Introduction
On June 30th, 1997, after 157 years of British colonial rule in Hong Kong, it’s important to review the British administration’s legacy in Hong Kong. It will be quite naïve for one to resort to any one-dimensional blanket conclusion or to outline any specific sweeping approval or condemnation o the diverse record of the British rule in Hong Kong. It is equally risky to only review the achievements in the last days of the British rule and use such review to restructure or substitute for the full span of the British rule as its finest moment in Hong Kong.
A much more informed and also balanced evaluation of British historical deeds should be appreciated in its fuller perspective of the real inputs and outputs of the British administrative system in modeling development in Hong Kong the life of Hong Kong people in the course of entire British rule. (Chan, 1990)
Outline the of the paper
This paper will therefore take a critical look at the legacy of the British rule in Hong Kong from two different viewpoints, one according to the viewpoint of the Hong Kong people and another viewpoint will be according to the British populace. When analyzing the British legacy in Hong Kong, it will be prudent to appreciate the past British deeds in their contribution to the current state of Hong Kong, it will be equally vital to pinpoint the misdeeds of the past British administration in Hong Kong and their present effects.
Today Hong Kong is globally renowned as an outstanding example of a liberal community with a lively economy, where its entire population of over six million people enjoys their liberty and opportunity. As such, the British rulers can in reality claim substantial credit. As depicted by Christopher Pattern, the final British governor in Hong Kong, four main contributions of the British to Hong Kong’s success, are; rule of law; civil service; economic freedom, and lastly democratization. These will be the main points that will be reviewed to articulate the correct British legacy from the Hong viewpoint. From the British point of view, the paper will examine a general overview, Proposals, from 1945 to 1952, the 1980s views, and effects of the Policies and the British Legacy. Finally basing on the above outline the paper will then make a conclusion on both viewpoints. (Chan, 1997)
Rule of law
The rule of law has been celebrated a lot by the British as a “present” that it gave to Hong Kong; this includes the common law legal system from Britain that has an independent neutral judiciary that supposedly delivered fair justice to everyone. To a lot of people in Hong Kong conservation of this legal structure is of high significance to the “high level of independent” that HKSAR (Hong Kong Special Administrative Region) ought to enjoy. Whereas a lot of the makeup and establishments in Hong Kong’s legal structure are considered as essentially sound and efficiently working, the main flaw is the legal language of English.
Up to recent times, all court procedures in civil and criminal litigations were being held in English. Though English is the official language, it is not the mother tongue or daily usage language for most native people, who are mainly Cantonese speakers. Presently, residents have to speak English so as to be entitled to jury service. This plays a big role in the composition of the jury and renders it considerably out-of-way with modern ideas regarding the function of trial by jury. (Chan, 1990)
Another concern is the inadequate and late start progress regarding bilingual (Chinese and English) codification. A fraction of the problem begins with the legal system personnel. The bodies of justice still are expatriate-dominated in the judiciary and the legal department. The efforts of the government in localization of the judiciary system has had limited outcome. Localization of the common law needs long-term and far-reaching reforms that could give strength to the rule of law through making the whole legal structure more in step to socio-cultural and demographic realities and also the increasing human rights awareness of the native Chinese population. (Chan, 1990)
In addition, British legal heritage in Hong Kong also exhibits perilous historical violations which set a bad example for the future. The bulky piles of prejudiced legislation (mainly racially founded, anti-Chinese laws enacted by appointed lawmakers) and draconian, prejudiced (anti-grassroots) court judgments are bad examples of decency and fairness. Besides, the administrative and legislative bodies have a quite weak division of power, having insufficient checks and balances.
Before 1985, when not directly voted seats were set up into the Legco (Legislative Council) the British administration was able to enact laws through a submissive legislature made up of appointed legislature members, and government officials having a majority up to 1976. Therefore one can state that the British colonial regime frequently functioned within the rule of law since it had all-time be able to alter the law via appointed legislature.
On the other hand, the executive arm could all the time claim a legal foundation for any particular act that it desired to undertake. And if the administration didn’t desire to look for the endorsement of Legco, it could then resort to the “Emergency Regulations Ordinance of 1922” that permitted imprisonment with no trial and several other breaches of acts of human rights. So far such actions were considered completely legal. (Ming, 1997)
Since “the Emergency Power Ordinance” still is on the statute books, although all other regulations had been revoked by 1985, the serious danger is that the HKSAR administration could use it as did the British colonial government. Besides the British administration’s own unlawful official actions ought not to be forgotten. Such unlawful acts included film censorship devoid of suitable legal authority, character assassination, and extra-official maneuvers to weaken or obstruct the path of justice (for example London’s executive intrusion with the Hong Kong lawful procedure in the Chinese government airplane case in 1950).
