POSTCOLONIZATION AND RECOLONIZATION A Response to Archie Lee's "Biblical Interpretation in Postcolonial Hong Kong" PHILIP CHIA Alliance Bible Seminary, Hong Kong I would like to thank Archie Lee for a very perceptive paper, reading 'cross-textually' between Isaiah, the returning Jewish com- munity, and the postcolonial Hong Kong. It is interesting to note that the first time I met with Lee was in Korea early this year, dis- cussing the theme of Asian Theology, and now, for the second time, Lee and I meet, again not in Hong Kong, but in the US, discussing the postcoloniality of Hong Kong and Biblical Interpre- tation, and, as in Korea, English is again the language of commu- nication. I do not recall that we ever had a chance to meet in Hong Kong and discuss on the theme of postcolonialism and Hong Kong in Cantonese or Mandarin. I wonder if this has anything to do with our theme of colonization. Nevertheless, I treasure very much this opportunity to have dialogue with him at SBL in the USA on this issue which is very dear to our hearts, biblical inter- pretation in the Postcolonial Hong Kong. And I want to thank the Asian and Asian-American Biblical Studies Consultation for stag- ing this theme and for the opportunity to be a respondent. As a respondent, I am naturally a reader of Lee's paper as a 'text', and I will cross-read it together with the theme of post- colonialism as I perceive, experience and understand it. In other words, I would like to utilize Lee's method of 'cross-textual read- ing' as a mode of interpretation, in attempting my response to his paper. Just to complicate the reading a little bit further, I will also attempt a cross-textual reading between Isaiah, Lee's experi- ence of postcolonial Hong Kong as demonstrated in the paper, and my experience of postcolonial Malaysia; and somewhere in between, I will also throw in my short experience of colonial and postcolonial Hong Kong, 1992-1997. Let me begin by locating, or perhaps re-locating, myself. My father was exiled from China just before the Communists took over, and he went to an island that used to be known as North 175 Borneo, and that is now part of Malaysia or the Eastern part of Malaysia, but was then under British rule. In 1957 the Malaya peninsula gained independence from the British, and in 1963, North Borneo, now known as Sabah, together with Southwest Borneo, now known as Sarawak, joined the Malaya peninsula to form the federation of Malaysia and inaugurated the era of postcolonial Malaysia. Overnight, we had a new national language and a new identity. I can still recall the difficult decision my fa- ther struggled with, in deciding whether to remain as a British subject or to adopt the new postcolonial Malaysian identity, and it was the latter that he decided upon, for doubting the sincerity and commitment of the British to their former colonized people. History has proven that there are many residents in Malaysia to- day, who in those days decided to keep their British identity and have now no identity, but are simply stateless. Neither the British nor the Malaysian government will grant them national status. Such might be the case with the BNO situation in days to come. The British, furthermore, did not leave peace behind for Malay- sia to grow into a strong nation, free of internal power struggles and internal colonization caused by racial rivalry and disharmony between different ethnic communities. For at least two things I think they should be held accountable. First, the British did not stand firm on the treaty signed between the three states which formed the federation of Malaysia, penin- sula Malaya, Sabah and Sarawak, which would give provision for equal shares of power. Instead of giving each a one third share, through inward colonization, Sabah and Sarawak, two of the three federation states situated in the Eastern part of Malaysia, have been reduced to being merely one of the thirteen states of the federa- tion of Malaysia (this, in fact, is a sensitive national security mat- ter !). The fact that today, West Malaysians (non-Sabahans or non- Sarawakans) require a passport to travel to or a working permit to work in Eastern Malaysia, even though we are all one country, is itself evidence of the historical fact of betrayal and internal colo- nization. Second, the British, in fear of all ethnic Chinese being commu- nists, gave a majority of the political power to the Malay. Although economic power seems to be in the hands of the Chinese, this ultimately became the cause of racial disharmony within the coun- try which led to racial riots in 1967, known as the May Thirteen Event. .