the hong kong student review of political science fall 2012

THE HONG KONG STUDENT REVIEW OF

POLITICAL SCIENCE(VOLUME 35 ISSUE 2 Fall 2012)

政治漫畫家 Cuson Lo 專訪以畫為喻為社會發聲

「目無王法」

「給小悅悅的信」

"National Education in Hong Kong""Should Palestine be granted Statehood in the United Nations?"

"To What Extent is Democratic Consolidation in Taiwan Successful?"

Politics and Public Administration Association SSS HKUSU The Hong Kong Student Review of Political Science

The Editorial BoardThe Editorial Board of The Hong Kong Student Review of Political Science (SRPS), formerly known as the Bulletin, was founded in 1977. it is a sub-committee under the Executive Committee of Politics and Public Administration Association SSS HKUSU, The University of Hong Kong.

Editor-in-chiefCHAN Lik Ki, Ricky

The Hong Kong Student Review of Political Science (SRPS) is published and owned by the Politics and Public Administration Association SSS HKUSU. It is a non-partisan student journal which aims to promote the study of Politics and Public Administration and facilitate the intellectual exchange between students and academics.

Editorial Statement The views expressed in the various articles represent those of the authors and not the Association. The articles included in SRPS may not be reproduced in any form without the written permission of the authors.

Politics and Public Administration Association SSS HKUSUSession 2011-2012

Honorary PresidentProf. Joseph C.W. ChanHead, Department of Politics and Public Administration, The University of Hong Kong

ChairmanLAU Cheuk Lun, Alan

Internal Vice ChairmanLEUNG Hon Kit, Roger

External Vice ChairmanLIM Kar Yee, Shirley

General SecretaryXU Lok Yi, Joyce

Financial SecretaryCHU Cho Leung, Stanley

Publication SecretaryCHAN Lik Ki, Ricky

Publicity SecretaryWU Sze Lok, Ash

Current Affairs SecretaryWONG Man Ho, Anson

Chinese Current Affairs SecretaryKING Kai Wing, Christina

THE HONG KONG STUDENT REVIEW OF

POLITICAL SCIENCE


Contents

02 政治漫畫家 Cuson Lo 專訪：以畫為喻為社會發聲

06 目無王法羅嘉豪

07 給小悅悅的信黃麗紅

08 National Education in Hong Kong Arthur R. Wong

11 Should Palestine be granted Statehood in the United Nations? Vimukthi Caldera

13 To What Extent is Democratic Consolidation in Taiwan Successful? Matthew L.C. Choi

23 Functions Review

26 Notes

28 Acknowledgements


Editor's Note

I am pleased to introduce to you the Hong Kong Student Review of Political Science (SRPS) Fall 2012 Issue.

SRPS serves as a platform for students to share and express their views on the study of political science and current affairs, not only with their fellow schoolmates but also with the public at large.

In this issue, students from our University submitted their articles concerning a wide range of topics related to political science, including the recent national education issue, human rights, the status of Palestine, and democracy in Taiwan. The diversified submissions and the wide range of topics covered will surely bring interesting and new perspectives on politics to you.

On behalf of the Association, I would like to express my heartfelt thanks to Mr. Cuson Lo for accepting our invitation to an interview, all the students who have contributed to this issue of the SRPS and the editorial board who have laboured restlessly to make this issue a reality.

I sincerely hope that you enjoy reading this issue.

