Control to all power is the power of naming. We name what we wish to control. By naming, we assume a blank slate. We act like no identity exists until we name.

From the story of the Creation through the rest of Genesis, the giving of names has been a significant part of the biblical narrative. After creating the wild animals and birds, God "brought them unto Adam to see what he would call them: and whatsoever Adam called every living creature, that was the name thereof." (Genesis 2:19).

Adam named the animals (as well as Eve). According to Christian theology, naming them was Adam's first act of dominion and it is a sign of authority; for immediately after Adam named the animals, God told Adam and Eve to be "fruitful, and multiply, and replenish the earth, and subdue it: and have dominion over the fish of the sea, and over the fowl of the air, and over every living thing that moveth upon the earth." (Genesis 1:28)

And there was brisket and there was tenderloin - a tasty meal.

While naming as an act of power always exists, what's peculiar about Hong Kong is that we are not sure who is the one naming. Names such as dim sum and kung fu suggest that we have the power to express our ideas unadulterated by translation (think about Cantonese delicacies and Chinese martial arts). But why is the territory called Hong Kong in the first place? Not only was Hong Kong not Hong Kong (the name only applied to today's Aberdeen before the British came), but it does not conform to the same Romanization rule (which should have rendered it something like Heung Gong).

The same applies to the recent storm in the teacup over the name Xiqu Centre for the planned Chinese opera theater.

Some would have us believe that this is "mainlandization" because the theater is supposed to be for Cantonese opera. Thus on June 5, a local newspaper reported that the name Xiqu was under criticism "because it means Chinese opera, whereas the theater is intended to showcase Cantonese opera". No source was quoted, as if it was a fact beyond dispute.

However, in a press release dated more than a year ago on March 9, 2012, the West Kowloon Cultural District Authority explains that the purpose of the theater is to "provide a world-class facility for the preservation and development of the art form in Hong Kong" and to "host and produce the finest examples of Cantonese and other Chinese opera performances".

With Cantonese opera now out of the question, the choices remain are Xiqu and Chinese opera.

Some Hongkongers underestimate foreigners' ability to learn new foreign words, such as xiqu. If they can understand Noh (from Japanese), Muqam (from Uygur), and Flamenco (from Spanish), I'm sure they can learn just one more term in addition to dim sum and cappuccino. If they find this too demanding, they would not bother to suffer the noisy Cantonese opera experience anyway. That is, unless you write new English verses to all of them (and have the percussion instruments muted too).

The term xiqu is increasingly being accepted as a standard term, just as guanxi. The crux of the matter is not Romanization as such, but the dialect chosen for Romanization. Terms such as dim sum and kung fu were exported globally as they were, not as "dianxin" and "gongfu", because history brought Cantonese - through Hong Kong - to world stage.

The name "Chinese opera theater" is a compromise. It points to the fact that we take refuge in English as our local culture loses competitiveness. However, we do not necessarily have to choose between Xiqu and "Chinese opera". If Hongkongers are culturally confident, we would have called it "Hei Kok Chung Sum", just as the official name of the rural council has always been "Heung Yee Kuk".

And by the way, our beloved Cantonese opera is listed in UNESCO's "Representative List of the Intangible Cultural Heritage of Humanity" as yueju drama. Perhaps, some petitioning is in order against it, too?

The author is a current affairs commentator.

(HK Edition 07/06/2013 page6)