![Sample our Global Development journals, sign in here to start your access, latest two full volumes FREE to you for 14 days]({"type":"image" , "src" : "/sda/5929/TOC-Subject-Sample-2021-Global-Development.jpg"})
Abstract
On 1 July 2003, over half a million Hong Kong people staged a mass protest against the poor governance of the post-handover Hong Kong government. The grievances of the marchers quickly snowballed into a widely backed movement for democracy. The subsequent record-breaking support for pro-democratic candidates during the local elections held on 23 November 2003 unnerved Beijing over its possible loss of control over Hong Kong. Beijing swiftly shifted to a hard-line approach, attempting to dampen the local democracy movement. This paper will expound the five fundamental causes of Hong Kong's broad-based demand for full democracy, analyse its type of democratic transition to illuminate its political dynamics, and highlight the parameters impacting its democratic development.
Notes
1. According to a survey conducted during the 1 July mass rally, the top two most important reasons for joining the protest pertained to the overall poor performance of the government, which were affirmed by about 92% (Chan and Chung, 2003, found at http://hkupop.hku.hk/).
3. See the survey data from the University of Hong Kong (http://hkupop.hku.hk/).
4. The Democratic Party of Hong Kong has scored a record-breaking winning rate of close to 80% and won 92 seats amid the backdrop of a sharply rising voter turnout rate from to 33.82% to 44.06% [Ming Pao, (24 November 2003)]. The 1.07 million voters who cast their votes represented a record of 44% of eligible voters, compared with a 36% turnout in the last election held in 1999. The Beijing-backed Democratic Alliance for Betterment of Hong Kong (DAB) only won 62 seats, a sharp decrease from 83 scored during the same election of 1999 [Asian Wall Street Journal, (25 November 2003)].
5. See the poll conducted by the Chinese University of Hong Kong between 1 and 8 March [Ming Pao, (24 March 2004)].
6. World Bank, World Development Report (New York: Oxford University Press, 1984), p. 218; Frederic C. Deyo, Beneath the Miracle: Labor Subordination in the New Asian Industrialism (University of California Press, 1989), p. 26.
7. See various issues of Asiaweek, (1996).
9. See http://www.weforum.org/pdf/Gcr/Growth_Competitiveness_Index_2003_Comparisons (accessed 1 April 2005).
10. See World Bank at http://devdata.worldbank.org/edstats/cd5.asp.
11. Panel on Welfare Service (Hong Kong Legislature, 12 November 2001).
12. Suk-ching Ho and Chi-fai Chan, ‘In search of a competition policy in a competitive economy: the case of Hong Kong’, The Journal of Consumer Affairs 37(1), (Summer 2003).
13. See Ming Pao, (24 February 2004).
14. See Ho and Chan, ‘In search of a competition policy in a competitive economy’.
15. See Ho and Chan, ‘In search of a competition policy in a competitive economy’., p. 70.
16. See http://asia.news.yahoo.com/031130/3/18olv.html, (1 December 2003); see also Reuters–Hong Kong, (29 November 2003).
17. See the budget for 2004–2005, available at: http://www.budget.gov.hk/.
18. As revealed in a survey conducted by Hong Kong Polytechnic University between 9 and 10 July 2003, 75% of Hong Kong citizens distrusted the present political structure. It contrasted markedly with the much higher level of support for the non-democratic political structure before the handover.
19. See the unpublished survey results of the surveys carried out in June 2003, July 2003, and January 2004 by Lingnan University, Hong Kong Polytechnic University and the University of Hong Kong, respectively.
20. See The New York Times, (8 January 2004).
21. See Asian Wall Street Journal, (25 February 2004).
22. See E. Elizabeth, ‘Don't break the engagement’, Foreign Affairs 83(3), (May/June 2004).
23. Samuel Huntington, The Third Wave: Democratization in the Late Twentieth Century (Norman: University of Oklahoma Press, 1991).
24. Samuel Huntington, The Third Wave: Democratization in the Late Twentieth Century (Norman: University of Oklahoma Press, 1991)., pp. 165–174.
25. G. A. O'Donnell, P. C. Schmitter and L. Whitehead, eds, Transitions from Authoritarian Rule: Comparative Perspectives (Baltimore: Johns Hopkins University Press, 1986).
26. See Bank of China: Financial View—BOC Monthly Review 1(1), (2003); see also http://www.tdctrade.com/main/economic.htm.
27. See the poll conducted by the Chinese University of Hong Kong between 1 and 8 March [Ming Pao, (24 March 2004)].
28. See Asian Wall Street Journal, (25 February 2004).
29. See the poll conducted by the Chinese University of Hong Kong between 1 and 8 March [Ming Pao, (24 March 2004)].
30. A survey done by the University of Hong Kong found that the public trust of Chinese Government suffered a dip of 7% to 43% in early March 2004 vis-à-vis that gauged in December 2003, as a result of Mainland China's deluge of assaults on democrats and reticence over rapid democratic reform [Asian Wall Street Journal, (3 March 2004)]. The popularity of Tung and his three main officials after China's promulgation of the ‘interpretation’ of the Basic Law saw an obvious plunge in early April 2004 [Ming Pao, (14 April 2004)].
31. M. Sing, ‘Public support for democracy in Hong Kong’, Democratization, Vol 12(2), 2005.
32. A. Stephan, Arguing Comparative Politics (Oxford: Oxford University Press, 2001).
33. The only exception happened in the aftermath of 1989, in which the business sector agreed on accelerating democracy after the Tiananmen Square event in a bid to boost public confidence.
34. See Asian Wall Street Journal, (27 February 2004).
35. To illustrate, the Chairwoman of the AmCham believed the political consultations on democratic reform in Hong Kong needed to proceed without further ado and has set up an ad-hoc group surveying the implications of constitutional reform on business [Asian Wall Street Journal, (15 August 2003; 27 February 2004)].
36. See The Economist, (26 July 2003).
37. See The Economist, (14 September 2004).
38. See International Herald Tribune, (14 September 2004).
39. See above.
40. See Wall Street Journal, (14 September 2004).
41. Fareed Zakaria, ‘The rise of illiberal democracy’, Foreign Affairs 75(6), (November/December 1997).