Advertisement

Democratisation Postponed

  • Shiu-hing Lo

Abstract

This chapter aims at analysing the characteristics of the Hong Kong polity before 1982, a turning point in democratisation when direct elections were held for the local advisory body District Boards and when the Sino-British negotiation on Hong Kong’s future began. In addition, the factors that shaped the political legacy of 140 years of colonial rule will be discussed.

Keywords

Pressure Group Institutional Reform Political Reform Relative Autonomy Liberalise Society 
These keywords were added by machine and not by the authors. This process is experimental and the keywords may be updated as the learning algorithm improves.

Preview

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

Notes

  1. 1.
    For an excellent discussion of the role of Legco in Hong Kong’s political system, see Norman J. Miners, The Government and Politics of Hong Kong, Fifth Edition (Hong Kong: Oxford University Press, 1991), Chapters 8–10. Also see his The Government and Politics of Hong Kong, Fifth Edition (With updated additions for the mid-1990s) (Hong Kong: Oxford University Press, 1995).Google Scholar
  2. 2.
    Norman Miners, ‘Constitutional Reform in Hong Kong, 1945–1952 and 1984–1989’, Review Article in Asian Journal of Public Administration, vol. 11, no. 1 (June 1989), p. 96f.Google Scholar
  3. 4.
    Norman Miners and Steve Tsang appear to have slightly different interpretations of how the reform proposal, between 1945 and 1952, became abortive. For Miners, both Young and Grantham thought that it was impossible for non-British subjects to sit in the Legco. But for Tsang, Young and Grantham had ‘fundamentally different views’. See Miners, ‘Plans for Constitutional Reform in Hong Kong’, op. cit., p. 481; and Steve Tsang, Democracy Shelved: Great Britain, China and Attempts at Constitutional Reform in Hong Kong, 1945–1952 (Hong Kong: Oxford University Press, 1988), p. 211. Miners tends to emphasise the role of unofficial Exco members in opposing reform, whereas Tsang stresses the role of Governor Grantham in doing so.Google Scholar
  4. 8.
    Interview with Sir Roger Lobo, former Exco member from 1978 to 1985, on 13 December 1989. Sir Roger Lobo was born in Macau and became an appointed Legco member in 1972. See Kelvin Sinclair, ed., Who’s Who in Hong Kong (Hong Kong: Kelvin Sinclair Associates, 1988), p. 258.Google Scholar
  5. 9.
    Alexander Grantham, Via Ports: From Hong Kong to Hong Kong (Hong Kong: Hong Kong University Press, 1965), pp. 111–112.Google Scholar
  6. 18.
    ‘Constitutional conventions’ are political practices and customs with-out formal and written status as laws. For details, see Stephen Davies and Elfed Roberts, Political Dictionary for Hong Kong (Hong Kong: MacMillan Press, 1990), pp. 85–86.Google Scholar
  7. 19.
    Lennox A. Mills, British Rule in Eastern Asia (New York: Russell and Russell, 1970), p. 396.Google Scholar
  8. 20.
    S. S. Hsueh, Government and Administration of Hong Kong (Hong Kong: University Book Store, 1962), p. 95.Google Scholar
  9. 21.
    See Michael Lipsky, Street-level Bureaucracy (New York: Russell Sage, 1980). For details of the District Officer scheme,Google Scholar
  10. see Christopher K. K. Wong, ‘Communication between Government and People: Hong Kong’s New City District Officer Scheme’, in Marjorie Topley, ed., Hong Kong: The Interaction of Traditions and Life in the Towns (Hong Kong: Royal Asiatic Society, Hong Kong Branch, 1975), pp. 146–147.Google Scholar
  11. 29.
    H. A. Turner, The Last Colony: But Whose? (London: Cambridge University Press, 1980), p. 110.Google Scholar
  12. 42.
    Leung Cho-bun, ‘Community Participation: The Decline of Residents’ Organisations’, in Joseph Cheng, ed., Hong Kong in Transition (Hong Kong: Oxford University Press, 1986), p. 361.Google Scholar
  13. 43.
