Search results

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 purpose of this paper is to explore the emergence of civil disobedience (CD) movements in Hong Kong in the context of the notion of civil society (CS).

The paper begins by rigorously defining the notion of CD, as well as the concept of CS and tracing its development in Hong Kong over the past several decades. By using a model of CS typology, which combines the variables of state control and a society’s quest for autonomy (SQA), the paper aims to outline the historical development of CD movements in Hong Kong. It also discusses the recent evolution of CS and its relationship with CD movements, particularly focusing on their development since Leung Chun-ying became the Chief Executive in 2012. Finally, by using five cases of CD witnessed in the past several decades, the relationship between the development of CS and the emergence of CD in Hong Kong has been outlined.

Four implications can be concluded: first, CD cannot emerge when the state and society are isolated. Second, the level of SC and the scale of CD are positively related. Third, as an historical trend, the development of SQA is generally in linear progress; SQA starts from a low level (e.g. interest-based and welfare-based aims) and moves upwards to campaign for higher goals of civil and political autonomy. If the lower level of SQA is not satisfied, it can lead to larger scale CD in future. Fourth, the CD movement would be largest in scale when the state-society relationship confrontational and when major cleavages can be found within CS itself.

This paper serves to enrich knowledge in the fields of politics and sociology.

The purpose of this paper is to explore the differences between Hong Kong Special Administrative Region (SAR) and Mainland in terms of education and also the influence of it on doing comparative educational research. Hong Kong SAR is ruled by the Chinese Government under the framework of “One country, two systems.” It makes Hong Kong SAR different from other Mainland cities based on different aspects including, education. The finding of this paper provides a systematic review about the differences between these two Chinese societies in terms of education and also implication for conducting comparative educational research in these two societies and also generating some implications for cross-national and cross-cultural study in education.

This paper made references from the framework proposed by Bray and Thomas (1995) in relation to comparative educational research to make comparison between Hong Kong SAR and Mainland China. Multi-level comparison is conducted between two societies in terms of education, especially aspects relating to conducting educational research sat social, school and individual levels.

This paper identified the influence of “One county, two systems” on education at different levels such as ideology, school management system and use of languages in teaching. Such differences affect the choice of topics, sampling strategy, research design, data analysis and interpretation and also ethical considerations when conducting comparative research between Hong Kong SAR and Mainland China.

This paper is an integrated analysis of conducting educational research in two Chinese societies and provides insights for further discussions and possible research about this topic.

The purpose of this paper is to study the development of one country two systems of Hong Kong over two decades and examine its challenges and prospect. One country two systems is pragmatic and compromise principle and social arrangement for Hong Kong under China sovereignty. It has served to resolve some issues related to the future of Hong Kong after the end of British Colonial rule since July 1, 1997. There are lessons to be learnt as the merits and flaws of the system have been identified in the study as perceived from the perspective of social development.

The paper is based on quantitative methodology. Data of public opinion polls conducted by various local universities on the development of one country two systems of Hong Kong have been employed in the study. Based on the data obtained from the relevant survey, different aspects of social development of Hong Kong under one country two systems has been examined and explored. Data are current and up-to-date to reflect the social mood of Hong Kong people toward one country two systems over the years.

The challenges and prospect of one country two systems of Hong Kong over two decades since the change of sovereignty have been identified in this paper. Hong Kong has remained the moist free market and the third financial center in the world. However, the high degree of self-autonomy as stipulated in the Basic Law has been fading way. There is social discontent of Hong Kong people on social and political grounds and there are high sense of mistrust to both Hong Kong SAR (HKSAR) government and the Central government in Beijing. This will provide a guideline to the government for improving the situation.

The study is based on data obtained from various public opinion conducted by several local university on the development of one country two systems and how Hong Kong people feel about it. The data are current and up-to-date. However, there will be variation of findings as social mood and perception of Hong Kong people toward one country two systems may change due to the changes of social and political events. With these limitations, one needs to be careful while drawing the conclusion. Yet, the over trend of social development of Hong Kong can be seen.

The study will provide an overall view and assessment of one country two systems of Hong Kong over two decades after the change of sovereignty since July 1, 1997. The findings and discussion of social mobility, quality of life, income disparity, social and political movement and ethnic identity and its changes in recent years of people in Hong Kong are rather revealing. It will provide a reality check and yardstick for people who are concerned about Hong Kong society and its people under China sovereignty.

The study and its findings will provide a useful guideline for people who are concerned about how Hong Kong people live under China sovereignty. Hong Kong to most of Hong Kong people is on longer a borrow place living under the borrowed time. The former British Colonial rule has been replaced by HKSAR government rule under China sovereignty. There is a high degree of mistrust toward both HKSAR government and the Central government in Beijing. People in Hong Kong keep fighting for democracy and high degree of self-autonomy. Hence, Hong Kong is still a free and open society under China sovereignty.

The paper contributes an original study on the development of one country two systems of Hong Kong under China sovereignty as perceived from the perspective of social development. There are important findings on social mobility, income disparity and issues of ethnic identity of Hong Kong people. The lessons of Hong Kong will provide an interesting case for people who care concerned about how people living in a former British colony has transformed the society into a thriving civil society under China sovereignty.

After the handing over of Hong Kong sovereignty from 1997 and under the “one country two systems” model, the Special Administrative Region's Government initiated new policies of civic education and amended or ignored the old ones. However, it was not until May 2011 that the complete new policy paper was introduced for consultation and then it was passed and issued as national education in April 2012. This article aims to analyze the civic education policy of Hong Kong in the transfer of power after the handing over in the following 15 years.

