DOCSLIB.ORG

Open Thesis Draft 4.12.2018.Pdf

Total Page：16

File Type：pdf, Size：1020Kb

Download full-text PDF Read full-text
Open Thesis Draft 4.12.2018.Pdf THE PENNSYLVANIA STATE UNIVERSITY SCHREYER HONORS COLLEGE DEPARTMENT OF Asian Studies FACTORS CONTRIBUTING TO THE RISE IN PROTEST IN THE HONG KONG SPECIAL ADMINISTRATIVE REGION, 1997-2017 ROBERT ZHANG LIU SPRING 2018 A thesis submitted in partial fulfillment of the requirements for baccalaureate degrees in Biology and Asian Studies with honors in Asian Studies Reviewed and approved* by the following: Gretchen Casper Associate Professor of Political Science and Asian Studies Thesis Supervisor Jessamyn Abel Assistant Professor of Asian Studies and History Honors Adviser * Signatures are on file in the Schreyer Honors College. i ABSTRACT This paper investigates the contributing factors leading to the rise in level of protest in Hong Kong between the years of 1997 and 2017. I posited that the independent variables “grievances,” “efficacy,” and “identity” contributed to this increase. Data gathered from opinion polls suggest that “grievances” and “identity” are correlated with the increase in protest. Data gathered from South China Morning Post indicate no significant trend in “efficacy” but analysis of recent major protests in Hong Kong suggest a possibility of an increase. Qualitative analysis of all the data in relation to the variables suggests that “grievances” and “identity” did contribute to the rise in protest, and that the link between “efficacy” and the protests is inconclusive. ii TABLE OF CONTENTS LIST OF FIGURES ..................................................................................................... iii LIST OF TABLES ....................................................................................................... iv ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS ......................................................................................... v Chapter 1 Introduction ................................................................................................. 1 Grievances ............................................................................................................ 2 Efficacy ................................................................................................................. 3 Identity .................................................................................................................. 5 Conclusion ............................................................................................................ 6 Chapter 2 Hong Kong Under the United Kingdom .................................................... 8 Introduction ........................................................................................................... 9 Hong Kong’s Acquisition by the British .............................................................. 10 Early Colonial Development ................................................................................ 12 Unrest in the Mid to Late 19th Century ................................................................. 14 The Rise of Chinese Nationalism ......................................................................... 15 Hong Kong and the Xinhai Revolution ................................................................ 19 Hong Kong and the World Wars .......................................................................... 20 Leadup to the Handover ........................................................................................ 22 Conclusion ............................................................................................................ 24 Chapter 3 Hong Kong After the Handover .................................................................. 28 Introduction ........................................................................................................... 28 Tung Chee-hwa’s First Term (1996-2001) ........................................................... 29 Tung Chee-Hwa’s Second Term (2002-2005) ..................................................... 31 Donald Tsang’s First Term (2005-2007) .............................................................. 32 Donald Tsang’s Second Term (2007-2012) ......................................................... 34 Leung Chun-ying (2012-2017) ............................................................................. 35 Conclusion ............................................................................................................ 39 Chapter 4 Research Design .......................................................................................... 42 Introduction ........................................................................................................... 42 Research Question ................................................................................................ 42 Independent Variables .......................................................................................... 42 Grievances ..................................................................................................... 43 Efficacy .......................................................................................................... 45 Perception of “Political opportunity” ............................................................ 45 iii Identity ........................................................................................................... 47 Dependent Variable ....................................................................................... 48 Hypotheses .................................................................................................... 48 Data Gathering and Methods ................................................................................ 50 Protest Statistics from Hong Kong Police Force ........................................... 50 Opinion Polls from University of Hong Kong .............................................. 51 South China Morning Post Article Search .................................................... 52 Analysis Methods ................................................................................................. 53 Relating Measures of the Three Independent Variables and the Dependent Variables ................................................................................................. 55 Limitations ............................................................................................................ 55 Conclusions........................................................................................................... 56 Chapter 5 Data Analysis .............................................................................................. 57 Introduction ........................................................................................................... 