    See Gregor Benton, The Hong Kong Crisis (London: Pluto Press, 1983), p. 54. Also see The Chinese Quarterly, no. 81 (Summer 1982), p. 30. According to Dr. Ding Lik-kiu, a political activist in the 1970s and the CIC’s executive member, the CIC was small and had no ordinary members in the 1960s. He said that various campaigns during the 1970s cultivated ‘civic consciousness’ in Hongkongers. Interview with Ding Lik-kiu, November 2, 1989. In the 1970s Ding also campaigned actively for the legalisation of the Chinese language as an official language and also for anti-corruption.Google Scholar
  14. 44.
    There are different interpretations on when the democracy movement began in Hong Kong. The first one regards the 1970s as the inception of the democracy movement. See Joseph Cheng, ‘The Democracy Movement in Hong Kong’, International Affairs, vol. 65, no. 3 (Summer 1989), p. 445. Similarly, a liberalminded Legco member, Albert Ho, said: ‘Probably the democracy movement began in the 1960s and 1970s when student movement flourished and when people strived for human rights’. Interview with Albert Ho, October 14, 1989. Another interpretation regards the year 1984 as the beginning of the democracy movement (interview with Lee Wing-tat, October 25, 1989). In the 1970s, participatory activities did symbolise the emergence of social movement, for numerous groups made demands on the government concerning social issues such as housing and education. But most pressure groups, except for the Hong Kong Observers perhaps, did not call for democratisation. Strictly speaking, social movement in the 1970s can be viewed as the precursor to, rather than the beginning of, the democracy movement in the later half of the 1980s. As liberal Yeung Sum said, ‘Social movement in the 1970s can be viewed as the precursor to democracy movement during the 1980s’. Interview with Yeung Sum, November 2, 1989.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  15. 45.
    Lau Siu-kai, ‘Social Change, Bureaucratic Rule and Emergent Political Issues in Hong Kong’, World Politics, vol. 35, no. 4 (July 1983), p. 544.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  16. 46.
    Lau Siu-kai, ‘The Government, Intermediate Organisations and Grass-root Politics in Hong Kong’, Asian Survey, vol. 21, no. 8 (August 1981), p. 878.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  17. Also see Lau Siu-kai, Society and Politics in Hong Kong (Hong Kong: The Chinese University Press, 1982), pp. 155–157.Google Scholar
  18. 52.
    J. Stephen Hoadley, ‘Hong Kong is the Lifeboat: Notes on Political Culture and Socialisation’, Journal of Oriental Studies, vol. 8 (1970), p. 213 and p. 217.Google Scholar
  19. Also see David Leroy Covin, PhD thesis, Department of Political Science, Washington State University, 1970,‘Political Culture as an Analytical Instrument: An Examination of Refugees in Hong Kong’, v–vi. Covin studied the political orientations of sixty refugees and found that most of them had ‘an apathetic-subject political subculture’.Google Scholar
  20. 53.
    See Lau Siu-kai, ‘Utilitarianistic Familism: The Basis of Political Stability’, in Ambrose King and Rance Lee, eds., Social Life and Developntent in Hong Kong (Hong Kong: The Chinese University Press, 1981) , pp. 200–201.Google Scholar
  21. 54.
    See Miners, The Government and Politics of Hong Kong, Fourth Edition (Hong Kong: Oxford University Press, 1986), pp. 37–38; and Lau, Society and Politics in Hong Kong, op. cit., pp. 105–106.Google Scholar
  22. 55.
    Richard Solomon, Mao’s Revolution and the Chinese Political Culture (Berkeley: University of California Press, 1971), p. 256.Google Scholar
  23. 59.
    D. K. Fieldhouse, Colonialism 1870–1945: An Introduction (London: Weidenfeld and Nicolson, 1981), pp. 31–32.Google Scholar
  24. 61.
    Ambrose King, ‘Administrative Absorption of Politics in Hong Kong: Emphasis on the Grassroots Level’, Asian Survey, vol. 15 (May 1975), p. 424.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  25. 62.
    S. N. G. Davies, ‘One Brand of Politics Rekindled’, Hong Kong Law Journal, vol. 7, no. 1 (1977), pp. 69–70.Google Scholar
  26. 67.
