should have been melt equally into a hybridized culture. But actually I found people in Chung King Mansion are proof to the opposite. Chung King Mansion and communities like Chinatowns overseas are similar to a certain extent. People with similar cultural background gather in Chung King Mansion for certain cultural elements, like food, costumes, and VCDs, etc. According to what the asylum seeker I talked with said, they feel treated with respect here, and so this kind of community caters for their need such as the building up esteem and avoidance of discrimination. Chung King Mansion seems to become a symbol for resisting the unsuccessfully hybridized Hong Kong. Besides, Chung King Mansion also serves as a very initial step for out comers to become insiders. Certain information belonging to their community is shared there, such as job information, and other information that can really help you make a living in Hong Kong. So I am wondering whether they have the same access to these resources and I just believe the answer is no, because the local seem to be unaware of their life, let alone the recognition of refugees in Hong Kong. Refugees and asylum seekers seems invisible to me before I finally got the chance to know their life. From some certain point of view they are lucky because they understand a common global value of HUMAN RIGHTS is protected in Hong Kong. They are the beneficiary of the triumph of liberalism previously shared by the west (later on the east). But the wishful thinking of human rights is in collision with the social system based on the global hybridization, according to their tearful life experience.

(Sorry that my mind jumps again….)

Another issue interests me when talking about the refugees of North Korea being repatriated by China government. I searched the response from China Ministry of Foreign Affairs on the internet and found their response focused on two points—one is that people escaping from North Korea were not identified as refugee (they are in economy problem, not political problems); another is that their behavior of breaking into the embassy has already broken the law. The first response is based on such an assumption that asylum seeker (not officially recognized refugee) with open case should be repatriated, in contrast with the situation in Hong Kong. Ironically China is the country having signed the refugee convention, but Hong Kong has not. I am not here to blame China government and I just believe government is not charity. Even the so-called country with most freedom USA cannot welcome the refugees in Afghanistan and Iraq to their home country. In this case there are two levels of globalization—ideology and bureaucracy. Humanitarianism is commonly shared by most of the countries today, no matter a capitalist county or a communist country. But humanitarianism becomes like a mask and what underlies the mask is the benefit of countries which is of course cannot be shared. So bureaucracy, including low efficiency in judging identity of refugee and finding excuses not recognizing them is developed. Contemporary world is a place mainly consisting of nation-states and it is challenging to hybridize into a culture without solving deep rooted national issue.