57 Dependent Variable: Number of Public Order Events ......................................... 57 Description .................................................................................................... 58 Hypothesis 1: Grievances ..................................................................................... 59 Description .................................................................................................... 60 Description .................................................................................................... 63 Description .................................................................................................... 67 Description .................................................................................................... 68 Summary of Hypothesis 1 Data: “Grievances” ............................................. 69 Hypothesis 2: Efficacy .......................................................................................... 69 Description .................................................................................................... 70 External Efficacy ........................................................................................... 72 Description .................................................................................................... 73 Summary of “Efficacy” Results .................................................................... 75 Hypothesis 3: Identity ........................................................................................... 76 Description .................................................................................................... 77 Summary of “Identity” Results ..................................................................... 78 Conclusion ............................................................................................................ 78 Chapter 6 Discussion and Conclusions ........................................................................ 80 Introduction ................................................................................................... 80 Grievances ............................................................................................................ 80 Livelihood Concerns and Equality ................................................................ 80 Distrust in Hong Kong and Mainland Governments ..................................... 81 Efficacy ................................................................................................................. 82 Political Opportunity ..................................................................................... 82 External Efficacy ........................................................................................... 83 “Efficacy” Summary ....................................................................................
Load more

Recommended publications
  • Reviewing and Evaluating the Direct Elections to the Legislative Council and the Transformation of Political Parties in Hong Kong, 1991-2016
    Journal of US-China Public Administration, August 2016, Vol. 13, No. 8, 499-517 doi: 10.17265/1548-6591/2016.08.001 D DAVID PUBLISHING Reviewing and Evaluating the Direct Elections to the Legislative Council and the Transformation of Political Parties in Hong Kong, 1991-2016 Chung Fun Steven Hung The Education University of Hong Kong, Hong Kong After direct elections were instituted in Hong Kong, politicization inevitably followed democratization. This paper intends to evaluate how political parties’ politics happened in Hong Kong’s recent history. The research was conducted through historical comparative analysis, with the context of Hong Kong during the sovereignty transition and the interim period of democratization being crucial. For the implementation of “one country, two systems”, political democratization was hindered and distinct political scenarios of Hong Kong’s transformation were made. The democratic forces had no alternative but to seek more radicalized politics, which caused a decisive fragmentation of the local political parties where the establishment camp was inevitable and the democratic blocs were split into many more small groups individually. It is harmful. It is not conducive to unity and for the common interests of the publics. This paper explores and evaluates the political history of Hong Kong and the ways in which the limited democratization hinders the progress of Hong Kong’s transformation. Keywords: election politics, historical comparative, ruling, democratization The democratizing element of the Hong Kong political system was bounded within the Legislative Council under the principle of the separation of powers of the three governing branches, Executive, Legislative, and Judicial. Popular elections for the Hong Kong legislature were introduced and implemented for 25 years (1991-2016) and there were eight terms of general elections for the Legislative Council.
    [Show full text]
  • Civic Party (Cp)
    立法會 CB(2)1335/17-18(04)號文件 LC Paper No. CB(2)1335/17-18(04) CIVIC PARTY (CP) Submission to the United Nations UNIVERSAL PERIODIC REVIEW Hong Kong Special Administrative Region (HKSAR) CHINA 31st session of the UPR Working Group of the Human Rights Council November 2018 Introduction 1. We are making a stakeholder’s submission in our capacity as a political party of the pro-democracy camp in Hong Kong for the 2018 Universal Periodic Review on the People's Republic of China (PRC), and in particular, the Hong Kong Special Administrative Region (HKSAR). Currently, our party has five members elected to the Hong Kong Legislative Council, the unicameral legislature of HKSAR. 2. In the Universal Periodic Reviews of PRC in 2009 and 2013, not much attention was paid to the human rights, political, and social developments in the HKSAR, whilst some positive comments were reported on the HKSAR situation. i We wish to highlight that there have been substantial changes to the actual implementation of human rights in Hong Kong since the last reviews, which should be pinpointed for assessment in this Universal Periodic Review. In particular, as a pro-democracy political party with members in public office at the Legislative Council (LegCo), we wish to draw the Council’s attention to issues related to the political structure, election methods and operations, and the exercise of freedom and rights within and outside the Legislative Council in HKSAR. Most notably, recent incidents demonstrate that the PRC and HKSAR authorities have not addressed recommendations made by the Human Rights Committee in previous concluding observations in assessing the implementation of International Convention on Civil and Political Rights (ICCPR).