Such intrusions amounted to the gross mockery of the rule of law and pursuit of justice. A lot of humiliating occurrences, ranging from grave criminal acts by the legal workforce to doubtful conduct and ineptitude, have marred efficient legal administration, which has resulted in a tarnished reputation of the legal system. (Ming, 1997)
The rule of law is certainly a primary British legacy for Hong Kong, and also it is correctly popularly viewed as such. Nevertheless, it is essential to be reminded of the important gaps and lapses in the common law legal structure as it was practiced by the British colonial administration. A lot of effort is still required to restructure and cure its defects and also inadequacies so as it achieves its own stated objective of giving the people of Hong Kong a true justice system. (Ming, 1997)
Civil Service
Civil service was the main backbone of British colonial rule in Hong Kong, supposing the British custom of an executive-led administration is to become a lot more highlighted in the HKSAR administration, civil service administrative will then remain a very powerful political body. (Ming, 1997)
Though a lot has been said regarding Hong Kong’s civil service structure as extremely professional, competent, reasonably free from grave corruption, and politically neutral this can be just a partially true reflection of the latest realities. Specifically since, at least up to the mid-80s’ Hong Kong’s sovereignty settlement and beginning of democratization, was many times termed as an “administrative state” or as “bureaucratic polity” which practiced “administrative absorption of politics.” local authority and political control were dominated by the civil service administrator or bureaucrats.
As such, the civil service body, in particular the senior rank, did dominate the course of policy formulating, decision-making, implementing, and management. Having such a high concentration of tasks and power at its disposal, the civil service also cultivated and continued its own bureaucratic traditions of elitism and at times arrogance at the cost of public responsiveness and accountability. This partially explains the reason the higher civil service rank still is ill-adjusted to the mounting demands for open administration and public accountability and also fresh inputs from politicians who are elected and political parties and or pressure groups in regard to the policy process. (Abbas, 1999)
Through 1997- decolonization also sped up civil service localization, it should be ironic that the localization process that is required because of the previous discrimination, is presently being claimed by the British as its achievement. Indeed civil service localization was not the main concern until 1984 following the signing of the Sino-British Joint Declaration raises solemn doubts concerning the British administration’s commitment to a truly expert and balanced approach to personnel policy and administration in its governance. At the moment, the administration’s localization actions are successfully being challenged in court through several expatriate civil employees under the Bill of Rights. (Ming, 1997)
Up to the early 90s, the civil service’s high ranks were mainly dominated by British executives, and though they were little in number (around 3,000 out of over 150,000 in the 80s), numerous serious shortcomings were thus revealed as underlined below. Up to the 80s, these expatriate officers, though little in number, were basically concentrated at the peak and very high ranks of the civil service hierarchy and managed the very important processes such as recruitment, job assignment, supervision, appraisal, and promotion of the subordinates, the bulk of whom were native Chinese.
The top-heavy planned concentration of British expatriates having a lot of power, authority, control, and also policy-making functions really distorted this supposedly civil service system of Hong Kong into awfully British government machinery, therefore undermining Hong Kong’s local independence. (Flowerdew, 1997)
The most obvious failure of the Hong Kong civil service structure under expatriate management was the superior bureaucrats’ absence of any feeling of the responsibility of the administration in regard to the unavoidable concern of the 1997 sovereignty retrocession. An absence of a guiding principle for political transition made Hong Kong civil servants not well prepared and also confused in relation to how to respond to political issues.
The state of affairs was worsened by the Sino-British disagreement brought about by Governor Patten’s electoral reforms in 1992 that politicized the higher civil servants and needed them to support a policy that was not acceptable to Beijing. This tendency undermined the British colonial state’s latest endorsement of the “political neutrality” of the civil service, possibly for pre-empting the public perception so as to hold off future PRC efforts to politicize the HKSAR civil service.
These democratization attempts also added more pressure on the superior bureaucrats as the salesperson’s policies of government to a Legco that had elected members. This latest public function made the then Financial Secretary Macleod accept that “we have increasingly become a quasi- politician”. (Ming, 1997)
Lastly, since Governor MacLehose saw it essential in 1974 to establish the autonomous Commission against Corruption reflected the presence of extensive corruption among nearly all ranks and sections of the civil service system. Public disapproval and a tarnished worldwide image enforced the administration to act, however even at that moment MacLehose was forced to grant a common amnesty to the whole police force in the infamous police defiance against the Commission in 1977. This is a big indicator of how extensive corruption had worn public confidence in the honesty, fairness, and competence of the civil service in the 70s.