Chan Lik Ki, RickyEditor-in-chiefThe Hong Kong Student Review of Political Science

01


政治漫畫家 Cuson Lo 專訪

以畫為喻為社會發聲訪問許樂怡胡詩珞

撰文許樂怡

02


Cuson Lo ( 盧熾剛 )，一位活躍於社交網絡的本地政治漫畫家，筆下畫過無數政治人物，相信大家對他的作品並不感到陌生。其中最廣為人知的，無疑是早前特首選舉中那張在網絡瘋傳，描繪唐英年在僭建的地下行宮透過天花玻璃仰望夫人並噴紅酒的漫畫。Cuson 擅長以漫畫諷刺時弊，並出版了不少畫作如《五區公投》、《快樂政治》，亦有以生活為題材的《我的港女老婆》。

成為政治漫畫家的經過

Cuson 的正職其實是免費報紙《AM730》的插畫師，為該報創作頭版封面插圖、四格漫畫等，亦應外面一些商業機構的邀請作設計和出書。業餘便畫形形色色的政治漫畫，在網上發放，公諸同好。

「我當初一畢業便投身廣告界，去不同廣告公司當插畫師，做了二十多年。回想起來，我還是比較享受現在的工作。始終畫的是我感興趣的，亦能夠吸引更多人品評，滿足感相比起在廣告公司所畫那些千篇一律的設計圖大很多。」

由童年時已對畫畫萌生興趣的 Cuson，自認一直對政治十分冷感，直至與友人在零三年參加七一大遊行反對廿三條立法，才開始接觸時事，其後再被黃毓民感染而踏上畫政治漫畫之途。「我那時很喜歡收聽毓民的電台節目，他慢慢改變了我。後來發生五區公投事件，社會迴響很大，我以漫畫形式幫社民連宣揚此運動。這是前所未有的，可說是我投身畫政治漫畫的轉捩點。」

到目前為止，Cuson 已畫了過百幅政治漫畫，亦幫不同政黨設計不同的宣傳刊物，人氣急升。由最初幫黃毓民為首的社民連，到後來社民連分裂，便主力為人民力量畫。「只要和我理念相近的組織或黨派我都樂意幫忙，但民主黨就免談了，公民黨都會考慮。早前我幫了新民主同盟范國威畫人像插圖，亦幫民陣製作了一幅由維園到新政總的『七一

03

「其中最廣為人知的，無疑是早前特首選舉中那張在網絡瘋傳，描繪唐英年在僭建的地下行宮透過天花玻璃仰望夫人並噴紅酒的漫畫。」


上街圖』，為他們今年七一遊行宣傳做勢。」

政治取向：反建制、追求民主

經常為人民力量作畫的 Cuson，是支持激進派的一分子 ? 談到這點，Cuson 表示：「我比較認同議會抗爭的方式，不喜歡『鵪鶉』的做事方式；有些聲稱泛民的黨派二十多年來像『做 show』般，並沒有實實在在的行動去爭取民主，而早前的拉布戰，猶如火燒連環船，明顯地看見人民力量的抗爭促使立法會押後審議版權（修訂）條例草案。」

網絡政治打壓愈見猖厥

關於版權（修訂）條例草案（被網民指為網絡 23 條），Cuson 認為此條例存在一定隱憂，對二次創作自由影響深遠。「一般市民可能只是惡搞改圖，內容無傷大雅，卻可能因而被追究。那些民運人士、社運界的創作人容易受到檢控，我們的一些創作亦很大機會被打壓」。

今年六四前夕，多名社運界人士的 Facebook 帳戶被封鎖，當中亦包括Cuson。他對此大感無奈：「這無疑是有組織策劃。在這敏感時刻，誰人做的，大家都心知肚明。我自認不算十分激進，只是輕鬆地畫畫公仔讓人發泄一下，為什麽這樣對我呢 ? 」

近年來，香港的言論和創作自由屢受打壓，營造白色恐怖。Cuson 對香港未來的發展顯得有點悲觀 :「我有些擔心，梁振英上台後，香港會否變得大陸化呢 ? Facebook 會否淪為微博，不斷被河蟹 ? 我們擁有的各種自由會否被剝削呢 ?」