    [Show full text]
  • 081216-Keast-YAIA-HK
    Hong Kong’s disaffected youths – Is the criticism warranted? December 7, 2016 Jacinta Keast Sixtus ‘Baggio’ Leung and Yau Wai-ching, two young legislators from the localist Youngspiration party, have been barred from Hong Kong’s legislative council (LegCo). Never has China’s National People’s Congress (NPC) jumped to an interpretation on a matter in Hong Kong without a prior request from the local government or courts. This comes after the pair modified their oaths, including enunciating the word ‘China’ as ‘Cheena’ (支那), a derogatory term used by the Japanese in World War II, using expletives to refer to the People’s Republic of China, and waving around blue ‘Hong Kong is not China’ banners at their swearing in. Commentators, including those from the pan-democratic side of the legislature, have called their behaviour infantile, ignorant and thuggish, and have demanded ‘that the hooligans be locked up’. But is this criticism warranted? A growing tide of anti-Mainlander vitriol has been building in Hong Kong since it was handed back to the People’s Republic of China in 1997 under a special constitution termed The Basic Law. In theory, the constitution gave Hong Kong special privileges the Mainland did not enjoy—a policy called ‘One Country, Two Systems’. But in practice, more and more Hong Kong residents feel that the long arm of Beijing’s soft power is extending over the territory. The Occupy movement and later the 2014 Umbrella Revolution began once it was revealed that the Chinese government would be pre-screening candidates for the 2017 Hong Kong Chief Executive election, the election for Hong Kong’s top official.
    [Show full text]
  • H. Res. 422 in the House of Representatives, U
    H. Res. 422 In the House of Representatives, U. S., November 1, 2017. Whereas the People’s Republic of China assumed the exercise of sovereignty over the Hong Kong Special Administra- tive Region 20 years ago, on July 1, 1997; Whereas the Joint Declaration between the Government of the United Kingdom of Great Britain and the Govern- ment of the People’s Republic of China on the Question of the Hong Kong (in this resolution referred to as the ‘‘Joint Declaration’’) required China’s National People’s Congress (NPC) to pass the ‘‘Basic Law of the Hong Kong Special Administrative Region of the People’s Re- public of China’’ (in this resolution referred to as the ‘‘Basic Law’’) consistent with the obligations contained in the Joint Declaration, which was approved by the NPC on April 4, 1990; Whereas relations between the United States and Hong Kong are fundamentally based upon the continued maintenance of the ‘‘one country, two systems’’ policy stipulated in the United States-Hong Kong Policy Act of 1992 (Public Law 102–383; 22 U.S.C. 5701 et seq.) and established by the Joint Declaration; Whereas under the ‘‘one country, two systems’’ policy estab- lished by the Joint Declaration, Hong Kong ‘‘will enjoy a high degree of autonomy except in foreign and defense 2 affairs’’ and ‘‘will be vested with executive, legislative and independent judicial power including that of final adju- dication’’; Whereas Hong Kong’s autonomy under the ‘‘one country, two systems’’ policy, as demonstrated by its highly developed rule of law, independent judiciary,
    [Show full text]
  • Freedom in the World 2018 Hong Kong
    Hong Kong * Page 1 of 9 Published on Freedom House (https://freedomhouse.org) Home > Hong Kong * Hong Kong * Country: Hong Kong * Year: 2018 Freedom Status: Partly Free Political Rights: 5 Civil Liberties: 2 Aggregate Score: 59 Freedom Rating: 3.5 Overview: The people of Hong Kong, a special administrative region of China, have traditionally enjoyed substantial civil liberties and the rule of law under their local constitution, the Basic Law. However, the chief executive and half of the Legislative Council are chosen through indirect electoral systems that favor pro-Beijing interests, and the territory’s freedoms and autonomy have come under threat in recent years due to growing political and economic pressure from the mainland. Trend Arrow: Hong Kong received a downward trend arrow due to the expulsion of four prodemocracy lawmakers from the legislature, jail sentences against protest leaders, and other apparent efforts by pro-Beijing authorities to stamp out a movement calling for local self- determination. Political Rights and Civil Liberties: POLITICAL RIGHTS: 15 / 40 (−1) A. ELECTORAL PROCESS: 2 / 12 (−1) https://freedomhouse.org/print/50009 3/26/2018 Hong Kong * Page 2 of 9 A1. Was the current head of government or other chief national authority elected through free and fair elections? 