The problem of legitimacy for the post-handover hong kong government

International Journal of Public Administration

Volumn 24, Issue 9, 2001, Pages 847-867

  Sing, Ming ^a  

^a CITY UNIVERSITY OF HONG KONG   (Hong Kong)

Author keywords

[No Author keywords available]

Indexed keywords

EID: 84937333599     PISSN: 01900692     EISSN: 15324265     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.1081/PAD-100104776     Document Type: Article

References (39)

1. July 1, 1998. New York Times, Time, July 6, 1998, 14–15; FarEastern Economic Review, July 23, 1998, p.36
2. January 12, 1998. See South China Morning Post. Hong Kong Review.
3. Collier, David, ed. 1979. “ For the traits of the bureaucratic-authoritarian regimes in Latin America, see Collier, David Overviewof the Bureaucratic-Authoritarian Model ”. In The New Authoritarianism in Latin America 19–32. New Jersey: PrincetonUniversity Press.
4. Thesurvey data, unless otherwise stated, comes from the Public Opinion Program, Social Sciences Research Center of the University of Hong Kong conducted in1997 and 1998.The data have been collected via telephone interviews, withsample sizes varying from 500–1000. Their response rates range from40–60%. For details, see the Public OpinionProgram Express, 1997–98, Social Sciences Research Center.Universityof Hong Kong
5. Lipset, Martin Seymour. Political Man: The Social Bases of Politics Edited by: Hopkins, John. Baltimore: UniversityPress. Legitimation of Regimes: International Frameworksfor Analysis. Denitch, Bogdan Ed.; Sage: London, 1979, 10–2
6. Rothschild, Joseph. 1979. “ Political Legitimacy in Contemporary Europe ”. In Legitimation of Regimes: International Frameworks for Analysis Edited by: Denitch and Bogdan. 37–54. London: Sage.
7. Schutz, Robert O., Schutz, Barry M., and Dorr, Steven R., 1993. Global Transformation& the Third World 247Boulder: Lynne Rienner.
8. 1965. “ The differentiation into leaders, policies and system has been discussed in detail by David Easton. See Easton, David ”. In A Systems Analysis of Political Life NewYork: John Wiley & Sons.
9. Diamond, Larry. 1990. “ Beyond Authoritarianism and Totalitarianism: Strategies for Democratization ”. In The New Democracies: Global Change and U.S. Policy Edited by: Brad, Roberts. 235Cambridge, London: MITPress.
10. O'Donnell, Guillermo, A., Schmitter, Philippe, C., Whitehead and Laurence. 1986. Transitions fromAuthoritarian Rule: Prospects for Democracy, PartIII London: Johns Hopkins University Press.
11. See, Linz, and Juan, J., 1982. Transitions to Democracy: A Comparative Perspective, 15: 18 Aresearch paper prepared for the International Political Science AssociationRoundtable in Tokyo March 29–April 1
12. Diamond, Larry. 1989. “ Introduction: Persistence, Erosion, Breakdown, and Renewal ”. In Democracy in Developing Countries: Asia Edited by: Diamond, Lany, Linz, Juan, J., Lipset and Martin, Seymour. Vol. 3, New York: Lynne RiennerPublishers. Easton, David. A Systems Analysis of Political Life, John Wiley & sons: New york, 1965, 153–340
13. O'Donnell, Guillermo, A., Schmitter, Philippe, C., Whitehead and Laurance, eds. 1986. Transitions from Authoritarian Rule:Prospects for Democracy, Part III London: Johns Hopkins University Press.
14. Diamond, Larry. 1989. “ Introduction: Persistence, Erosion, Breakdown, and Renewal ”. In Democracy in Developing Countries: Asia Edited by: Diamond, Larry, Linz, Juan, J., Lipset and Martin, Seymour. Vol. 3, 1–52. Colorado: Lynne Rienner Publishers.
15. Gunther, Richard, Puhle, Hans-Jurgen, Diamandouros and Nikiforos, P., eds. 1995. The Politics of Democratic Consolidation– Southern Europe in Comparative Perspective Baltimore: John Hopkins UniversityPress. The fundamental delegitimation of former authoritarian systems inSouthern Europe, for instance, has been found to be the central ingredientcontributing to the legitimacy of democratic institutions of Spain, Portugaland Italy
16. See Public Opinion Program Express Special Release of30 June 1997 Social Sciences Research Center, the University of Hong Kong.The sample size was 570, and the response rate was 73.1%
17. SeePublic Opinion Program Express, Special Release of 2 July 1997, Social SciencesResearch Center, the University of Hong Kong. The sample size was 1090, andthe response rate was 50.6%