Regrettably, corruption among civil servants has been growing recently. The civil service top rank’s custom of administrative superiority and colonial totalitarianism has made it ill-modified to the 1985-97 periods of democratization and governmental analysis. Maybe, the localized administration should have a lot of common bearing with the fresh HKSAR elites to create a more democratic and responsive civil society. (Tzong-biau, 1998)
Economic Freedom with Limited Government
Economic freedom and limited government is another British government contribution to Hong Kong that is much talked about. After the Second World War period, British colonial officials then stressed “positive non-interventionism” as British guiding aspect in economic policy, assisting to improve Hong Kong to its outstanding economic center status. A lot of time it is stated that free trade and also a free port are major factors for the economy, through combining low taxation, a really open market, free movement of information technology/capital, and the lowest amount of regulation and official bureaucracy has brought about a substantial opportunity for the private segment to maximize profit. In real meaning, the economic miracle of Hong Kong appears to be a direct outcome of the official minimalist approach. (Tzong-biau, 1998)
A careful assessment of the historical evidence, nonetheless, discloses an intrusive regime whose acts did not always adhere to its projected liberal pretense. Though free trade remains the landmark of Hong Kong’s economy, the British colonial administration has endlessly played a crucial and direct role as a very important economic member. Moreover its control of precious resources, the administration’s control of the pertinent lawful, political, and social bodies and procedures also indirectly models the way the economy behaves and community development. However, it can be argued that the constant projection of “positive non-intervention legend,” in spite of a very diverse reality presently, serves a number of purposes.
This official stand was a valuable enticement to the global business community. It stressed free trade, very low tax, and limitless opportunity for free ventures as a result of the lack of regulation and also administration interference so as to attract more investments in Hong Kong. Locally, limited administration with a liberal pretense intended to minimize the British colonial state’s task as a dynamic, provider, protector, and promoter of numerous community needs. (Jones, 1997)
One can also argue that the legend of liberal economic policies did also serve the function of white-washing questionable, unjust government practices. On the contra of the perfect of free trade and open market system, the British colonial establishment resorted to biased and monopolistic dealings which constituted interventionist acts. Good cases include the compulsory use of British motor vehicles that were the only franchised public bus companies up to 1983, and the monopoly standing awarded to a British university and college degrees and British gotten specialized qualifications for educational, professional and also business reasons. Under this background, the most destructive legacy was the unashamedly pro-business partiality in the British government’s decision-making. (Jones, 1997)
Whereas on the body can deny the outstanding economic development and growing wealth in Hong Kong between the 1970s- 1990s under British rule (having a GDP per capita grow from US$686 in 1966 to US$23,200 in 1996). The for-business, positive non-involvement legacy of the government at the end left behind a startling socio-economic unbalanced on the day of British colonial departure. And also left behind the striking GDP figures which widen the income gap among the very-rich and the masses, with 650,000 people being reported to live under the poverty level.
In spite of increasing the budget’s allocation in welfare support, the British administration was unable to solve the survival predicaments of the needy and poor efficiently. Thus, free trade and free ventures with an open market for much of Hong Kong colonial history didn’t always imply just trade and equal business opportunity; the colonial regime interfered to favor British and large business interests at the cost of fair play and a level playing ground for all the economic players despite their class or race. (Jones, 1997)
Democracy
Possibly the most unfortunate inadequacy of the British colonial existence in Hong Kong is its insufficient efforts in bringing democracy. The very truth that British administration-sponsored democratization only surfaced in 1984 after Joint Declaration, appeared to rationalize China’s disapproval and brought into question the intentions and potentially troubling outcomes of the British last-minute change of mind to democratize Hong Kong precisely on the day of their leaving. Certainly, the British to clarify and validate why they did not make an earlier commitment to democratization Hong Kong in the first 140 years of their running of Hong Kong.