Superman, the Superiority of Men among the Earth

As a Hollywood film, the series of superman was distributed all over the world from 1970s. In order to maximize the profits in the targeted markets, the film spent a lot of time on the patriarchal ideology which was one of the commonalities in the globe. Although not all the cultures are patriarchy, most of them are. The film Superman: The Movie, shared and eventually reinforced patriarchal ideology to its global audience. In the following paragraphs, I am going to give a brief description on the film, explain the beliefs of the patriarchal ideology and analyze its content and form in terms of the representations of man and woman’s bodies and dressings, the roles of hero and victim, and how the patriarchal ideology to be reinforced in the film Superman: The Movie.
Brief description on Superman: The Movie
The planet Krypton was rocketed. Kal-El who was an infant was sent by father to the earth for survival. Kal-El was raised by a farmer and his wife as Clark Kent. Kal grew up and discovered his superpower. Once he noticed where he came from and his unique background, he found his mission to save the earth and the one he loved. The content and the form of the scenes always show the superiority of men, especially those scenes that superman save Lois. The status between men and women is clearly represented.
Patriarchy
The term “patriarchy” literally means “the rule of father”. It refers to the ways in which material and symbolic resources (including income, wealth and power) are unequally distributed between men and women, through such social institutions as the family, sexuality, the state, the economy, culture and language. Many feminist theorists interpret the term “patriarchy” as the way in which societies are structured through male domination over, and oppression of, women (Edgar A. and Sedgwick P., 1999).
The representations of man and woman’s bodies and dressings
Christopher Reeve was chosen to play the role for Superman in the film. He was a muscular man with a height of 6 feet 4 inches. His strong body helped superman build up a powerful image. With a tight blue costume, superman represented the muscular body shape of man. And that was why the film put a focus on the scene that Clark (played by Reeve) turned himself to superman. The camera shot a close-up on that he ripped his shirt and showed a stylized “S” shield on his huge chest. The “S” was widened in a triangle to show his fine inverted triangular physique. This shot not only emphasized the perfect body shape of a man that had to be strong in order to protect women, but also showed the attitude of not minding trifle formalities of men. He did not mind to rip his shirt in order to grasp the time to save someone else.
On the other hand, the Margot Kidder played the role for superman’s lover, Lois Lane. She always wore skirts and dresses throughout the film. Her slim body, matching with the skirts and dresses which were regarded as the standard clothing of women, made her look physically attractive and feminine. During the date with superman, Lois wore a light blue see-through dress to show her body shape. She even flirted with superman by the question “What colour underwear am I wearing?” She tried to arouse the sexual desire of superman through her dressings and conversations. She left the initiative to superman. Lois was waiting the decision made by superman. In this sense, woman has no power to decide the future of an intimate relationship. She has to become a sexual object in order to gain man’s interests in the patriarchal culture.
The role of hero and victim
In the film Superman: The Movie, superman always acts as a hero to save people’s lives. For example, there was an accident in the helicopter that Lois rode. The helicopter kept turning round in the sky. Lois could do nothing but cried for help. The camera focused on her exaggerated facial expression and the worrying face of the pedestrians. The music was in up-tempo to create the atmosphere of urgency. However, at the moment that Lois was falling from the helicopter, superman got her. Lois was so frightened that she held superman so tight. The music of superman sounds, with the featuring of a female reporter, “I can’t believe it”. The dangerous situation of Lois, the reaction from the pedestrians and the lines of the female reporter created an image of superhero for superman. When superman was sending Lois back to the top of the building, the helicopter fell. Lois screamed again but superman got the helicopter very easily. His extraordinary ability to cope with the disaster cheers the commoners. The role of hero played by men is reinforced by the two accidents, Lois falling and the helicopter. Nevertheless, the role of hero is on the basis of women as victims. The more dangerous situation the women are in, the more capable the men are. Having landed on the top of the building, Lois was shocked and could not say anything. After she could speak, she asked “Who are you?”. The scene is just like a submissive little girl begging for love from a man. The superiority of men is based on the inferior status of women.

How the patriarchal ideology to be reinforced
According to Graeme Turner, the ideological approach refuses to view the film text as “unitary” in meaning (Turner G., 1993). The film text is a place for ideological competition although it usually ends with the victory of hegemony. In the film Superman: The Movie, the patriarchal belief that men are superior to women conflicts with the belief that women have the same abilities with men. There was a scene about plunder. Clark (superman) and Lois were forced to go into a narrow street by a gangster holding a gun. The gangster pointed the gun at them and asked Lois to hand her pulse to him. Clark convinced Lois to give the money to the gangster. However, Lois trickily threw her pulse on the floor and made the gangster to squat down and picked it up. Lois quickly gave the gangster a hard kick, but the gangsters shot at the same time. Fortunately, superman got the bullet by a quick move. The film represents a wrong example that women do not listen to men. If she listened to Clark’s advice, she would be safe even though lost some money. The last dialogue between superman and Lois at this scene was talking about what things are in Lois’ pulse. There were ten dollars, a hairbrush and a lipstick. The ending of this scene represents that what women concerned with are some trivial matters. It was a misuse of her ability. Also, this scene questions about the women’s abilities. Lois’s hard kick in turn led to a shot. It is a kind of female fatale. Kick and violence are regarded as belonged to men. Women are not capable in this area. Therefore, men still have to do the job of protecting women. Superman has to get the bullet by a quick move in order not to hurt Lois. The conflicts between the two beliefs in this film eventually reinforce the hegemony of patriarchal ideology and maintain the status quo of the domination by men.
To sum up, the patriarchal ideas of the Superman: The Movie empower the men to control over the marginalized women and shares the symbolic and materialistic resources in global society. Among the film, Superman were always superior and saved Lois’ life every time when she was in danger. The film tells the audience about the power relation of men and women and let them understand their gender role. That is, men are dominant, and women are the subordinate. For those markets which are in patriarchal culture, the film Superman: The Movie helps to consolidate the ideas and practices of patriarchy. For the others, the film can still fascinate its audience in great animations, and may, spread the ideas of patriarchy in those countries.

