Search results

This paper attempts to explain the phenomenon that Macau has a parliament (Legislative Assembly) and mass suffrage but no political parties.

This paper reviews the development process of “parliament – mass suffrage – political party” in Hong Kong and Macau and tries to explain why Macau does not have a party using comparative research methods.

The political party development of Hong Kong and Macau was influenced by both the (former) colonial power and China, and whether there were political parties in these two regions was the result of the game between China and the (former) colonial power. China hoped to limit the development of party politics in the two regions. Since Britain felt reluctant to cooperate with China, political parties in Hong Kong developed. At the same time, Portugal chose to defer to China, which led Macau not to have a political party.

Existing studies have yet to explain why there are no political parties in Macau, and this paper is the first attempt to do so.

This article outlines the challenges faced by the next Chief Executive of the Hong Kong Special Administrative Region (HKSAR) in 2022 – the need to address economic problems resulting from Hong Kong’s slow growth; its inability to restructure its economy to broaden job opportunities and improve upward mobility for young people; and the government’s belated attempt to deploy innovation and technology.

This article is based on the author’s in-depth analysis of the current situation and insights on the challenges faced by the next Chief Executive.

Tensions are inherent in the concept of “One Country, Two Systems”. Back in November 2012, Deputy Director of the Hong Kong and Macao Office Zhang Xiaoming already reminded Hong Kong of the need to manage well three sets of relationships: (1) maintaining the “One Country” principle while preserving the SARs’ “separate systems”; (2) upholding Central Authority while preserving the SARs’ “high degree of autonomy”; and (3) unleashing the economic potential of mainland China while raising the competitiveness of the SARs. These three sets of relationships represent three fundamental difficulties in implementing “One Country, Two Systems”. However, Hong Kong kept ignoring Beijing’s advice and failed to resolve the tension between the mainland and Hong Kong SAR, culminating in the riotous events of 2019, which morphed into a dangerous, anti-China insurgency.

The next Chief Executive needs to mediate between the constitutional requirements of the Central Authority while preserving Hong Kong SAR’s “high degree of autonomy”, its unique character and lifestyle. He or she also needs to deal with continuity and change. Hong Kong cannot stand still, and should not allow itself to be lulled by the “50 years no change” mantra into overlooking the need to move with the times. Much reform needs to be implemented by the next Chief Executive to give people hope, faith in “One Country, Two Systems” and true love of the country.

The purpose of this paper is to identify the major political and social effects of the Hong Kong National Security Law on Hong Kong. It is argued that the enactment of this Law allows Hong Kong not only to end its protracted political turmoil since its return to China in 1997, but also will generate the favorable conditions for long-term stability and effective governance in the territory.

This paper is based on the author’s close observation of what had happened in Hong Kong in the year since the Hong Kong National Security Law came into effect on 1 July 2020.

The Hong Kong National Security Law has brought about significant changes in the political psychology of Hongkongers, the balance of power among different political forces, the ability of external forces to interfere in Hong Kong politics, the way Hong Kong is governed, the relationship between the government and the legislature, the activities in the educational and cultural sectors, and the behavior of the judiciary.

This paper would be of interest to scholars and people who are interested in the implementation of “One Country, Two Systems” in the Hong Kong Special Administrative Region (SAR) as well as Beijing’s new policy towards Hong Kong in the aftermath of Hong Kong’s unprecedented riots and violence.

Territory-wide system assessment (TSA) was launched and administered by Hong Kong (HK) Education Bureau (EDB) since 2004. Since then, parents and teachers have been questioning its need, value, uselessness, effectiveness, harm for schools, teachers and students. In 2015, the issue blew up with Kau Yan School’s principal boycotting the tests. A series of discussions in the public and media and different surveys were then carried out widely in HK. After review, EDB announced in 2017 that the revised version of TSA be extended to Primary 3 students in HK. The purpose of this paper is to propose that TSAs for Primary 3, Primary 6 and Secondary 3 need a further review to judge their need and uselessness.

This paper reviews the educational policy governing the administration of the TSA. Primary and secondary data from focus group meetings, press interviews (Bogdan and Biklen, 1982; Miles and Huberman, 1994; Ouiment et al., 2001) and public reports would be analyzed. Besides, participant observation (Nosich, 1982; Sou, 2000; Sou and Zhou, 2007) and theoretical reasoning (Nosich, 1982; Sou, 2000; Sou and Zhou, 2007) have been applied for the critical review of this controversial test. The contrast study on the conflicting views of stakeholders in the education industry would bring up some insights of this controversial educational policy in Assessment for Learning.

Conflicting and contrasting perceptions from TSA to basic competency assessment (BCA) among stakeholders of education and government include governmental stakeholder – EDB’s awareness; EDB stressed that TSA is a low-stakes assessment which does not need extra practice for students; non-governmental stakeholders including legislative councilors’ perception, school principals’ perception, teachers’ perception, parents’ perception and students’ perception. Facing the opposition and grievances of different stakeholders, EDB announced in January 2017 that the revised version of TSA: BCA, be extended to HK in May 2017. Parents and legislative councilors were angry and they ask for a review or even cancellation for Primary 3 TSA.

This original study will initiate more thorough revisions and discussions for the TSAs for Primary 3, Primary 6 and Secondary 3 in HK, as a quality educational management step. While TSA for Primary 3 has been reviewed and substantially “revised,” the community at large still asks for further revision for its needs, uselessness and harm for parents, teachers and students. Since the underlying causes of students’ suicides are not fully identified, the problem of over-drilling practices for TSAs for Primary 3, Primary 6 and Secondary 3 needs to be satisfactorily resolved. Thus, TSAs for Primary 6 and Secondary 3, like that for Primary 3, should be reviewed for probable revision.

