Chapter 12
History and Context of Public
Administration in Hong Kong
Eliza W.Y. Lee |
|
|
Contents |
|
|
12.1 |
Introduction................................................................................................................... |
240 |
12.2 |
Early Colonial Rule (1840s–1940s) ................................................................................ |
240 |
|
12.2.1 Context and Driving Force of Development ....................................................... |
240 |
|
12.2.2 Major Institutional Development ........................................................................ |
241 |
12.3 |
Postwar Years (late 1940s to late 1960s) ......................................................................... |
242 |
|
12.3.1 Context and Driving Force of Development ....................................................... |
242 |
|
12.3.2 Major Institutional Development ....................................................................... |
242 |
12.4 |
Late Colonial Period: The Founding of the Public Service State (Early 1970s to |
|
|
Early 1980s) ................................................................................................................... |
243 |
|
12.4.1 Context and Driving Force of Development ....................................................... |
243 |
|
12.4.2 Major Institutional Development ....................................................................... |
244 |
12.5 |
Political Transition (1984–1997) ..................................................................................... |
245 |
|
12.5.1 Context and Driving Force of Development ........................................................ |
245 |
|
12.5.2 Major Institutional Development ........................................................................ |
245 |
12.6 |
Postcolonial Development (1997–present)...................................................................... |
246 |
|
12.6.1 Context and Driving Force of Development ....................................................... |
246 |
|
12.6.2 Major Institutional Development ........................................................................ |
247 |
12.7 |
Public Administration and Society.................................................................................. |
249 |
|
12.7.1 Public Accountability and Participation............................................................... |
249 |
|
12.7.2 Administrative Values.......................................................................................... |
250 |
|
12.7.3 State-Society Relations......................................................................................... |
250 |
12.8 |
Societal and Political Challenge over Bureaucratic Dominance....................................... |
251 |
12.9 |
Conclusion ...................................................................................................................... |
252 |
References ................................................................................................................................ |
252 |
|
|
|
239 |
© 2011 by Taylor and Francis Group, LLC
240 Public Administration in Southeast Asia
12.1 Introduction
Administrative development in Hong Kong can be attributed to the dual driving force of political change and economic development. The political economy of administrative development comprises the unique developmental path of Hong Kong, which features a situation of industrialization under prolonged colonial rule and its subsequent handover from one sovereign country to another. To a certain extent, Hong Kong stands out in British (or general) colonial history as the only major colony that has successfully undergone industrialization and then entered the stage of postindustrial society. It is also a rare case of colonialism, in which the path of decolonization did not lead toward independence.
We separate administrative development into five historical periods, namely, early colonial rule (1840s to 1940s), postwar years (late 1940s to late 1960s), late colonial period (early 1970s to early 1980s), political transition (1984–1997), and postcolonial era (1997–present). Each historical turning point signified major political change and economic development that triggered different institutional developments.
12.2 Early Colonial Rule (1840s–1940s)
12.2.1 Context and Driving Force of Development
The major political change in Hong Kong began with the British takeover in 1842. Soon afterward, it was transformed into an entrepot where commerce and trading thrived. The strategic role of Hong Kong was largely defined by the metropole as a key trading post in the Asia-Pacific region.1 Colonization brought about the transplantation of a western Weberian-type bureaucracy, a modern bureaucracy that originated from the British colonial administration first developed in India. The Indian civil service served as the model for the colonial bureaucracy. Its principles of meritocracy, legalism, and generalist administrative class became the hallmarks of the British home administration as well as their other colonial administrations (Chapman 1970).
Another characteristic of the colonial administration was how it constituted a bureaucratic polity. The government structure of Hong Kong resembled other British colonies in having a governor advised by the executive council, under which generalists dominated higher civil servants. Hong Kong was further distinguished by the absence of an indigenous ruling class, which was often present in other colonies and which would be co-opted by the colonial power into its governance structure. Post-1841 Hong Kong was “a new settlement with little pre-existing power structure,” a “frontier outpost,” as stated by Tsai (1993). As a result, more so than elsewhere, civil servants in Hong Kong were both the policy makers and policy implementers under a highly executive-dominant system.
Typically, a colonial bureaucracy had limited capacity and existed mainly to maintain law and order rather than to further economic and social development. The colonial administration in Hong Kong, however, soon found itself confronted with the need to deal with the rapid increase in population brought by the influx of migrants from mainland China. While the indigenous population numbered only in the thousands in 1841 before the British takeover, by 1911, the population had grown to over 450,000 (Faure 1997). Such a rapid increase in population naturally brought about demand for public services. Given the limited capacity of the colonial government,
1Scholars such as Tsai (1993) argue that international shipping and trading activities were present in Hong Kong before the British arrival.
©2011 by Taylor and Francis Group, LLC
History and Context of Public Administration in Hong Kong 241
the local Chinese population had to resort to self-reliance. Indeed, various Chinese communal associations formed a robust community of self-help. At the same time, problems such as public sanitation required the colonial state to step in, for example, free vaccination was provided to the population to prevent the spread of epidemics. Thriving commercial activities also required substantial development in infrastructure. However, as a whole, the lack of a sense of permanence from the colonial state coupled with the transient nature of the migrant population contributed to a lack of moral commitment, if not motivation, to expand public service.