This policy analysis describes the preparations for Hong Kong’s future citizens and masters. Theories of citizenship education are adopted for this analysis. Moreover, theories of the state are also applied for more in‐depth understanding. These concepts are helpful to operationalize the contents of the study. It was a historical and comparative method to help to understand and explain the civic education policy of the HKSAR's governance.

Basically, it can be seen that the policies are anticipatory and responsive. The historical context of Hong Kong helped to make the correspondence with how the government expected to mold its future citizens in order to facilitate and implement their administration and governance.

This paper explores the role of the Hong Kong Government in the initiation and implementation of civic education.

This paper aims to analyse the general trend of a funding scheme of civic education over the past 30 years in terms of the number of projects and the amount of their subsidies, the targeted groups, the content of the activities and the nature of the grantees.

Using statistical data of sponsored projects over three decades and interviews with ten informants.

There has been a shift in the concerns and priorities of these projects. Through the incentives and by setting the themes for funding, the government has regulated the civil society’s involvement with civic education and helped to fashion the officially endorsed values. But it is no longer effective to mediate state–civil society relationship and to cope with the new political scenario.

This paper demonstrates the changing state–civic society relationship over the years with a solid large-scale database. This study advances the knowledge about public funding projects related to citizenship education in particular and sponsorship as a means of governance in general.

This chapter discusses the social mobility and the political consequences of three education events in Hong Kong: the extension of free and compulsory schooling in 1978, the construction of universities after the Tiananmen repression amid popular unrest, and the creation of two-year degree programs after Hong Kong became a Special Administrative Region. The chapter shows the repercussions of these events for civil society organizations and political parties. The chapter first reviews the historical context for state-society relations created by the current Special Administrative Region and the former British Crown Colony. It presents two alternative perspectives on the impact of higher education for civic development and social mobilization, perspectives rooted in neo-functionalist and in neo-Weberian sociologies of education. Next, the chapter discusses the actors and agents of political change in Hong Kong. Inferences are drawn about the social integration of new immigrants from Mainland China, as well as the opportunities for women and for lower-income students, based on analysis of 35 years of Hong Kong Census data (1971–2006). The chapter concludes by raising questions about the future ability of governments and parties to define the postsecondary policy agenda, an agenda that now threatens to escape from government control and become a flash-point of popular mobilization.

To make comparisons between ethnic Chinese in different countries, the work‐related values of middle managers from Hong Kong, Singapore, and Thailand were compared. Hong Kong and Singapore are characterized by a large Chinese majority and a dominant Chinese culture; whereas, in Thailand, the Chinese comprise a small minority, well integrated into Thai society. Therefore, the study hypothesized that similarities between the work values in Hong Kong and Singapore would be greater than between Hong Kong and Thailand or Singapore and Thailand. The findings, however, showed that there were twice as many significant differences in work values between Hong Kong and Singapore. Generally, however, Chinese work values were found to be quite consistent across the three societies.

A debate emerged among members of public administration academia soon after COVID-19 appeared on the roles and measures that governments ought to deploy to prevent infection. One prevalent discourse is the strength of “strong government” in the fight against the virus—the administrative capacity to launch prompt, appropriate and effective actions that entail collaboration with citizens. A notable development in governance is that new public management (NPM) principles, such as the value of money and the pluralisation of service delivery, are gradually put aside when governments urgently need to curb the spread of infection. The roles of bureaucracy and centralised action are re-emphasised in the policymaking and implementation of anti-epidemic measures. Such a trend allows us to examine if the COVID-19 public health crisis has fundamentally reversed the trend of government retreat in public service within neoliberal regimes since the 1980s.

For this research, the authors selected two “strong governments” in Asia—Hong Kong and Taiwan—by showing how administrators outline their anti-pandemic strategies, examining the role of government in coordinating responses and how bureaucracy interacts with the other two key domains of the governance mechanism: civil society and the market. These two offshore Chinese capitalist economies and pluralistic societies are perceived to have “strong government capacity” in the fight against COVID-19, presumably as a key attribute to their success confining the spread of infection during the early stages of the first outbreak. Both societies reported low infection rates and low mortality rates until September 2020. The authors browsed databases developed by scholars (Cheng et al., 2020; Hale et al., 2020) and referred to two “rubrics” to assess and compare government actions in both places in response to COVID-19. The authors itemised, categorised and counted the policy actions in both places according to the rubrics, noticed that the policy footprint appeared in over two-thirds of indicators of proactive government interventions and identified double-digit counts in nearly half of the categories.

The authors found that both governments attempted to establish strong stewardship and quick measures to contain the infection. The pattern of “strong government” is, however, not the same as that superficially exhibited. Taiwan took limited steps to regulate business activities but proactively intervened and coordinated the supply of hygienic utilities. Hong Kong launched aggressive attempts to reduce human mobility but remained non-active despite the “face mask run” in society. The “strong government” aspect also received divergent reactions from society. There was extensive cross-sectoral collaboration under the centralised “National Team” advocacy in Taiwan, and there has been no record of local infection for over 10 months. The Hong Kong government was repeatedly doubted for its undesirable stewardship in anti-epidemic measures, the effectiveness of policy interventions and the impartiality of law enforcement. Spontaneous actions during the health crisis from civil societies and private markets were noted, but they seemed uncoordinated with official attempts.

The initial findings enable us to rethink correlations between state capacity and legitimacy in the fight against the virus and its development post-COVID-19. Apparently, Taiwan and Hong Kong demonstrated a “re-expansion” of their public sector during the public health crisis, but not in the same format. This can be understood based on their varying regime values and administrative systems. The pandemic has been a catalyst, pushing both regimes back to their original track of public administration establishments. The concept of “path dependence” might explain the initial development and project the longer-term transformation of the public sector in both places.