Search results

The purpose of this paper is to make sense of the slow and frustrating process of democratization in Hong Kong through understanding the pan-democrats’ struggle for realizing universal suffrage. It aims to offer possible explanations for the current political impasse between Hong Kong and mainland China over the issue of universal suffrage.

This paper seeks to construct a triangular model of institutional constraint, clashing visions of democracy and mutual political distrust for understanding the pan-democrats’ struggle for realizing universal suffrage in Hong Kong since the 1980s, the nature of current political predicament they found themselves in and the current political impasse between the pan-democrats and Beijing.

The dilemma facing Hong Kong’s pan-democrats and Beijing’s leadership is attributed to the institutional constraints of Basic Law on Hong Kong’s system of governance, the clashing visions of Beijing-led Chinese-style democracy and Western-style liberal democracy as advocated by the pan-democrats and the mutual political distrust between the two parties. The findings suggest that this triangular model will remain relevant in understanding the political predicament of the pan-democrats under Chinese rule and the political impasse between Hong Kong and mainland China over universal suffrage for the coming decades.

This paper provides a new interpretation of the current political impasse between Hong Kong and mainland China over the issue of universal suffrage. It offers new insights into the nature of current political predicament the pan-democrats found themselves in amidst their fight for realizing universal suffrage since the 1980s by constructing a triangular model of institutional constraints, clashing visions of democracy and mutual political distrust.

The People’s Republic of China, as a progressively developing economy, is subject to dynamic structural changes, which are potentially de‐stabilizing in nature. Since the end of the 1970s China had abandoned Mao Zedong’s socioeconomic theories and policies and instituted profound socioeconomic reforms. Her more pragmatic approach has increasingly emphasized economic freedom and individualism. The pursued “pragmatism” involves a revolutionary mixture of both a planned and a market economy with greater economic but not political freedom. Essential socioeconomic reforms were not complemented by requisite political reforms. According to Walter Eucken’s “instability thesis,” this may de‐stabilize China’s socioeconomic and political structures. The challenge which China continues to face is how to reconcile two sets of conflicting principles, economic freedom and Marxist‐Leninist‐Maoist control of politics and society, resolving Eucken’s hypothesis of potential long‐term instability. This paper addresses this challenge in terms of ethical and economic perspectives.

The purpose of this paper is to explain how post-1997 Hong Kong has been perceived in Taiwan and to critically evaluate the demonstration effects of Hong Kong under the “One Country, Two Systems” policy on cross-strait relations.

“Today’s Hong Kong, Tomorrow’s Taiwan” has become a dominant discourse in cross-strait relations in recent years. The paper has adopted discourse analysis of selected texts during and after the 2014 Sunflower Movement to elucidate the disapproval of the developments of post-handover Hong Kong and the construction of the Movement’s self-identity.

It has observed the following arguments which shaped the prevailing perceptions among critics of the “One Country, Two Systems” policy: political infiltration of China in Hong Kong could be extended to Taiwan in the sense that the Beijing authorities would adopt the identical approach to manipulate Taiwan through the cross-strait trading agreements; negative perceptions and images of China and Chinese capitals as a collective aggressor and a threat, raising fear and worries in both Hong Kong and Taiwan; and Kuomintang, as a ruling party at that time under the leadership of President Ma Ying-jeoh, was dismissed by protesters as an incompetent gatekeeper and defender of Taiwan’s interests.

The pervasive sentiments and perceptions about post-1997 Hong Kong has been articulated discursively by the young activists in Taiwan and Hong Kong into a statement – “Today’s Hong Kong, Tomorrow’s Taiwan” – which has brought about a somewhat unexpected bonding effect between Hong Kong and Taiwan through a strong disapproval of “One Country, Two Systems” and the China factor, which has be reproduced, delivered and circulated in both societies since 2014.

The purpose of this paper is to compare and analyse the role and implementation of nationalistic education in Hong Kong and Macau special administrative regions (SARs) since their respective handover of sovereignty to China in the late 1990s. Both SARs face the educational need to cultivate a Chinese national identification among the students after the sovereignty changes. While Macau SAR has enjoyed a relatively smooth implementation of nationalistic education towards which Macau’s schools and students are largely receptive to nationalistic programmes since its handover in 1999, Hong Kong SAR Government’s nationalistic education was met by reservation from some parents, students and civil society’s groups under allegations of “political indoctrination” and “brain-washing”. The Hong Kong civil society’s resistance to National Education culminated in the anti-Moral and National Education protest in Summer 2012 and then Hong Kong schools and society. This paper attempts to provide an overview and analysis on the development of nationalistic education in both Hong Kong and Macao SARs, and to give some possible explanations on the factors that lead to differences of perceiving and responding to the nationalistic education between both places.