    See Ian Scott, Political Change and the Crisis of Legitimacy in Hong Kong (Hong Kong: Oxford University Press, 1989), pp. 60–64.Google Scholar
  27. Also see Henry Lethbridge, Hong Kong: Stability and Change (Hong Kong: Oxford University Press, 1978), pp. 146–147.Google Scholar
  28. 70.
    K. K. Chandha, ed., The MacLehose Years, 1971–1982 (Hong Kong: South China Morning Post, April 1982), p. 6.Google Scholar
  29. 71.
    David Trench, Hong Kong and Its Position in the Southeast Asia Region (Hawaii: East-West Centre, 1971), pp. 2–6.Google Scholar
  30. 80.
    Charles R. Beitz, Political Theory and International Relations (New Jersey: Princeton University Press, 1979), p. 78.Google Scholar
  31. 84.
    H. J. Lethbridge, Hard Graft in Hong Kong (Hong Kong: Oxford University Press, 1985), pp. 80–81.Google Scholar
  32. 86.
    For details of the ICAC, see Rance Lee, ed., Corruption and Its Control in Hong Kong (Hong Kong: the Chinese University Press, 1981). Also see Ambrose King, ‘An Institutional Response to Corruption: the ICAC of Hong Kong’, in Leung, Cushman, and Wang, eds., Hong Kong: Dilemmas of Growth, pp. 115–137.Google Scholar
  33. For a critical view of corruption in Hong Kong, see Elsie Elliot, The Avarice Bureaucracy and Corruption of Hong Kong (Hong Kong: Friends Commercial Building Factory, 1971), vol. 1.Google Scholar
  34. 89.
    Joe England, Hong Kong: Britain’s Responsibility (London: Fabian Society, 1976), p. 9.Google Scholar
  35. 91.
    Robert Alford and Roger Friedland, Powers of Theory: Capitalism, the State and Democracy (New York: Cambridge University Press, 1985), p. 43.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  36. 92.
    Peter Harris, Hong Kong: A Study in Bureaucratic Politics (Hong Kong: Heinemann Asia, 1976), p. 56 and p. 176.Google Scholar
  37. 93.
    Tang Shu-hung, ‘The Role of the Hong Kong Government in Managing the Economy’, in Joseph Cheng, ed., The Political System and Politics in Hong Kong (in Chinese) (Hong Kong: Cosmos Books, 1987), p. 208 and p. 219.Google Scholar
  38. 94.
    Miners, The Government and Politics of Hong Kong (1984), op. cit., p. 263.Google Scholar
  39. 95.
    See Joe England, Industrial Relations and Law in Hong Kong (Hong Kong: Oxford University Press, 1989), Second Edition, p. 232.Google Scholar
  40. 98.
    Turner, The Last Colony: But Whose?, op. cit., p. 110. Also see Joe England and John Rear, Industrial Relations and Law in Hong Kong (Hong Kong: Oxford University Press, 1981), pp. 164–166.Google Scholar
  41. 99.
    A Hong Kong Maoist pamphlet wrote: ‘The present large-scale national persecution of the Chinese in Hong Kong launched by British imperialism has been a deliberate move, well-prepared and well organised. It is a part of anti-China plot conceived by the British government in conspiracy with US imperialism’, see The Committee of Hong Kong-Kowloon Chinese Compatriots of All Circles for the Struggle Against Persecution by the British Authorities in Hong Kong, ed., The May Upheaval in Hong Kong (Hong Kong: no Publisher, 1967), pp. 11–12.Google Scholar
  42. 100.
    Gary Wayne Carton, ‘China and Hong Kong, 1945–1967’, PhD thesis, Department of Political Science, Harvard University, May 1971, p. 313.Google Scholar
  43. 101.
    SCMP, March 13, 1972, quoted in Miners, The Government and Politics of Hong Kang (1984) , op. cit., pp. 19–20.Google Scholar
  44. Also see his Miners ‘Government and Politics’, in David Lethbridge, ed., The Business Environment in Hong Kong (Hong Kong: Oxford University Press, 1984), pp. 106–107.Google Scholar
  45. 102.
    See the letter to Sun Yat-sen from the Colonial Secretary, J. H. Stewart, on October 4, 1897, quoted in G. B. Endacott and A. Hinton, Fragrant Harbour: A Short History of Hong Kong (Hong Kong: Oxford University Press, 1967), p. 48.Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Lo Shiu-hing 1997

Authors and Affiliations

  • Shiu-hing Lo
    • 1
  1. 1.University of Hong KongChina

Personalised recommendations