畫漫畫的創作靈感和心得

「憑空想像一個故事對我來說很難，我的創作靈感多數來自生活上，用第一身做角色。」說起政治漫畫，Cuson 則「多聽網台，多看時事評論」來取材。

Cuson 有自己一套的獨特的畫畫心得 :「首先我會用鉛筆畫些黑線在紙上，然後用電腦軟件例如 Photoshop上色，並加對白、效果等。」如何畫出神似的漫畫人物 ?「誇張人物特徵是肖像漫畫的精神。每人都有不同的特徵和五官組合，我會盡量按各人的特徵構思，試到自己滿意為止。」Cuson 筆下的政治人物或多或少難免會被醜化，Cuson 直言: 「要我畫得靚仔靚女其實沒有意思。我不想改，還是喜歡把真實情況呈現出來。」

在眾多政治人物中，曾蔭權對 Cuson來說是最容易著手的，煲呔標誌、哨牙、「U 形面豬登」的特徵很易繪畫。至於梁振英，Cuson 說一開始的確有些難度，「可能他沒有明顯的特徵，故要慢慢揣摩，才會發現他的粗眉、鬚根和鷹鼻」。

04


冀以漫畫創作影響他人

在這資訊發達的年代，一幅在網上發放的漫畫，力量絕對不容忽視。不少業餘創作者亦善用互聯網這方便快捷的媒介宣傳自己的作品。Cuson 認為近年香港政治漫畫的冒起除了因互聯網的發達，亦與社會民怨沸騰有關 :「現時香港很多漫畫創作人都會受社會時事影響，滲透一些政治元素於作品上，藉以表達民眾對政府的聲音」。

Cuson 隨個人興趣外，畫政治漫畫亦是基於一份使命感，希望藉一己之力為社會發聲，使人覺醒，「慢慢看見愈來愈多人欣賞和支持我的作品，有時還要求我把某些事情用漫畫呈現出來，開始覺得自己的創作能對社會起了作用，影響他人」，

Cuson 對此感到十分有意義。

Cuson 認為當下很多年輕人都像他以前一樣，對政治很冷感。他寄語 :「我希望大家追求夢想之餘，亦應該懂得關心社會，並不是鼓勵大家去遊行靜坐，但最少要清楚社會上發生甚麼事，不要以為任何事都與你無關，別人問起，你會有立場，懂得應對。你可以透過不同方式表達意見，不論創作、行動、網上表態，都是一種力量。」

至於未來有什麼計劃，Cuson 希望可以嘗試其它不同類型的漫畫，「出版一本屬於自己的純插畫集，並開設個人展覽，分享自己的人像作品」。

05

「畫政治漫畫亦是基於一份使命感，希望藉一己之力為社會發聲，使人覺醒。」


目無王法羅嘉豪香港大學理學士 (測量學 )

根據基本法第二條，香港實行高度自治，享有行政管理權、立法權、獨立的司法權和終審權。

但最近連日以來所發生的事確現令人相當懷疑基本法某些章節是否已經被忽視或無視。

司法方面，梁愛詩最近突然高調批評本地法律界，支持人大釋法。由於香港仍有言論自由，我尊重這老婆婆發言的權利，但絕不支持她所作之言論。她指出香港法律界甚至法官都對中央與香港關係欠認識，她這樣說，是否認為她一人的認識比整個法律界甚至法官更深呢 ?所謂「認識」，是否要認同中央具有權力左右法院審判呢 ?假若只是一個老婦私下批評法律界當然並沒有問題，可是她身份特殊，曾為全國人大代表，又曾當過律政司司長，在公開場合發表該言論，似乎不太妥當。司法獨立是香港的核心價值，假若他日中央插手干擾本地司法，穿著 64 號球衣或 I love HK 字樣 T-shirt 都可能會被入罪，更遑論讓我寫一篇個人政治評論。

行政方面，梁振英又事事聽命中央。早前國民教育在逆民意情況下仍企圖強行開辦，其後，新界東北地區被揭發有「計劃」且大幅度地發展，以迎合中央的港深融合政策，種種行政似是中央定下來給特首的政治任務。

