Hostname: page-component-586b7cd67f-dsjbd Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-11-24T22:40:03.053Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

The Government of Hong Kong: Change Within Tradition*

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  17 February 2009

Brian Hook
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Extract

In the course of the development of Hong Kong from an over-populated refuge to an international city of state dimensions, its government and political institutions have seldom been the object of detailed analysis by outside observers. One explanation may be that hitherto foreigners have been interested mainly in the performance of the economy to the exclusion of other considerations; now that external factors are influencing the internal affairs of Hong Kong and affecting prospects for growth, the local reaction to the possibility of hard times may be carefully scrutinized. Another, equally plausible, explanation is that since the government is colonial in style with no political parties mutually contesting at regular intervals to form a new administration, the political scene lacks the punctuation marks which would stimulate outside interest. Further consideration of this latter feature suggests that while senior civil servants and appointed representatives may govern impeccably they perforce avoid public debate, and in their public appearances are in any case no substitute for the charismatic leader when it comes to attracting foreign attention. At home, the Government of Hong Kong and its political institutions do not escape scrutiny so easily. Both universities have scholars working in this field and vigorous popular comment and debate is a daily characteristic of the mass media. From a local vantage point, contrary to what may be the view from abroad of an unchanging government and political institutions, significant changes have taken place as Hong Kong has undergone rapid physical development. Although they are changes within an established tradition of government, and do not therefore constitute a fundamental reform, they represent an important advance in community involvement in the administration of Hong Kong.

Type
Hong Kong Briefing
Information
The China Quarterly , Volume 95 , September 1983 , pp. 491 - 511
Copyright
Copyright © The China Quarterly 1983

Access options

Get access to the full version of this content by using one of the access options below. (Log in options will check for institutional or personal access. Content may require purchase if you do not have access.)

References

1. Parsons, Melinda J. (ed.), Hong Kong 1983: A Review of 1982 (Hong Kong: The Government Printer, 1983), Chap. 22, “Constitution and administration,” pp. 252–68Google Scholar;

2. Ibid.

3. Ibid.

4. Ibid.

5. McKinsey and Co. Inc. “Strengthening the machinery of government,” 2 vols., Hong Kong, 1973Google Scholar;

6. Walden, J.: “A problem of credibility,” a talk given to the Hong Kong Observers, 13 02 1980Google Scholar; printed by the Government Printer, Hong Kong 1980; “Firm finger on political pulse - from London” and “Mood changes on the system of government,” South China Morning Post (Hong Kong), 27, 28 11 1981Google Scholar. “Call for change to open government” report in South China Morning Post, 8 February 1983. Comments in Fung, Raymond (Feng Weimin), “Have city district officers and mutual aid committees taken over the functions of the Kaifong associations?” (”Jiefanghui de zhuoyong yi bei min zheng zhuren ji huzhuweiyuanhui qudai”), Hong Kong Economic Journal (Xin bao), 03–04 1977Google Scholar;

7. Report of the Working Party on Local Administration (Hong Kong: The Government Printer, 11 1966)Google Scholar; Siu-kai, Lau, Society and Politics in Hong Kong (Hong Kong:The Chinese University Press, 1982), pp. 38–39Google Scholar; Endacott, G. B., Government and People in Hong Kong 1841–1962 (Hong Kong: Hong Kong University Press, 1964), pp. 179–95Google Scholar; Miners, N. J., The Government and Politics of Hong Kong (Hong Kong: Oxford University Press, 1977), pp. 190–91Google Scholar;

8. Report of the Working Party on Local Administration (Hong Kong: The Government Press, 1966)Google Scholar;

9. Siu-kai, Lau, Society and Politics in Hong Kong, p. 39Google Scholar; Miners, , The Government and Politics of0 Hong Kong, p. 193Google Scholar; White Paper: The Urban Council (Hong Kong: The Government Press, 1971)Google Scholar;

10. Lau Siu-kai, ibid.

11. In 1945 the population of Hong Kong was 600,000, many residents having fled the Japanese occupation; in 1950 it had risen to 2,360,000, greatly exceeding that in 1937, c. 1,200,000; in 1956 it exceeded 2,500,000; in 1961 the census figure was 3,129,648; in 1972 it was estimated at 4,165,300; in 1982 it was 5,287,800. See, A Problem of People (Hong Kong: The Government Press, 1960), Parsons, Melinda J. (ed.)Google Scholar; Hong Kong 1983: A Review of 1982.

12. Report by the Secretary for Chinese Affairs, “The City District Officer Scheme” (Hong Kong: The Government Printer, 1969)Google Scholar.

13. The Heung Yee Kuk was established in 1926 and made a statutory body in 1960 to advise on matters affecting the well-being of the New Territories and, within the New Territories, to promote co-operation and understanding between the government and the people and to maintain appropriate tradition, usage and customs (see: “Green Paper: A Pattern of District Administration in Hong Kong, 1980”).

14. Secretary for Chinese Affairs, “The City District Officer Scheme.”

15. “Green Paper: A Pattern of District Administration in Hong Kong,” June 1980, “White Paper: District Administration in Hong Kong,” January 1981, augmented by information on mutual aid committees in the series Hong Kong: The Facts, Hong Kong Information Services, Hong Kong, 06 1983Google Scholar; Mutual aid committees and owners corporations have as a common aim the improvement of the management of high-rise, buildings including the health and security interests of the occupants. The need for coordination arose from there being multi-storey buildings often under multi-ownership. In practice, the members of the MACs are normally tenants and of the OCs, owner-occupiers. They were initially promoted in the private sector but were later set up in public housing estates and squatter areas. By December 1982 a total of 4,948 MACs had been set up throughout Hong Kong Island, Kowloon and the New Territories, including 1,224 owner corporations.

16. Ibid.

17. “Green Paper: A Pattern of District Administration in Hong Kong.”

18. “White Paper: District Administration in Hong Kong.”

19. District Boards Ordinance Laws of Hong Kong, rev. ed. 1981, Chap. 366.

20. Parsons (ed.), Hong Kong, 1983: A Review of 1982.

21. District Boards Ordinance, Laws of Hong Kong, Chap. 366, Pt. IV, Art. 20.

22. Information released by the Secretary for District Administration. These interviews took place on 29 December 1982.

23. King, Ambrose Yeo-chi, “Administrative absorption of politics in Hong Kong: emphasis on the grass roots level” in Asian Survey, Vol. 15, No. 5 (05 1975), pp. 422–39CrossRefGoogle Scholar;

24. Siu-kai, Lau, Society and Politics in Hong Kong, Chaps 2, 5 and 6., pp. 26–66, 122–82Google Scholar;

25. The information in this section is derived from Hong Kong Government Year Books, Parsons, (ed.), Hong Kong 1983: A Review of 1982, and information made available at the Hong Kong Government Office, LondonGoogle Scholar;

26. Hong is the Cantonese pronunciation of the putonghua hang meaning business firm and has been applied generally but not exclusively to foreign China coast companies and agencies.