Liu Kit Man, Kanas

美國化的阿拉伯故事

迪士尼由於受到多方猛烈抨擊，被指經常選用白人作為擔任「從此擁有快樂生活的公主」，於是把一個著名阿拉伯民間故事系列──「一千零一夜」中的阿拉丁搬上銀幕。驟眼看來，迪士尼製作的阿拉丁較以往的製作有著很大的分別，似乎回應了社會上針對其白人種族主義、性別不平等以及美國帝國主義的指控：阿拉丁選用黑人擔任公主而非白人；茉莉公主是一個勇於挑戰權力機關的女性；而阿拉丁的故事場景也離不開阿拉伯地區，繼而宣揚了阿拉伯文化。但是，我認為上述的三種意識形態仍然在阿拉丁中存在且被深化。此外，我想提出這齣電影深化了對基層的壓迫、對等級制度的膜拜。

白人種族主義
當我們論及白人種族主義時，我們不可只注意膚色運用而忽略衣著的色彩運用。片中的蘇丹國王穿著一身米白色的衣裳，而宰相──片中的反派角色──卻穿著一身暗黑色調的服裝。國王和宰相都不是白人，但宰相的膚色卻明顯比國王黝黑得多。這些都意味著白色是富有、純潔的，而黑色則是邪惡的。雖然公主不是白人，但迪士尼高舉白人的意圖仍然是明顯的。

美國帝國主義
值得留意的，是迪士尼的版本與原著的比較。原著並沒著墨於描述阿拉丁和茉莉的性格。在原著中的阿拉丁，很難用得上「流氓中的鑽石」來形容，反倒比較相像一個一朝得志的幸運兒。因為在原著中，阿拉丁在精靈的協助下，得到了一座比國王更大的王宮。這帶著很濃厚的比較意味。一個窮人單單因著幸運而擁有比國王更好的，顯然不符合迪士尼的「動畫必須擁有合乎為大眾所接受的教育原則」。要把一個簡短的故事化成個多兩小時的動畫，更深刻勾畫出人物性格是必須的。但是，勾畫成怎樣卻是另一回事。由於原著的阿拉丁實在太富投機取巧的意味，迪士尼便為其加上樂於扶助弱小的一面，把阿拉丁描述為一個俠盜──雖然他好高騖遠想住進王宮，又不務正業於市集中以盜取為生，他卻會把辛苦盜來的食物施予在垃圾堆中找食物的孤兒。透過大幅度改變阿拉丁的人物性格，迪士尼抹去了原著，亦即阿拉伯文化。而當我們把視線轉向茉莉的性格時，我們更見迪士尼把美國加進去了。迪士尼把茉莉描述成一個不想當公主的公主。她抱怨找不到真正的朋友，沒有東西是她自己所選擇的。她想要有自由，因而展開了一段驚險的歷程，為她的生命帶來革命性的改變。此等對自由的嚮往，正是美國的核心主義。透過對兩名主要角色性格的一增一刪，阿拉丁一戲成了美國主義的宣傳機器。

在人物性格塑造以外，當我們留意不同人物的口音時和角色設置時，也能看見迪士尼踐踏異國文代的痕跡。片中的說書人亦即一個市集中的小販與主角阿拉丁同為蘇丹社會中的基層，但我們卻發現他們的口音有著很大的區別。小販說著滿口阿拉伯地區口音的英文，但阿拉丁卻說著十分貼近美國口音的英語。因為阿拉丁是主角，是王子，所以他的口音與蘇丹國王和茉莉公主一樣，擁有純正的美國口音。至於低下階層，就說著有阿拉伯口音的英語。有阿拉伯口音的英語亦即會說阿拉伯語的人說英語，這樣說來，就是迪士尼把低下階層與阿拉伯語扯上關係，而國王等上流人士則是只與美國有關，與阿拉伯無關。

此外，阿拉伯文化出現在片中不等同被表揚。出現在阿拉丁的市集場景中的人，都是粗暴動用私刑的小販、妓女和可笑的、笨拙的街頭表演者，阿拉伯文化被描繪成粗暴可笑的。

對等級制度的膜拜
在故事終結，阿拉丁捨棄使用最後一個願望來變成王子以換取精靈的自由。這裡告訴觀眾，自由比地位、愛情更重要。可是如此一來，卻賠上了公主的自由戀愛。解決這個問題的方法是，當國王也為著阿拉丁不是王子，未能符合法律要求而懊惱時，他想起自己的國王身份，便運用自己的權力，法律因著他的一句說話、一個意念而被改變了。換句話說，這個故事教訓我們，我們的自由掌握在最高的當權者手中。權力越大，自由越大。權力是唯一通往自由的道路。這個故事並非鼓勵觀眾對不公平不合理的政制和法律提出挑戰，為受壓制者爭取自由，而是鼓勵觀眾降服於現行不公不義的制度。茉莉公主被賦予了戀愛自由，卻不代表今後的公主仍能享受，更不代表社會上的基層得到了自由和保護。