立法方面，建制政黨現在開始霸位立法會內多個主席位置，跟以往主席角色平分的情況大大不同。在早前立法會地區直選選戰，建制派又以高超配票技術成功從泛民手中奪取議席，建制派的立法會陣營更加鞏固，在這樣的情況下，廿三條分拆上場絕不是沒有可能。

權力分立目的是為了權力太集中而產生獨裁。因為權力分立，所以我們有 ICAC 防止官商勾結、貪污，我們有監警會防止警權過大，欺壓市民。

假若香港處於中國的完全主權之下，令香港權力間的界線變得模糊，後果不堪設想。所以香港有必要維持高度自治以保障法治人權自由民主 -盼望最少實行五十年吧 !

06


給小悅悅的信黃麗紅香港大學文學士一年級生

親愛的小悅悅：

在天國裏生活好嗎？還有在嚷爸爸媽媽嗎？畢竟對於自出娘胎只有數個月的你，確然會難以適應失去了食客相隨的雙親的日子，我想，當你想起父母拿著搖鼓，哼起歌謠是，也不禁澘然淚下。回想起你昔日被兩輛貨車輾過，叫苦連天，很多大人也視若無睹，袖手旁觀時姐姐也不禁熱淚盈眶，心裏暗暗地為你抱不平。事至今日已有數個月的光景，而那兩個壞蛋司機也已經被繩之於法了。這一切也不重要了，重要的是在未來，你必然收穫跟多的幸福，而不是遭受不斷的苦難。

你有跟那些有著大大的腦袋的孩子一起玩嗎？他們長成這個樣子，並不是腦筋特別靈活，而是因爲喝了有毒的奶。也許「有毒」這個詞語對你來説太沉重了，我姑且用著「不潔」吧。你在平日看電視時又看過「三鹿」、「蒙牛」嗎？他們就是將那些不潔的東西混進奶中，讓其看上來更有益。很多孩子就就是因爲喝了這些奶，便得了重病，最後便來到天國。可能你會疑問：「那麽警察不就要儆惡懲奸，將壞人抓起來便可以嗎？」在中國，壞人就如動畫片中的大怪獸，而警察卻不是超人，而是手無寸鐵的普通人。試問一個微不足道的人，哪敢招惹一頭大怪獸？幸好你早已來到天國，避過那些壞人設下的陷阱。

你不要惱恨那些對你見死不救的叔叔姨姨了，你們也是身不由己呢。在意外發生的前幾個月，有一個好心腸的哥哥扶起了一個跌倒的婆婆，卻反被婆婆指控，要他賠償醫藥費。人們因爲生活拮据，無以爲繼，才無所不用其極去掙錢。這令許多心腸好的人，看見別人遇難時，不得不避之則吉呢！你知道嗎？在中國裏，熱心助人的人不但不會得到

別人稱譽，反而被警察關進牢獄去。因爲作惡的人會給警察好處，令受害者有冤難申。這就像有同學欺負你時，你告訴老師。但老師原來一早收了這同學的禮物，於是他不會征罰那個同學。趙連海的名字也許你從沒聼過。他將那些壞人賣不潔奶的事訴諸於法律，替那些受害孩子的父母討回公道，可是最後落得身陷囹圄的下場。或許你會為之詫異。放心吧，你早已離開那黑惡的國度，不會遇見甚至遭到這些事的。

你有收過父母或其他長輩的紅包嗎？若然你尚在人間的話，上學時你也要給老師紅包呢。爲什麽要給老師紅包呢？很多在唸中學的哥哥姐姐，會在考試前給老師紅包，以求考試合格，並順利升班。即使你有真才實學，滿腹詩書，並精通天文地理，可是，沒有一封體面的紅包，便無法在班中佔一席位，更遑論名列前茅。沒錯，這確實是很不公平的事。老師本應授業解惑，作育英才，但與學生私相授受，這是在荒天下之大謬！但偏偏發生在你偉大的祖國裏。慶幸的是，你已身居天國之中，在公正嚴明的制度下學會更多的東西。