The ability of the colonial bureaucracy to develop in size and scope of service was also limited by its financial capacity. The Financial Procedures in the Colonial Regulations required that colonies avoid any deficit that would impose a financial burden on Britain. The ability of the colonial state to raise taxes was limited, and such a limitation was exacerbated by its close relationship with British commercial capitalists who favored a low tax rate and minimal government interference (Chiu 1994).
12.2.2 Major Institutional Development
The bureaucracy remained typically colonial in this period. The generalist administrative elites, called cadet officers (a title commonly used in British colonies then), arrived in Hong Kong soon after the British takeover. As standard practice, they were appointed to ranks and then subjected to periodic re-posting to various offices (Hamilton 1964). The early cadet officers mostly served as colonial secretaries, financial secretaries, officers of various ranks in the colonial secretariat, district officers and commissioners to the New Territories, and heads of departments. Specialists headed other technical departments. Naturally, European males monopolized the senior positions, especially the cadet officer grade. The educated local Chinese were mostly confined to the intermediate to lower ranks of technical departments as specialists, such as doctors (Medical) and engineers (Public Works). It was only in 1948 that the first Chinese cadet officer was appointed (Lee forthcoming).
The limited policy and administrative capacity of the bureaucracy was reflected in the size of the establishment and the degree of differentiation. Collins’ (1952) chronological account of the development of the colonial administration revealed the logic of institutional development of the colonial bureaucracy in accordance with its interest in colonial domination. Among the first batch of appointments in public service were the chief magistrate and the police establishment, testifying to the top priority afforded to maintaining law and order in colonial domination. Soon afterward, the Land Office was established in response to the urgent need to build infrastructure such as roads, staff quarters, and land provision. Thereafter, with the rise of trading and shipping activities, the position of deputy superintendent of trade was created, followed by an officer in charge of the harbor (Harbor Master). The urgent need to attend to public health care resulted in the establishment of a colonial surgeon. Other departments that were subsequently formed in the late nineteenth century included the Judicial Department, the Public Prosecutor, the Financial Department, the Administration of Lands, Roads, and Public Works, and the Marine Department.
Beyond these basic institutional supports, the colonial state had limited involvement in social provision. It relied greatly on private and voluntary associations in the provision, if not financing, of these services. In 1873, the grants-in-aid system was initiated through funding offered to voluntary associations, establishing the dominance of church organizations in the provision of education. Funding was also later offered to hospitals run by voluntary agencies (such as the Tung Wah Hospital). Still, the private sector provided and financed most of the education and healthcare services.
© 2011 by Taylor and Francis Group, LLC
242 Public Administration in Southeast Asia
In July 1937, Japan invaded China. In December 1941, the Japanese attacked Hong Kong. After 18 days of resistance, the colonial government surrendered and Governor Mark Young together with thousands of British soldiers, government officials, and civilians were kept in prisoner of war camps. The military government of Japan took over the rulership of Hong Kong, including control over key infrastructures such as the airport, reservoirs, hospitals, and schools (Carroll 2007). Life was extremely hard for the residents, and the population of Hong Kong dropped from 1.6 million in 1941 to 600,000 in 1945.2 Aside from war casualties, many fled Hong Kong to the rural villages in south China. The Japanese also enforced a repatriation policy due to the scarcity of food.
12.3 Postwar Years (late 1940s to late 1960s)
12.3.1 Context and Driving Force of Development
The political change in China in 1949 signified a turning point for Hong Kong. In the mid-1940s, after the end of Japanese occupation, migration from mainland China into Hong Kong increased the population at a phenomenal rate, only to be accelerated by the establishment of the People’s Republic of China in 1949. From 1945 to 1955, the population increased from 600,000 to 2.5 million. International and social resources, as well as institutional support, were much relied on to handle the critical situation. The city was declared a disaster relief area and international agencies swarmed in to provide the refugees with material and institutional support (Hong Kong Council of Social Service [HKCSS] 1987). On the other hand, industrialists from mainland China brought with them capital, technology, and entrepreneurial skills, and helped bring about Hong Kong’s well-known “economic miracle.” The rise of a labor-intensive manufacturing industry came at an opportune moment as Hong Kong’s entrepot trade was stopped by the United Nations’ embargo on trade with China because of the Korean War.
These political and economic changes triggered administrative reforms on multiple levels. The political change in China made the return of Hong Kong to China politically unacceptable for Britain (Miners 1995, ch. 1). Instead, Hong Kong’s geopolitical position turned it into a “fortress colony” against communism, such that Britain deemed it necessary to ensure its good governance (Tang 1998, pp. 57–58). The reality of prolonged colonial rule compelled the colonial government to consider making increased long-term commitments in social and economic development. Socioeconomic development brought about by industrialization and population growth also added to the demand for a more active state role in social and economic affairs. Indeed, by the mid-1960s, the colonial state had begun to show more initiative in long-term plans in major policy areas such as education, health care, social service, and housing.
12.3.2 Major Institutional Development
In the immediate postwar years, the colonial bureaucracy had limited capacity to cope with the demand for service brought about by the huge increase in population. Thus, it relied on the private and voluntary sectors to provide services such as health care and education. International voluntary agencies were also virtual substitutes of the state in many service areas. Their social assistance
2See New York Times, “Hong Kong: The Story,” http://www.nytimes.com/specials/hongkong/archive/ (retrieved September 30, 2009).
©2011 by Taylor and Francis Group, LLC