0 / 4 Under 2010 electoral reforms, the chief executive, who serves a five-year term, is chosen by a 1,200-member election committee. Some 200,000 “functional constituency” voters—representatives of elite business and social sectors, many with close Beijing ties—elect 900 of the committee’s members, and the remaining 300 consist of Legco members, Hong Kong delegates to China’s National People’s Congress (NPC), religious representatives, and Hong Kong members of the Chinese People’s Political Consultative Conference (CPPCC), a Chinese government advisory body.
    [Show full text]
  • Submission to the United Nations UNIVERSAL PERIODIC REVIEW
    CIVIC PARTY (CP) Submission to the United Nations UNIVERSAL PERIODIC REVIEW Hong Kong Special Administrative Region (HKSAR) CHINA 31st session of the UPR Working Group of the Human Rights Council November 2018 Introduction 1. We are making a stakeholder’s submission in our capacity as a political party of the pro-democracy camp in Hong Kong for the 2018 Universal Periodic Review on the People's Republic of China (PRC), and in particular, the Hong Kong Special Administrative Region (HKSAR). Currently, our party has five members elected to the Hong Kong Legislative Council, the unicameral legislature of HKSAR. 2. In the Universal Periodic Reviews of PRC in 2009 and 2013, not much attention was paid to the human rights, political, and social developments in the HKSAR, whilst some positive comments were reported on the HKSAR situation. i We wish to highlight that there have been substantial changes to the actual implementation of human rights in Hong Kong since the last reviews, which should be pinpointed for assessment in this Universal Periodic Review. In particular, as a pro-democracy political party with members in public office at the Legislative Council (LegCo), we wish to draw the Council’s attention to issues related to the political structure, election methods and operations, and the exercise of freedom and rights within and outside the Legislative Council in HKSAR. Most notably, recent incidents demonstrate that the PRC and HKSAR authorities have not addressed recommendations made by the Human Rights Committee in previous concluding observations in assessing the implementation of International Convention on Civil and Political Rights (ICCPR).
    [Show full text]
  • Six-Monthly Report on Hong Kong 1 July to 31 December 2016
    THE SIX-MONTHLY REPORT ON HONG KONG 1 JULY TO 31 DECEMBER 2016 Deposited in Parliament by the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs 24 FEBRUARY 2017 1 Contents FOREWORD .............................................................................................................. 4 INTRODUCTION ........................................................................................................ 7 LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL ELECTIONS ...................................................................... 7 Confirmation Form...................................................................................................... 8 Allegations of manipulation and intimidation .............................................................. 9 Sixth Legislative Council .......................................................................................... 10 Swearing-in of legislators ......................................................................................... 10 Judicial reviews ........................................................................................................ 10 Legislative Council adjournments ............................................................................. 11 Court hearing and NPCSC interpretation of the Basic Law ...................................... 11 Outcome of judicial proceedings .............................................................................. 14 Further legal action..................................................................................................