However, it is still valuable to briefly review the numerous missed opportunities, intentional nonactions, and also anti-democratic maneuvers of the British colonial administration. This ought to serve as a required balance to whichever self-congratulatory interpretation of democratic development under British rule. (Ming, 1997)
Though one can find Christopher Pattern to be the highly energetic governor among the rest of the British governors in promoting democratic reforms, the number of democratic reform-based governors is really short. Among other governors who tried in bringing democracy to Hong Kong were Mark Young (1941, 1946-47) and also Edward Yaounde (1982-86). The irony is that these two governors implemented some democratic measures only after pressure from the local grassroots and also the Chinese communist party united front. (Ming, 1997)
After the War British policies for partial democratic reform were put aside by an unconcerned Governor Grantham in conjunction with the British colonial tycoon privileged who picked British appointees, who were certainly not rightful representatives of native majority interests. Through the use of the alleged threat of Chinese Communist victory in1949 and the 1950-53 Korean War as excuses, the British colonialist-tycoon elite alliance, with the backing of Whitehall under the rule of the Conservatives, did derail this first effort at democratization.
It can be pointed out that those local elite members appointed to the Legco and Exco were too eager to save guard their own privileges and glorious positions against any opening of political participation. It wasn’t any absence of far-sighted thoughts and workable proposals which under-laid the British administration’s intentional rejection, suspension, and derailment of democratization up to the 1980s, by using as an excuse state of affairs outside Hong Kong, particularly the China Factor. (Ming, 1997)
Supposing Governor Patten was really honest in his democratization drive, he should then highly regret his predecessor’s failure in not laying down the groundwork for the Hong Kong democratic system with a prior, fuller-scale, and more unreserved advancement of democratic political tradition, institutions, and procedures.
When Whitehall and Governor Patten criticize the not democratic and not representative composition of the “HKSAR Preparatory and Selection Committees” for being awesomely filled with their professional-circle allies and tycoons, the British ought not to be too unkind in their disapproval of Beijing’s liking for plutocracy as HKSAR political leadership as numerous of their targets of disapproval were started and nurtured by British colonial privileged political class. As such, British colonialism is comprehensively implicated as an accomplice to China’s hindrance of democracy in Hong Kong. (Knight, 1999)
British views on the legacy of their administration in Hong Kong
General overview
This study thus looks at the British viewpoint of the legacy of their colonial administration of Hong Kong from the reflection of those proposals up to the retrocession period. It is important to note that there wasn’t a single viewpoint of the British at any particular time. Thus in referring to “a British viewpoint” it is, hence, important to differentiate between a constituency-based viewpoint and a composite viewpoint of the British legacy. This study covers the views of the British legacy created by what are possibly the most significant British constituencies. (Lau, 1999)
The legacy of the British administration of Hong Kong, observed from many of the population in Britain, is mainly shaped by the characteristics of the colony on the day of retrocession. This can be noted as being in big contrast regarding the views of many Chinese observers and the Chinese communist party (CCP) The British favor highlight individual freedoms, rule of law, independence of the judiciary system, the effectiveness of government, business competitiveness, the excellent status in global trade, the containment of corruption, high quality of engineering infrastructure, and the improvement in health and welfare provision as critical characteristics of their legacy. (Knight, 1999)
On the other hand, the Chinese counterparts are most likely to look back to the bad previous years of national dishonor and imperialist mistreatment, keen to put the attention of all the patriots on the historical importance of reunification. Amid the British populations with a particular interest in Hong Kong, consisting of individual, governmental, corporate, and communal views, hardly any, if any, will venture in acknowledging aspects of the initial 100 years of British l rule as a qualitatively lasting section of British legacy.
This is possible as expected as the Chinese stress the negative sides of the British history of Hong Kong. All the two sides remain restless to assert the moral high position and to evade disconcerting or painful realities. However, there were some singular accomplishments in government, education, infrastructure, health, and hygiene services from the beginning of the century afterward. Lots of these achievements laid a base for the exceptional accomplishments which, comprised part of the British legacy. (Lau, 1999)
Proposals, from 1945 to 1952
The first Postwar view of the British government of Hong Kong’s future was outlined in 1945. A committee was formed from the members of a planning division composing of Hong Kong officials present in London as Japan invaded in 1941, jointly with the China Association members in London and also Colonial Office officials. The common aim is to ensure Hong Kong, like any other colony, ought to enjoy constitutional progression.
The result, duly expressed by Sir Mark Young (the Governor) in 1946 when the civil regime was reinstated, envisioned the setting-up of a very autonomous Municipal Council to run and increase the restricted function of the Urban Council. The council was to be 30 members’ team with, 15 Chinese and 15 non-Chinese, while twenty would be directly elected. The Colonial Office officials thought that the proposals were a suitable and adequate means of moving on constitutional advance. However, they feared that the planned reforms might not please their political masters. Back in Hong Kong, the proposal was not positively received. The proposal eventually did not work as it was rejected by both the governor and the Hong Kong community. (Tzong-biau, 1998)
All attempts to include the local indirect running of the affairs of Hong Kong were overtaken by various events until in May 1951 when a scheme by the conservatives to increase the local’s participation in the running of their affairs were again unexpectedly, through, the unofficial members of the Legco and Executive Council (Exco) in Hong Kong, on behalf of local elites, prevailed on the then Governor to persuade the British government to halt the scheme.