說到這裡，也許你還是難以置信，不敢想像自己像從前一樣一直生活下去的日子姐姐不是在危言聳聽，更不是要作弄你，凡是要告訴你：過去的一灰飛煙滅，瞻望將來，珍惜現在才是良策。你的思親之情依然纏繞心頭，你的父母又豈不是對你牽腸掛肚呢？只要你在天國裏認識更多朋友，高高興興地長大，便省卻他們對你的擔心了。

祝快高長大

黃麗紅上二零一二年一月一日

07


Indulgence in labeling National Education as “brainwashing” marks the success of politicians’ brainwashing political propagandaArthur R. WongBachelor of Social Sciences (Government and Laws) IIIThe University of Hong Kong

Since I come back home, I realize the debate, mostly criticisms, about the new Moral and National Education (MNE) Curriculum shrouds all media platforms. Under such environment, it’s hard for me to remain insouciant about this controversial topic. After a little bit of investigations, I would like to share some of my thoughts here.

There are mainly two arguments against the new Curriculum: 1) MNE de facto aims to “brainwash” Hong Kong students; 2)) MNE is trivial as a subject.

At the outset, I think it is of paramount importance to clarify the usage of the term “brainwash” that I suspect a lot of critics have neglected. In my part, I try my best not to use the term “brainwash” because following popular usage of this term inevitably discounts the objectivity of our analysis in looking at this matter. First, I argue that some people or political parties deliberately dub the Curriculum such a negative description in order to instigate a sense of anti-government and thus achieve their own political advantage through manipulation of this public hostility, logically in the light of the upcoming LegCo election. This is too good a topic for anti-government parties to resist given the vast amount of innocent younger generation involved and packaging the Curriculum as evil

easily lures the public to perceive the Curriculum in exactly the way projected by these politicians who wish to manipulate public opinion. Pre-occupied by the term “brainwash”, not only do we unfortunately drag ourselves into the whirlpool of either defending or attacking the policy which severely limits possible scope of deliberation but also fatally we fall into the trap set up by cunning politicians to go along the route they wish us to go along. This is too easy and well-hidden a trap that most commentators unconsciously fall into which sarcastically demonstrates that they have been successfully “brainwashed” by politicians already – a lack of individual critical analysis that a lot of commentators themselves claim to be vital.

I propose, therefore, that our analysis should focus on comparing the Curriculum to other countries that similar policies are being adopted and see how we should shape the content of this Curriculum. If indeed nothing can be added in the light of other existing subjects, we then need to evaluate whether this Curriculum indeed deserves to be maintained.

Some say MNE, given existing subjects most notably Chinese History, is valueless in a sense that it adds nothing to the current system apart from glorifying mainland China’s deficiencies. This accusation may sound more convincing

08


if our students are required to study and recite Mao’s Quotes like their counterparts during the 60s in mainland. Fortunately this is not the case and let’s calm down. To preserve the authenticity of history and historical events, it is not a bad idea to separate Chinese History and MNE. The former should be approached as a positive (factual) study. It serves to enrich student’s knowledge about what happened in the past that made up today and hopefully allows them to get some enlightenment to not repeat what our antecedents had done wrong. Students should be able to distinguish, with the benefit of hindsight, who and what were correct and who and what were wrong. It follows that MNE can be more normative in terms of debating current issues and forward-looking policies that right or wrong cannot be determined at this moment. In Singapore, the principle of their National Education (NE) aptly illustrates a “two-pronged approach” that aims to “develop an awareness of facts, circumstances and opportunities facing Singapore [so that students can] make decisions for their future with conviction and realism” as well as “developing a sense of emotional belonging and commitment to the community and nation” (www.ne.edu.sg). Our version of MNE may not need to instill such a rock-hard patriotism into students as we have no worries regarding national defense according to Basic Law but at least MNE provides a chance for students to critically examine what challenges and situation Hong Kong and China face which is crucial to the success, if not survival, of our next generation. As described by Singaporeans as “a part of holistic education”, such opportunities to encourage critical thinking and productive arguments are lacking in our current education system. Of course, writers of MNE materials should themselves avoid bias and provide information as accurately and objective as possible.