18. Haggard, Stephan, Kaufman and Robert, R., 1995. The PoliticalEconomy of Democratic Transitions 34–114. Princeton, N. J.: Princeton University Press. Fora detailed analysis of the intricate relations between economic crises anddemocratization
19. Whenasked about Britain's major contribution to the development of Hong Kong, 45.2% cited economic development, 11.7% said People's livelihood 10.6%quoted constitutional development, and 9.2% mentioned the rule of law
20. Hambro and Edward, I., 1955. The Problemof Chinese Refugees in Hong Kong HongKong: Macmillan Publishers Ltd.
21. Hayes, James. 1975. “ Hong Kong: Tale of Two Cities ”. In Hong Kong: The Interaction of Tradition and Life in the Towns Edited by: Marjorie, Topley. 1–10. Hong Kong: HongKong Branch of the Royal Asiatic Society.
22. Chun, Eun Sung. 1990. Transition to Democracy in an Authoritarian Regime: A Case Studyof South Korea, Ph. D. Thesis 232NewYork: City University of NewYork. see for instance
23. Hambro and Edward, I., 1955. The Problemof Chinese Refugees in Hong Kong 152HongKong: Macmillan Publishers Ltd.
24. Cheng. 1986. Hong Kong: InSearch of a Future Edited by: Joseph, Y. S., 101Hong Kong: Oxford University Press.
25. Public Opinion Poll Express Social Science ResearchCenter, the University of Hong Kong. 16 Dec. 1997
26. January 12, 1998. South China Morning Post. Hong Kong Review 97, 6
27. October 4, 1998. South China Morning Post.
28. See Public Opinion Program Express, January, 1998, Social Sciences Research Center, the University of Hong Kong, 16. Thesample size was 517, and the response rate was 48.6%. The survey was conductedbetween Dec. 22 and 23 1997
29. See Public Opinion Program Express, SpecialRelease of 25 June 1998, Social Sciences Research Center, the University ofHong Kong, p. 31. The sample sizes for the 1st and 2nd half of 1997, as wellas that for the 1st half of 1998, were respectively 1, 591, 1, 561 and 1, 600, and the corresponding response rates were 41.0%, 44.6% and 54.4% respectively
30. Theoriginal consultation was made in April 1997, where a document was releasedby the Chief Executive-designate's office, called Chief Executive OfCivil Liberties and Social Order–Consultation Document. Chief ExecutiveOffice, Hong Kong Special Administrative Region, The People's Republicof China April, 1997
31. May 19, 1997. South China Morning Post.
32. SeePublic Opinion Program Express, Special Release of 26 June, Social SciencesResearch Center, the University of Hong Kong. 1997
33. See Public Opinion Program Express, SpecialRelease of 26 June 1997, Social Sciences Research Center, the University ofHong Kong. The sample size was 1021, and the response rate was 43.5%. Thesurvey was conducted between May 29 and 30 1997
34. See Public Opinion Program Express, SocialSciences Research Center the University of Hong Kong. The sample size was1096, and the response rate was 47.5%. The survey was conducted between December10 and 14 1997
35. Lee, K. M., in press. See the results of a Hong Kong-wide representative survey conductedby Sing, Ming. The Ambivalent Idea of Democracy of Hong Kong Chinese: PoliticalAttitudes and Democratic Reform.
36. See Public Opinion Program Express, SpecialRelease of June 1998, Social Sciences Research Center the University of HongKong
37. June 30, 1998. Financial Times.
38. July 16, 1998. See Hong Kong Economic Journal, Asenior civil servant, Suen, Michael Ming-yeung, rejected the need for accelerateddemocratic change during a debate in the legislature on July 15, 1998
39. Basedupon Article 74 of the Basic Law, individual legislators cannot introducebills concerning the political structure without the agreement of the ChiefExecutive. The Basic Law also stipulates that not until 2007 will half theseats in legislature be directly elected. At that time, whether the chiefexecutive and the entire legislature should be directly elected after 2007will be decided. To implement full democracy, the consent of the then ChiefExecutive, two-thirds of the legislators, and that of the Standing Committeeof the National People's Congress will be necessary (Annex I&II ofBasic Law). Those tough conditions of approval make the realization of fulldemocracy very difficult