Elaine Chan

Beyond Pedagogy: Language and identity in post-colonial Hong Kong

The society of Hong Kong objected strongly when the government instructed schools to change their medium of instruction from English to Chinese at the junior secondary level soon after Hong Kong was reunited with the Peoples Republic of China in 1997. This paper tries to make sense of the objection to this piece of politically correct and pedagogically sound policy. It analyses the situation from Bourdieus ideas of habitus and various types of capitals. The paper argues that the governments effort to persuade Hong Kong society to accept mother-tongue education on pedagogical grounds alone was to no avail because the English language has not only become a habitus of society; it also serves to distinguish Hong Kong people from mainland Chinese. The failure of the government was partly due to its insensitivity to the nature and social functions of language.

Defining Fellow Compatriots as ‘Others’ ‐ National Identity in Hong Kong

Recent theoretical discussion and Empirical Evidence have shown that national identity is important at both collective and individual levels. The issue of national identity is particularly relevant to the community of Hong Kong, which was reunited with the Peoples Republic of China (PRC) on 1 July 1997. The fact that 97 per cent of Hong Kongs population is Chinese does not guarantee the automatic development of a sense of national identity. Mutual understanding between the people of the two places is not as easy and natural as one might expect, for objective differences, such as those found in the political, legal and economic systems, make the ‘other’ more stranger than kin. Such difficulties were compounded by the phenomenon that, unlike in many former colonies, the people of Hong Kong did not abhor their outgoing British rulers; in fact many were quite nostalgic about the colonial period.

Charting the State of Social Cohesion in Hong Kong

This paper reports findings from the first social cohesion survey in Hong Kong. Social cohesion is understood as a multi-dimensional concept, having a horizontal dimension which is concerned with both feelings and actions of members of society, and a vertical dimension that taps those between society and the government. It is found that horizontally, society feels cohesive but the feeling is not supported by corresponding behaviour such as participation in organizations and engagement in giving and helping. Vertically, society has much higher trust in bureaucracies of justice administration than the executive branch of the government. The level of civic engagement is respectable despite a general dissatisfaction with government performance. We conclude that however cohesively society feels, it is achieved with little institutional mediation and social engagement. We postulate that this is possible because lending support to advocacy groups, participation in small group activities and close family ties might have rendered institutional mediation less significant.

The First Ten Years of the HKSAR: Civil Society Comes of Age

Civil society in Hong Kong has gone through an important period of maturity in the ten years since the handover, with 2003 being a watershed. Around 2003, civil society assumed a separate identity, and from that point on it has been active in various aspects on the policy-making scene. This article discusses how civil society has articulated itself: its identity, roles, agenda and agency. Civil society’s self-articulation of its identity and roles reveals three discourses: civil society as a defender of its own autonomy, civil society as the third sector, and civil society as a partner in governance. While the first and third discourses are popular among civil society actors, the second discourse is used more by the government. There is also a shift in the emphasis: from the self-defense discourse surrounding opposition of the public security bill to the governance partnership discourse relating to an expanded agenda of civil society on environmental, history, culture and heritage issues. The expanded agenda signals a greater diversification of values. In addition to the monolithic capitalist value system, there are now some post-materialist values that stress a sense of belonging, self-expression and quality of life. Civil society’s sense of agency has grown over the years, and it is now acting with increasing confidence in advocacy.

Liberal Patriotism in Hong Kong

Since Hong Kongs reunification with the Peoples Republic of China in 1997, debates about patriotism have erupted from time to time in Hong Kong. Considering Hong Kongs socio-political background, the feelings and attachment of Hongkongers towards their motherland are unsurprisingly complex. We therefore need a multidimensional concept to capture the complexities of Hong Kong patriotism. Based on survey data, we propose that the term ‘liberal patriotism’ best describes the type of patriotism in Hong Kong society, which is that love of the homeland and the state are qualified by liberal democratic values.

FUNCTIONAL REPRESENTATION IN HONG KONG: PROBLEMS AND POSSIBILITIES

Hong Kong has operated a system of functional representation in the Legislative Council since 1985. This system of representation, as it currently stands, provides for half of the seats in the legislature. This paper examines the potential merits and demerits of functional representation for democratic government. The first section provides a brief introduction on the background and system of functional representation in Hong Kong. The second section examines problems in the application of functional representation as encountered in Hong Kongs elections. In the third section, the potential of functional representation for democratic governments will be discussed.

Democratization in turmoil? Elections in Hong Kong

The first SAR Chief Executive, Tung Chee‐hwa, in his speech at the SAR Establishment Ceremony, said: ‘Democracy is the hallmark of a new era for Hong Kong. The SAR Government will resolutely move forward to a more democratic form of government in accordance with the provisions in the Basic Law’. Butler, Penniman and Ranney, however, cautioned that ‘the critical difference between democratic and nondemocratic regimes is to be found in whether or not they hold elections, and if they do, what kind’. Indeed, electoral changes made to the 1998 LegCo elections are found to be anti‐democratic and retrogressive, as well as unnecessary. The authors conclude that electoral systems matter because they are one of the central mechanisms in modern democracies to give substance and content to democratic governance. If electoral systems are designed in such a manner that they obstruct the exercise of popular sovereignty, ride rough‐shod over the principle of political equality, undermine the extent of representation, com...

Structural and Symbolic Centers Center Displacement in the 1989 Chinese Student Movement

This article makes a distinction between the symbolic and the structural centers of the nation-state. Whereas the structure center connotes state power, the symbolic center is closer to the concept of the nation and is vital to the creation of a sense of nationhood. The symbolic center contains values, symbols, rituals and myths that define nationhood. Since it is fundamental to the delineation of a nation, it is sacred. Although the two centers are analytically separate, being in command of one does not necessarily entail command of the other. However, claiming representation of the symbolic center is tremendously important for the legitimation of the structural center. The 1989 Chinese student movement is used to illustrate that students displaced the Chinese Communist Party to become the center of symbolic power. The crackdown reasserted the partys structural control over society only; it therefore had to introduce various measures to purify itself and cleanse society so as to regain its place as the occupant of the symbolic center.

Hong Kong 2007-2017: a backlash in civil society

Ten years ago, the development of civil society in the first decade of the Hong Kong Special Administrative Region (HKSAR) was analysed in terms of three discourses: civil society as a defender of its autonomy; civil society as the third sector; and civil society as a partner in governance. The conclusion then was that Hong Kong civil society had come of age; not only had its agenda been expanded, but there was also a diversification of values. Ten years on, this article updates the state of civil society, which can be described as both turbulent and vibrant. While Hong Kong society is deeply divided as a result of several mass mobilisations and the rise of localism, there has also been a mushrooming of counter forces in the form of social enterprises and informal groups aiming to help the underprivileged. Civil society has assumed a proactive and even aggressive role in protecting its values and autonomy (the first discourse), while its partnership in governance role has been seriously damaged (the third discourse). In its role as the third sector involving social capital (the second discourse), it has continued to flourish. However, there is a growing number of groups which spread ideas of exclusion and intolerance, and engage in practices like verbal abuse and physical violence, that are opposite to the values promoted by civil society. Accordingly, Hong Kong civil society is in urgent need of repair. If the un-civil values and behaviour are not checked, civil society will experience a downward spiral.