British agreed and an announcement to halt the scheme was then made in October 1952, under a reason that time was ill-timed for major constitutional progress. It remained so in the British view up to the mid-1980s. This record of five different sets of unimplemented proposals for the advancement of constitutional in Hong Kong is enlightening mainly for what is exposed by the intricate reasons given at every stage for and also against the proposals. (Tzong-biau, 1998)
The 1980s
In the 1980s the state of affairs had changed very much. One significant change was the extent of uncertainty concerning Hong Kong’s future as bestowed by the Joint Declaration. Another change was an approach of progressive reform by the PRC government under the Deng Xiaoping leadership. Yet again another alteration was the prospects for the easing of tension across the Taiwan Strait. Hong Kong was all every respect; economic, social and political advanced in comparison earlier day.
It is against this backdrop, that the British leadership in Hong Kong came under increasing pressure from representatives of an articulate, educated, and professionally greatly successful indigenous middle class to bring in democratic reforms in the arrangement of the representational regime. They felt that the practice of traditional change had been completely exploited. The call was for advancement towards direct elections to the Legco. From the British viewpoint, they felt that time was not yet ripe for such changes. However, the British over the next years yield to the demands of direct election and provided them and other democratic reforms. (Tzong-biau, 1998)
Effects of the Policies and the British Legacy
To sum up the final review of the British legacy during the British administration of Hong Kong, The first aspect, approved by all constituencies, is an economic improvement. Britain, the policy of intentionally excluding partisan politics had made it possible for Hong Kong to focus on economic growth. After the British relaxing the policy, the economic basics remained unaffected.
The second aspect is that in spite of Chinese opposition, the three policies initiated through Sir David Wilson to create stabilization in Hong Kong and reinstate confidence all worked to the advantage of the HKSAR. Reforms were undertaken by the British in the last years of their rule also created the basis for a more democratic Hong Kong. In Britain, the view was to allow the little democratic process to save guard the interest of the British people in the colony. (Tzong-biau, 1998)
Conclusion
Hong Kong’s 156 years of British rule is seen to have left an ineffaceable approval for the British legacy of rule of law, personal rights, and restricted government. Whereas British rule in Hong Kong was not perfect, principally concerning political rights, and though corruption was put under control in the 70s through the establishment of the autonomous Commission against corruption, complete property rights and financial freedoms mainly existed and continue to prevail.
The beauty of the lawful society of Hong Kong’s and the implementation of economic rights, mainly when contrasted to China, kept a steady flow of illegal immigrants who risked their lives and limb to get to Hong Kong. It is true that economic power, democracy, limited government, and sound civil service are some of the legacy left by the British. On the other hand it is worth noting that some of today’s ills were planted by the British bad culture and misrule of Hong Kong.
Reference:
Abbas, P (1999): Hong Kong: Culture and the Politics of Disappearance, Curzon Press.
Chan M. (1997): The Legacy of the British Administration of Hong Kong: A View from Hong Kong; The China Quarterly No. 151.
Chan L K (1990): China, Britain and Hong Kong 1895-1945 (Hong Kong: The Chinese University Press.
Flowerdew, J. (1997): The discourse of colonial withdrawal: a case study in the creation of mythic discourse. Discourse and Society, Vol.18, No.4, 453-77.
Hook B. (1997): British Views of the Legacy of the Colonial Administration of Hong Kong: A Preliminary Assessment; The China Quarterly, No.151.
Hook, B (1993): Political Change in Hong Kong; The China Quarterly, No. 136.
Jones D. (1997): Political Development in Pacific Asia, Cambridge: Polity Press.
Knight, A (1999): The Last chapter of imperial history. In A. Knight & Y. Nakano (eds.), Reporting Hong Kong: Foreign Media and the Handover. (pp.128-130). Surrey: Curzon Pres.s
Lau, H K (1999): Colonial Legacy: Hong Kong Chinese’s View of the British Heritage, Chinese University Press.
Ming K. Chan (1997): The Legacy of the British Administration of Hong Kong: A View from Hong Kong The China Quarterly, No. 151. pp. 567-582.
Tzong-biau L (1998); Hong Kong: Economic, Social and Political Studies in Development. by Rance P. Lee; Udo-Ernst Simonis.