After conducting a literature review, this study utilises different sources of data such as curriculum guidelines, previous studies and other scholarly findings in examining the development of civic education and national education policy in both SAR societies, as well as in discussing the possible developments of nationalistic education in both SARs by making references to previous studies of citizenship and nationalistic education.

This study found out that different relationships between the two SAR Governments and their respective civil society, the extent of established socio-political linkages with China, as well as the introduction of a core subject of Liberal Studies in Hong Kong secondary schools, which emphasises on multiple perspectives and critical thinking skills, are some plausible factors that explain different stories and developments of implementing nationalistic education in Hong Kong and Macao SARs.

For giving suggestions for a nationalistic education in both Chinese SARs, first, there should be an exploration of multiple citizenship identities. This will allow people to choose their identities and thus facilitate their belongingness in terms of local, national and global dimensions. In addition, there should be an exploration of a Chinese national identification with different emphases such as knowledge orientation and critical thinking so as to cater for youth values. Promoting the idea of an informed and reasonable-in-thinking patriot could also be a way to ease the concern that building a national identity negates a person’s freedom of thinking.

This paper attempts to compare and analyse the different responses to the same policy of enhancing nationalistic education development in both Hong Kong and Macao SARs of China. Some plausible explanations were given based on political, social and educational factors, as well as youth value oritentations. This paper would be an attempt to show that a top-down single-minded orientated nationalistic education may not work well a society such as Hong Kong, where civil society and youth values are quite different than that can be found in China.

The author believes that China’s modern development is reaching a crossroads, and that country is facing some critical challenges as it seeks to keep its modernization program, and further economic development, on track.

This masterclass posits that understanding more fully what is happening in China, and how to succeed there, is rapidly becoming a strategic imperative for any corporate leader with global ambitions.

China’s importance to global business is undeniable. Even though its growth rate now seems to be stabilizing at 7-8 percent, China looks set to become the world’s largest economy within a decade, and is likely to be more than twice the size of USA economy by 2050.

Soft infrastructure should be China’s next priority. China’s ability to construct a modern airport and a fleet of world class aircraft has been progressing at a much faster rate than its overall ability to operate an efficient, world-leading, inter-city and international, civil aviation passenger service.

While the pace of political reform is likely to remain cautious, it has already been quite “extensive and far-reaching” in China’s own terms and continues to evolve.

Western leaders should reconsider how they measure China’s progress. China can be expected to experiment its way very cautiously towards greater democratization, but the outcome is likely to be profoundly different from the Western model.

We examine, from an institutional perspective, labor management structures in China's foreign-invested enterprises (FIEs). Focusing on the adoption of two Chinese-style and two Western-style labor structures, we seek to understand the influences of global capitalism vis-à-vis those of China's domestic institutions which themselves are undergoing market-oriented transformations. Our empirical analysis is based on data collected in a national survey of FIEs conducted in 1996. The results show that a significant proportion of FIEs localize their labor practices by adopting Chinese-style structures and that the extent of localization is shaped by both institutional processes and strategic considerations. We also find that the two Chinese-style structures effectively reduce tension and conflict between labor and management, whereas the two Western-style structures do not appear to serve such function. These findings underscore the potency of the Chinese institutional environment and reveal how organizational interest interacts with institutional forces, giving rise to a distinctively “local” mixture of managerial structures and practices in the era of globalization.

There are continuing efforts by Chinese institutions to improve their approach to the management of research and development (R&D) within the national and global arenas. The purpose of this paper is to propose a framework for managing R&D in China.

The framework is derived from a review of two OECD reports, three books and 15 recently published articles in scholarly journals (1977‐2008) all of which are mainly related to the structure and organisation of research in foreign‐owned and Chinese research institutes.

In this paper, issues in the literature are identified and arranged in themes in order to discover key lessons about the management of R&D. The result of the analysis is a hybrid six‐dimensional model incorporating open innovation, connecting with the world, knowledge management, a public approach, balanced development and communities of inquiry.

The framework emphasises a base of shrewd economic expansion supported by intelligent fiscal policies used as a basic building block that can be emulated within R&D in China and more broadly.

Practical applications include a structure for cross‐cultural analysis of R&D management to identify the mix of key elements and how this might augment success, build global empathy, foster deeper cooperation in R&D management and create inclusive competitive advantage.

This paper provides a new framework emanating from the synthesis of elements identified in the literature as being important to R&D management that can be applied by Chinese and foreign owned firms at a global level.

The Communist Party of China represents a distinctive philosophy of leadership, one in which it tries to present itself as the key promoter of Chinese style modernity and the national mission to become a great, rich, and powerful country again. Contemporary Chinese leaders however have to operate in a territory laden with historic issues, with huge administrative responsibilities, and with challenges of mobilizing and gaining support from a vast, complex, and often fractious public. This chapter looks at the various ways leaders in China have tried to fulfill these often contradictory demands, while also attempting to remain true to their core ideological beliefs at a time when the country is undergoing rapid economic and social transformation.