    [Show full text]
  • China and the Hong Kong High Court Issue Decisions on Legislative Council Controversy (Update)
    CRS INSIGHT China and the Hong Kong High Court Issue Decisions on Legislative Council Controversy (Update) November 15, 2016 (IN10605) | Related Author Michael F. Martin | Michael F. Martin, Specialist in Asian Affairs ([email protected], 7-2199) On November 7, 2016, China's National People's Congress Standing Committee (NPCSC) issued a decision concerning the oaths that Hong Kong officials, including legislators, must take before assuming office. Eight days later, Hong Kong's High Court determined that two "pro-democracy" members-elect of Hong Kong's Legislative Council (Legco), Sixtus Baggio Leung Chung-hang and Yau Wai-ching, had "declined" to take the required oath on October 12, 2016, and are therefore "disqualified from assuming the office of a member of the Legco." The NPCSC and High Court decisions may lead to efforts to invalidate the oaths taken by 13 other Legco members. With China having guaranteed Hong Kong a "high degree of autonomy" for 50 years after Hong Kong's return to Chinese sovereignty in 1997, the decisions raise questions about the autonomy of Hong Kong's judicial system and the future of democracy in Hong Kong. This growing controversy may be of interest to Congress as the United States-Hong Kong Policy Act of 1992 (22 USC 66, P.L. 102-383) states that it is U.S. policy to support democratization in Hong Kong and the preservation of its "high degree of autonomy." Specifics of the NPCSC's Decision The NPCSC's decision, purportedly interpreting Article 104 of the Basic Law of the Hong Kong Special Administrative
    [Show full text]
  • The Growth of “Localism” in Hong Kong
    Current affairs China perspectives The Growth of “Localism” in Hong Kong A New Path for the Democracy Movement? YING-HO KWONG series of political protests in recent years, including localist rallies maintain harmonious relations, and supported the reversion of sovereignty for the June 4 Massacre, anti-parallel trading protests, and the Mong from Britain to China after 1997 under the principle of “One Country, Two AKok Riot, have triggered concerns over the development of “localism” Systems.” (4) In fact, Hong Kong’s democrats have always been divided by (bentu zhuyi 本土主義 ) in Hong Kong. For decades, traditional pan-demo - ideological differences, but have sought room for co-operation on political cratic parties ( fan minzhupai 泛民主派 ) have been struggling with the Chi - issues. The collaboration among democrats strengthened during and after nese government over political development. Although many of them have the Tiananmen Massacre. During the 1989 democracy movement in China, persistently bargained with the Beijing leaders, progress towards democracy Hong Kong democrats formed the Hong Kong Alliance in Support of Patri - remains stagnant. Thus, Hong Kong’s democrats have been beset by “tran - otic Democratic Movements in China to support the Beijing protesters. In sition fatigue,” which commonly exists in hybrid regimes that combine both the meantime, disagreements among democrats generally decreased be - democratic and authoritarian elements. (1) A growing number of Hong Kong cause the majority shared the common goal of supporting democratic de - people, especially youngsters, have become impatient, disappointed, and velopment in China against the bloody clampdown by the authorities. (5) sceptical towards the existing pan-democratic parties, and have shifted into The wave of democracy movements further intensified after 1997.
    [Show full text]
  • “Localism” in Hong Kong a New Path for the Democracy Movement?
    China Perspectives 2016/3 | 2016 China’s Policy in the China Seas The Growth of “Localism” in Hong Kong A New Path for the Democracy Movement? Ying-ho Kwong Electronic version URL: http://journals.openedition.org/chinaperspectives/7057 DOI: 10.4000/chinaperspectives.7057 ISSN: 1996-4617 Publisher Centre d'étude français sur la Chine contemporaine Printed version Date of publication: 1 September 2016 Number of pages: 63-68 ISSN: 2070-3449 Electronic reference Ying-ho Kwong, « The Growth of “Localism” in Hong Kong », China Perspectives [Online], 2016/3 | 2016, Online since 01 September 2016, connection on 14 September 2020. URL : http:// journals.openedition.org/chinaperspectives/7057 © All rights reserved Current affairs China perspectives The Growth of “Localism” in Hong Kong A New Path for the Democracy Movement? YING-HO KWONG series of political protests in recent years, including localist rallies maintain harmonious relations, and supported the reversion of sovereignty for the June 4 Massacre, anti-parallel trading protests, and the Mong from Britain to China after 1997 under the principle of “One Country, Two AKok Riot, have triggered concerns over the development of “localism” Systems.” (4) In fact, Hong Kong’s democrats have always been divided by (bentu zhuyi 本土主義 ) in Hong Kong. For decades, traditional pan-demo - ideological differences, but have sought room for co-operation on political cratic parties ( fan minzhupai 泛民主派 ) have been struggling with the Chi - issues. The collaboration among democrats strengthened during and after nese government over political development. Although many of them have the Tiananmen Massacre. During the 1989 democracy movement in China, persistently bargained with the Beijing leaders, progress towards democracy Hong Kong democrats formed the Hong Kong Alliance in Support of Patri - remains stagnant.