The purpose of this paper is to explore some sober minds of better reordering of the relationships among the Central People’s Government of China (CPG), Hong Kong SAR Government (HKSARG) and the people of Hong Kong.

It attempts to analyse and explain varying challenges faced by all stakeholders in the recent social and political unrest in Hong Kong.

As a result of HKSARG’s failure to amend the Fugitive Offenders Ordinance, the feelings of resentment at both social inequality and political stagnation in Hong Kong turn into hostility towards the HKSARG, CPG and the Mainland people.

Performance and procedural legitimacy are equally critical to help HKSARG overcome its governance crisis. This viewpoint hopes to put “One Country, Two Systems” back on the right track.

The purpose of this paper is to review cases about complaints of abortuses handling in Hong Kong, and to further propose policy recommendations to help comfort parents with respect and dignity toward abortuses.

There is a systematic review of articles/newspapers related to the practice and regulation of abortuses handling in Hong Kong and overseas countries. Also, point of views among stakeholders are selected from: newspapers, patients’ groups, Hong Kong SAR Government’s websites, radio programmes’ interviews, related organizations’ websites, blogs from legislative councilors and lawyers.

Since parents suffered from miscarriage before 24 weeks’ pregnancy are increasingly willing to share their experiences and struggled for arranging a legal funeral for their children, Hong Kong SAR Government is able to understand these parents’ needs and hence set up more “Angel Garden” in both the public and the private cemeteries. Yet, the provision of funeral and cremation services are still not comprehensive. Existing measures from Mainland China and overseas countries to handle abortuses and to provide support for parents are analyzed. More critically, ethical concern on handling abortuses as one of the clinical wastes is further included in the discussion.

Although all less than 24 weeks’ fetuses cannot be given any Certificate of Stillbirth, respect and dignity can still be presented toward their parents by flexible regulation. After discussing the related measures on handling abortuses from other countries, some of their humane regulations are feasible to be applied to Hong Kong.

Doxing refers to the intentional public release by a third party of personal data without consent, often with the intent to humiliate, intimidate, harass, or punish the individual concerned. Intuitively, it is tempting to condemn doxing as a crude form of cyber violence that weaponizes personal data. When it is used as a strategy of resistance by the powerless to hold the powerful accountable, however, a more nuanced understanding is called for. This chapter focuses on the doxing phenomenon in Hong Kong, where doxing incidents against police officers and their family members have skyrocketed since 2019 (a 75-fold increase over 2018). It contends that doxing for political purposes is closely related to digital vigilantism, signifying a loss of confidence in the ruling authority and a yearning for an alternative form of justice. The chapter therefore argues that public interest should be recognized as a legal defense in doxing cases when those discharging or entrusted with public duty are the targets. Equally, it is important to confine the categories of personal data disclosed to information necessary to reveal the alleged wrongdoer or wrongdoing. Only in this way can a fair balance be struck between privacy, freedom of expression, and public interest.

The purpose of this book launch speech is to introduce the book I author, Can Hong Kong exceptionalism last? Dilemmas of governance and public administration over five decades 1970s-2020 (2021). The book critically reviews the governance and public administration from 1970s to 2020, identifying strengths and capabilities as well as constraints and dilemmas.

The book is based on my decades of academic observations and personal political experience by interpreting and re-interpreting the Hong Kong journey, with reflections on past assumptions and raising new questions.

This book identifies five exceptional aspects: (a) Under British rule Hong Kong was governed as an atypical colony; (b) It was one of the Four Little Dragons as part of the East Asian Miracle; (c) In the 1990s, it was one of the regional pioneers in public sector reform; (d) The unique constitutional status of post-1997 Hong Kong as a Special Administrative Region (SAR) of China; (e) After reunification, the SAR government, though only semi-democratic, is checked by balancing and monitoring mechanisms no less vigorous than some developed democracies. It also examines various governance problems faced in the post-1997 period.

Hong Kong is again in times of uncertainty and volatility. The city has entered a ‘second transition’ after 2020, and it is undergoing a bigger test than in 1997. After reviewing the past, I opine in the book that Hong Kong has to identify its niche areas, not only in economics. It needs a paradigm shift in how it relates to the Mainland within ‘One Country’ and how it relates to the world as a global metropolis.

This article analyses community care services (CCS) in terms of availability, awareness, accessibility, and acceptance (the Four A’s approach), untangles the deep-seated factors underlying the CCS and provides some short-term, medium-term, and long-term recommendations.

A literature review was conducted, including relevant government reports, consultation papers, Legislative Council papers and articles from academic journals from 1980 to the present.

The Four A’s approach shows that applicants to both centre-based services and home-based services endure lengthy waiting times because of the limited number of CCS. Furthermore, the awareness of day respite services is approximately 50 percent, which lags behind other CCS. Accessibility is contingent on a cross-district day respite service system and a lack of consistency between the quota and the proportion of older adults in the districts. Finally, the level of service provided by CCS is unsatisfactory due to inflexible service provision. Reviewing the brief history of long-term care services (LTC) reveals the deep-seated factors at the core of their heavy reliance on the subvention model, in contrast to the adoption of the ‘mixed economy of care’ by residential care services (RCS). An imbalance in budget allocation to RCS and CCS is also revealed.

Although the principle of ‘ageing in place’ was introduced in 1977, the institutionalisation rate (6.8 percent) of older adults remains unexpectedly high in Hong Kong, even surpassing its Asian counterparts, whereas the usage rate of CCS hovers around 0.8 percent. Thus, how to implement policy concerning LTC services for older adults must be re-evaluated.