Earlier, I heard some critics heavily condemned the concept of labeling corruption that is

prevalent in mainland China as a “cost” of economic development. This is however entirely a misconception. I don’t see why it is inappropriate to elaborate the phenomenon of corruption with the help of economics especially when “cost” in economics does not contain any value judgment. In fact, economics concepts such as opportunity costs, cost and benefit analysis, externalities and so on help describe vividly the actual situation in mainland China and provide a platform for balanced analysis. Rejecting the adoption of such terms logically contradicts opposition’s strong view for fair and open analysis but exposes their lack of understanding in this academic field (economics).

It i s unfor tunate that in defending the Curriculum, China Daily (Oct 19, 2010) describes national education is indeed a brainwashing activity and draws comparison with religion. Of course nobody would admit that they feel guilty about being a puppet under monoculture popular media since we are all too used to, or conditioned in psychology terms, this mode of information consumption manipulated by major corporations. Likewise, nobody will admit that religion is a brainwashing activity since it is about purifying human’s soul through sacrifice and justice. Thus, comparison of MNE with religion is unsuitable.

Some say that the content of MNE is eerie, for instance it requires students to share their feelings when seeing Chinese sportsmen standing on podiums during Olympics ceremony or learn to sign national anthem. Here, the difference between patriotism and “brainwashing” should not be mixed up. First, the lyrics of the Chinese national anthem carry nothing that points to the Chinese Communist Party (CCP). Indeed, it arouses painful memories that China had endured in the past (e.g. Japanese invasion) and reminds Chinese people that we need to fight for the survival of ourselves and our country. Such content is reminiscent to America’s one (“Star-

09


Spangled Banner”) and much less “narcissist” than UK’s one which explicitly reminds people to serve the Queen (the Monarchy!). In the US, national anthem is sung before every NBA match and people proudly sing together. Is this patriotism or “brainwashing”? If we think that singing national anthem in US is patriotic while signing national anthem is Hong Kong is “brainwashing”, this probably implies Colonial government had already “brainwashed” us for Western superiority. Also, the Chinese version of “God Bless America”, i.e. 歌唱祖國 , though some may argue that the Long March can be inferred, it mostly describes our emotions towards our motherland that cultivation of which cannot be said as wrong or “brainwashing”. Capitalism may have withered people’s awareness of community and through MNE the latter can hopefully be resurrected. I immensely appreciate Scholarism’s effort in promoting citizenship such as cleaning up the beach which is a very good start. However, it should also be noted that they are not pioneers as Government’s “Clean Hong Kong” campaign has been in place for quite a while just that it interests nobody unless it has been transformed into an anti-government tool.

It is unassailable that MNE should make students aware of the dark sides accompanying the growth of China, such as corruption, polarization of wealth and the over-reliance of guan-xi. Issues like extravagant spending related Olympics and high-speed railway accident are also highly debatable. Probably a worse form of “brainwashing” is demonstrated by the US where Presidents reiterate that there are costs incurred to maintain so-called justice and world peace. They would tell people that to protect “the land of the free and the home of the brave”, anti-terrorism can transcend human rights in circumstances ranging from heightened level of personal security procedures at the airport to torturing prisoners at Guantanamo Bay and such costs are necessary that everyone has to share in terms of sacrificing certain rights and

privacy. Besides, through implicit forms of cultivation, American students are taught to believe that American capitalism and democracy, despite conspicuous flaws such as nurturing avaricious bankers and uneven distribution of social resources, are best to sustain liberty and equality which are described as core American value. To avoid such one-sided analysis, our MNE should allow students to discuss issues such as what justice is, comparison of capitalism and communism, and to what extent we can sacrifice for economic growth. I strongly oppose to materials that point to only one side of the picture and it is unfortunate that under-informed people attack the entire MNE curriculum as culpable for the existence of one such material.

