Search results

The purpose of this paper is to bring out the possibility of selecting good leaders in Asian countries, i.e., China and Singapore.

Since comparative historical analysis enhances the objectivity for academic discussion, Deng Xiaoping’s and Lee Kuan Yew’s leadership successions have been chosen as the cases for studies by virtue of “method of agreement”. Incorporating “argument based on the contrary” into the context for macro-historical analysis, this paper characterises the duo’s successful (at least quite successful) leadership successions, thus offering an alternative paradigm beyond Western-style democracy.

Both cases of post-Mao China and the independent Singapore indicate that in quite a number of Asian countries, good leaders could still be selected beyond universal suffrage as practised among Western Electoral Democracies, mainly because of the elites-driven context. As to the duo’s succession results, Deng Xiaoping’s selection of leaders was somewhat successful, while Lee Kuan Yew’s was phenomenal.

This paper offers readers a glance over the possibility of selecting good leaders in Asian countries not fully based on Western-style democracy. Learning from the duo’s leadership successions, the West may treat elite politics as the supplement under Western Electoral Democracies in order to avoid their countries falling into the trap of populism. The West could meanwhile consider the exceptional criteria prized by the duo for leadership successions. Considering such interactions among elites in the real-life context, it could serve as an alternative model to Western-style democracy.

Outside the US and Europe, to establish a good government requires more than Western-style democracy. Adopting universal suffrage fully from the Western model is no longer a panacea to reach the ultimate goal of good governance in the East, i.e., to keep promoting socio-economic renovation can be noted as a prerequisite to have further meaningful political advancement in an Asian polity. The purpose of this paper is to explain how to establish a good but authoritarian government in the East.

Given the good of comparative historical analysis, Lee Kuan Yew in Singapore and Deng Xiaoping in China are selected as both cases for “method of agreement.” Further including “argument based on the contrary” to form a context for macro-historical analysis, this paper outlines two characteristics of the duo’s authoritarian leadership, namely, Ideologies and Policy-making; and Political Modernization, and hence provides a more balanced reevaluation of their governance.

Apart from noting how these two Asian giants more or less contributed to their good but authoritarian governments for long in the twentieth century, such a word of authoritarianism to the duo was quite positive to help legitimize their governance, which was far different from many negative views of the Western world.

As theories put forward by Western academics could not entirely justify modernization among Asian societies in the twentieth century, this paper attempts to answer one question: Does the meaning of authoritarianism remain unchanged in the discourse of the East and the West?

The main aim of this article is to broaden the notion of strategic intent in public relations. It also develops an understanding of the social value of what can be defined as the first modern health communication campaign in Europe based on strategic intents and the development of modernity.

The study is based on both historical research and empirical material from the Norwegian tuberculosis campaign from 1889 up to 1913, when Norwegian women achieved suffrage. The campaign is analysed in the framework of modernity and social theory. The literature on lobbying and social movements is also used to develop a theoretical framework for the notion of strategic intent.

The study shows that strategic intent can be divided into two layers: (1) the implicit strategic intent is the real purpose behind the communication efforts, whereas (2) the explicit intent is found directly in the communication efforts. The explicit intent may be presented as a solution for the good of society at the right political moment, giving an organisation the possibility to mobilise for long-term social changes, in which could be the implicit intent.

The distinction between explicit and implicit strategic intent broadens our understanding on how to make long-term social changes as well as how social and political changes occur in modern societies. The article also gives a historical account of what is here defined as the first modern health communication campaign in Europe and its social value.

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.

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 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 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.