結語
我認為，迪士尼的創作隊伍未必有提倡上述意識形態的意圖，反是因為其處身的環境和文化讓他們自以為沒有歧視異國文化，他們真的以為自己所提倡的是自由。又或者，他們已經絕望，認為服從權力機關是必須的。迪士尼願意改變是重要的，但也不可忽略整個社會意識形態的改變，兩者是互為因果的。

Lau Ling Lee, Chering

Film Review on Disneys; “A Bugs Life”

The movie a “Bugs Life” seems to be, on the surface, much like the average Disney movie; happy, with themes of family, friendship, and love blanketing the entire story. In this film, the protagonist; Flik finds himself questioning the position of the other ants in the colony, he dabbles in the creation of technology, is horribly clumsy and doesn’t seem to quite fit in amongst the other ants. While the ants spend their time collecting food for themselves, they also set aside some for the grasshoppers, who are much larger, stronger and so coerce the ants into collecting food for them. Through this context Disney sets into a play a scenario that has the ants rebelling against their grasshopper oppressors, with Flik being at the forefront of this rebellion. This battle that unfolds parallels a Marxist revolution, with Disney making some strong political statements throughout the film. This is fueled by the characters who are polarized as the capitalist oppressors and the collective Marxists, while a myriad other modern day characters take prominent roles, reinforcing ideologies and stereotypes.

The collective that is the Ants, functions as a single unit, operating within the confines of what is the ant colony, they are restricted in their mentality and shy away from any form of individualism. This is highlighted as the queen berates Flick in one of the scenes, she says; “I never thought I’d see the day where an ant put himself before the rest of his colony”. That statement carries with it many communist ideals, likening the best interest of the colony to that of a real world communist state. Such is the extreme that when a leaf blocks the progression of the ants food line, panic ensues. However, the ants are presented as happy, content with working for themselves, and even for collecting food for the grasshoppers, there is little questioning as to their purpose but a simple acceptance of what is so. This order is upset when Flik questions their purpose and the need to simply accept the oppression, and the abuse of the grasshoppers. The ants, who are a metaphor for the proletariat, through much drama and some ingenuity take down their grasshopper oppressors using their large numbers as an advantage. Flik is seen as the hero here and his qualities one would assume as being ideal. Through this portrayal we could assume that Disney seems to say that friendship, perseverance, love and collective unity can be perceived as, “good”. However we could also argue that the communist/socialist ideals it portrays are also glorified, and that capitalism is portrayed incorrectly, in a negative light as abusive and oppressive.

The grasshoppers, in this movie, take on a more conventional Marxist ideal of capitalism. They are greedy, decadent, and abuse the power they have over the ants. Subjugation is what the grasshoppers want, and therefore continue to get the ants to collect food for them, despite not even requiring it. “It’s not about food, it’s about keeping those ants in line”, is the philosophy the head grasshopper believes in employing. Such mentality is characteristic of Marxist views on capitalism, with an emphasis placed on greed and subjugation; the ants that is the majority work to keep the few grasshoppers content and in power. A class system is also present in this movie, where one could assume the grasshoppers to be of a higher class or nobility compared to the working class majority. The once held belief that one is born rich and noble or poor is challenged in this movie, advocating the possibility of social mobility. The head grass hopper says, “ideas are very dangerous things, you are mindless soil shoving losers, put on the earth to serve us”. This quote carries with it the capitalist requirement that the working class not question their roles, but continue to serve in subjugation to the upper classes. The grasshoppers are also presented as being tough, rowdy, uncivilized and always ready to start a fight or brawl. In one scene the grasshoppers are seen relaxing, drinking alcohol in a southern environment, ordering Mexican drinks and dancing to Hispanic music. This association reinforces cultural stereotypes and associates Hispanic culture with drunken, rowdy, revelry. All these characteristics, coupled with the fact that the grasshoppers seem to be constantly on the move can be likened to a biker gang. The noise that emanates from their wings also sounds distinctively similar to that of a large motor cycle. One could therefore assume that Disney is reinforcing a cultural stereotype; which is that biker gangs are rowdy and cause trouble in their wake.