    [Show full text]
  • Street Occupations, Neglected Democracy, and Contested Neoliberalism in Hong Kong
    Street Occupations in Hong Kong 101 Street Occupations, Neglected Democracy, and Contested Neoliberalism in Hong Kong Miguel A. Martínez* he Umbrella Movement (UM) is the conventional label applied to the street occupations that took place in Hong Kong (HK) between September 28 and December 15, 2014. Many participants Talso called it the Umbrella Revolution (Veg 2016, 680). UM activists strove for HK citizens’ right to universal suffrage applicable to the election of the chief executive and the whole legislature. The HK miniconstitution, or Ba- sic Law, in force since the return of the former British colony to People’s Republic of China (PRC) sovereignty in 1997, expressed the same goal as an “ultimate aim” to be implemented “in accordance with the principle of gradual and orderly progress” (J. Ng 2016, 56).1 However, despite the continu- ous pressure exerted by the pan-democratic camp, the HK government has postponed the regulation and implementation of universal suffrage to date. With these promises and pressures in sight, a process of electoral reform was launched by the HK Special Administrative Region (SAR) govern- ment in 2013. To the disappointment of the pan-democrats’ aspirations, the electoral reform was substantially constrained by two documents issued by the Chinese central government in June and August 2014. In a white paper issued in June, the central authorities asserted their absolute power to interpret the Basic Law. In August, the same authorities delivered their interpretation of the electoral reform and set up a nomination committee following the model of the already existing Election Committee.2 The only novelty introduced consisted of the public voting on the two to three candidates standing for the chief executive role previously nominated.
    [Show full text]
  • 'Political Screening in Hong Kong'
    ‘Political screening in Hong Kong’ The disqualification of candidates and lawmakers ahead of the March by-elections Hong Kong Watch 1 Foreword by Sir Malcolm Rifkind, QC “This Report makes very disturbing reading. In a measured, thoughtful and factual way it demonstrates that the obligations that the Chinese Government accepted in 1997 are being eroded. The steps being taken as regards disqualification of candidates are not only unacceptable. They reinforce the concern, that has already been expressed, that there may be a strategy to diminish Hong Kong’s autonomy in a step by step process over the years. Such measures do not go unnoticed and are leading to growing criticism and controversy not just from the people of Hong Kong but, also, from Hong Kong’s and China’s friends throughout the world.” Sir Malcolm Rifkind QC Sir Malcolm Rifkind, QC is a patron of Hong Kong Watch, who served as the United Kingdom’s Foreign Secretary from 1995- 1997 and Defence Secretary from 1992-1995. He held other senior positions in the Cabinet under Prime Ministers John Major and Margaret Thatcher. Hong Kong Watch 2 Foreword by Sir Geoffrey Nice, QC “This detailed Report demonstrates, line by line and law by law how things have developed for true democracy in Hong Kong once: ‘The two lawmakers from Youngspiration, Baggio Leung Chung-hang and Yau Wai- Ching, referred to China as ‘Chee-na’ which is widely considered to be offensive. Yau Wai-Ching also referred to China with a swearword’ (see body of Report).’ Hong Kong Watch supports ‘one country, two systems’, not Hong Kong Independence and its Report does not divert from that position.
    [Show full text]