Disney uses other stereotypes within the context of its film, the associations of which help Disney audiences relate to its films better. For instance, the Queen ant acts somewhat like a fallen yesteryear starlet even flirting with some of the other ants that were fanning her. This aged-diva demeanor sediments her role in the film, as she acts with calm and decorum in the face of crisis, while still proving to be able to enjoy herself. The circus insects further add to this notion, representing a circus troupe compromised of European and other amusing characters, the two acrobats being distinctively Eastern European in their inability to speak English and their identical appearance. The caterpillar has a German accent while his love for food is insatiable, his behavior is however rather effeminate and one could class the caterpillar as being one of Disney’s gay characters. The other circus characters follow under similar stereotypes often related to other circus roles, such as the magician(the praying mantis) and his beautiful assistant (the butterfly). The flea also falls into the category of the greedy capitalist as he pushes the performers in order to raise more money. One of the ants that looks after the children has an American “Mid west” accent, this evokes a sense of motherliness associated with the pie-baking, stay at home, mid west housewife.

Disney dabbles in the real world, lifting stereotypes and gender roles then placing them within the context of its films. Gender roles as seen in this movie exist. Atta, the princess, while she shows courage, acts with the same flustered quality that would be typical of the stereotypical, mild mannered woman. One could wonder as to the effect of Disney’s portrayal of such characters and its effect on emphasizing these stereotypes. As its main audience is children, are they subliminally informing children that such characters will behave as such, and good and bad will have these presented qualities? Disney also preaches political values and goals that have been concealed over a very sugary appealing animated surface, are they justified in presenting these to children? Yet, despite all this controversy associated with Disney the main messages the company sends through is what is heard and understood by the majority. This is that friendship, love and teamwork triumph over all else. This is itself a positive enough message to send to the many children that watch Disney and is often paramount over any other messages that come through, leaving the audience with an overwhelming belief in fantasy, and a world where everything goes right.

Mark de Silva

Sri Lankan movies

This is in response to our discussion on what Sri Lankan cinema would be like; I found a few examples on youtube, and even a whole film

http://hk.youtube.com/watch?v=bucWzcPy3To&feature=related
And the background to this movie; http://sundaytimes.lk/070729/TV/tv_2.html

And another;
http://hk.youtube.com/watch?v=fwcJFRcGiW8

just some little thinking

Every city has its share of shelters. As Amrican has "China town ",Hong Kong has ChongQing mansion.In mainland China,there are also places desighed for people coming from different cultures.It is a good thing ,but also a bad thing.we welcome people,but define them using some certain area mark. In fact ,we separate them from us.I think openness is more than that.

'Hong Kong people are so closed'

The Chong King Mansion has always been a place full of 'flows': lots of people walking through, lots of trading going on (be it goods or money), and the flow of scent (from kitchens cooking strong smelling spices). But the Christian Action was a space that visibilized the static, the stuck, the 'neither here nor there' .
Chong King was described in tour books as 'the most globalized place in Hong Kong'. But what we sawwas a melting pot not just of ethnicities, but different aspects of globalization as they converge in the same time and space.
Jonathon provided us with a very substantial briefing. The application for a refugee status itself might take 2 years, thanks to the bureaucracy of the UNHCR. But if one's application is denied, then he or she might have to wait indefinitely for their case to be appealed. We were shocked, and to the dismay of the incoming asylum seekers, that Hong Kong, despite its international outlook, has never signed the UNHCR Convention for Refugees. The 'one country two systems' gives Hong Kong the allowance for not becoming a signatory even though our motherland is. But I thought most of us were more struck by the many stories that flowed from the asylum seekers: how they had to flee from persecution and separate from loved ones. But whilst they were trying to escape from a once homeland which presents no future for them, they may be faced with a grimmer future here -- waiting.
I did not find out why Kafu had to flee Congo, but I got a full load of how we are seen from the 'Other's' eyes: 'I am very disappointed here. You cannot really find a friend here. Hong kong people are somewhat closed somewhere inside (he placed his hand on his heart). You cannot break through.' Everything seems to take more time here, even asking to change a 10 dollar note. 'The first person just said "Go, Go!" The second person replied "no change!" when there are many coins right in front of him on the table. The third one, a restauranteur, quickly slid the two levers shut, even before Kafu finished his sentence. It was only until the fourth guy who offered to change for him. He knew he had to rely on himself to go through life here, but there isn't much to do. There was talk of plans, like becoming a car engineer (his eyes glittered for a while), but he wouldn't know where he would be next, and there would be no garages here in Hong Kong that he could put theory into practice. Coming to English class would be one highlight in the week (even though he speaks quite good English), even though it takes a while to travel from Yuen Long (where he lives) to TST (not to mention the fare). Christian ACtion does more than just to help him kill time, but to help him connect with fellow 'comrades', and realize that he is not alone.
In the next room, Kanas and Mark were shocked and saddened by the story of a Tamil woman who got separated from her family as the country was torn by political rife and ethnic hatred. It may not be clear exactly how economic, political and cultural globalization has clawed its way into affecting the livelihood of the developing economies, (which somehow may aggravate ethnic hostility). But for the Sri Lankan woman, globalization in terms of universal rights such as political and religious freedom may grant her the rights to apply for refugee status, and to seek better future in countries such as Canada. But what good is this future which is exchanged with the separation from her beloved, who are still under duress at home?
Back on the ground floor, the image of globalization is a stark contrast -- affluence, vibrance, diversity and flow. Clothes shops, food shops, VCD shops, mobile phone shops overflowed with colourful goods, but onlookers chose to just stream past. In fact, staying put becomes almost an oddity, even a crime (we were told not to obstruct the passageway a few times). My plot was to try conversing with some shopkeepers, pretending to show interest in the goods they sell. One shop which sells women's clothes turns out to be owned by a Hong Kong Chinese. It also turns out that everything in that shop was too large for someone of my size. The reason is that the clothes are meant for African businessmen when they come through Hong Kong to shop for clothes to be sold back home. The HOng Kong shopkeeper claims to have got the big sized clothes from BHS, a UK equivalent of Walmart. When he opened this shop four years ago, rents were more affordable compared to those in the shopping centres of public housing estates. 'Link Reit raised the rent until it's too much.' Asked how he copes with the ethnic mix at Chung King, he grinned, 'they are alright. We don't really chat too much.' But he remarked a growing number of mainland Chinese, who would come for the day, try to sell some fake phones or watches, then go back. As we parted, he warned us, 'don't enter into business. Times are hard!' Further down the hallway, though, some Africans might beg to differ, as they werebusy packing stuff in big cardboard boxes ready to be shipped to different parts of the world. The sight and sound of celotapes slashing away turns the hallway into a warehouse.
We ventured into one VCD shop which was littered with millions of VCDs of Bollywood films and music, but once we stepped inside, an overpowering fragrance filled our senses. After 15 seconds of browsing around, we were approached by an Indian woman who asked, curtly, 'What do you want?' 'Um, is "Katz" very popular in India?' I quickly squeezed out a question as I shot a glance at a wall poster.' 'Oh, that one's not out yet. They are showing it here soon though.' When asked how long she has run this shop, the proud shopkeeper replied with the same cool manners, 'Only 31 years. Only 31 years'. Silence. We said our 'thank you' and got out, fearing they might give us the boot.
McLuhan may be thrilled to find a global village of Chung King Mansion, but the space proves to epitomize the dynamics, as well as problems of globalization left, right and centre, and in diverse faces, scent, taste, sound and touch. As different entities travel and converge at this crossroad, identities and subjectivities are dialogued and contested at each junction and corner. Somethings blend (like the perfume with the kitchen smell), others co-exist. Flows solidify as they get stuck in Blocks A to E, along with the hopes that are packed in cardboard boxes, or penned in refugee status application forms. One can only dream on.
As we walked back to the entrance about to bid each other goodbye, Yvonne bade us to take a photo, 'to show others that we have been here'. A South Asian guy came up and asked if we were Japanese. I gave a quick glance at our group - an ethnic mix of Sri Lankan, mainland Chinese and Hong Kong - 'No'. 'You are not Japanese?'
Our Japanese cameras betrayed us.

Lisa