Further meaningful discussions on this matter, should there be any, must require the detachment of the wholesale usage of the term “brainwashing” and focus on the content of the curriculum itself. Not only is that such a provocative term helps nothing but arouses a strong sense of opposition (which only fits into politicians’ anti-government agenda), cultivation of a sense of citizenship and awareness of latest challenges surrounding us should not be regarded as a form of “brainwashing”. Like Taiwanese, most Hong Kong people like myself may be more inclined to call ourselves as Hong Kong-er rather than Chinese and thus the MNE curriculum should be careful in exploring such sensitive topic in terms of patriotism.

Let’s refocus our attention to what truly matters. Let’s not object for the sake of objection. More importantly, let’s not have our minds and consciousness kidnapped by politicians who are good at aligning their own interests with manipulated public opinions.

10


Should Palestine be granted Statehood in the United Nations? Vimukthi CalderaBachelor of Social Sciences IThe University of Hong Kong

Palestine, a country with a rich history with both wonderful and not-so-wonderful events became the focus of international concern last year as it made a bid to the United Nations for full membership. Thus far it has been represented in the UN as a political entity with ‘observer’ status which only permits them to ‘observe’ as opposed to being involved in international issues being discussed, and most importantly to vote. However there is considerable amount of debate and controversy surrounding this issue and why it came to be in this status now.

In September 2011, when Palestinian Authority President Mahmoud Abbas made the application to the UN it was well-known that he was requesting Palestine to be recognized as an official State - an attempt by Palestine to request assistance in their struggle against the oppression in the continuing Arab-Israeli Conflict. The Secretary General, Ban Ki-moon, referred this case to the Security Council as the UN body with authority to discuss the issue. The Security Council sought the opinions of the Admissions Committee as mentioned in Rule 59 of the Provisional Rules of Procedure of the Security Council. As is with most other cases, the UN seemed to fail at this matter as well since the Admissions Committee stated that divisions within prevented a unanimous recommendation on the issue. Instead they formulated a Report which seemed to have considered the issue very thoroughly despite its lack of a unanimous decision.

11

The main criterion that must be fulfilled for membership to the UN is Article 4 of the UN Charter. This was confirmed by the Advisory Opinion of the International Court of Justice (ICJ) on the Conditions of Admission of a State to Membership of the UN (28 May 1948). According to Article 4, the country must be:

(1) A peace-loving state (2) Which accepts the obligations of the UN and its Charter (3) And is willing and able to carry this out

When President Mahmoud Abbas made the application, he also presented a letter to the Secretary General stating that Palestine is peace-loving and is ready and willing and able to carry out the obligations of the UN Charter. However, experts claim that this is not valid as the Charter requires much more than verbal confirmation. As such, the Hamas, the current authority in Palestine does not account as entirely ‘peace-loving’ and therefore does not meet the basic criteria for membership.

However, the Committee also considered the issue of granting statehood to Palestine. For this, it referred to the Montevideo Convention on Rights and Duties of States (1933) which stated that there are four basic criteria to be fulfilled by a “State”: have a permanent population, defined territory, a government and its capacity to enter in to relations with other States. Clearly, as the Committee found out, Palestine does fulfill all these criteria.


So what then is the issue and why cannot Palestine be granted membership to the UN? The lack of a unanimous decision by the Admissions committee arose mainly from the fact that the Hamas is not exactly a peace-loving authority despite its simple verbal confirmation. As I mentioned earlier, the UN Charter requests that the applicant demonstrate ‘a commitment to the peaceful settlement of disputes and to refrain from the threat or use of force in the conduct of its international relations’ (Admissions Committee report). However, according to the Advisory Opinion of the ICJ on Namibia (1971), it was stated that acts attributable to a “State” were those of the State’s recognized authority. The Admissions Committee stated the fact that the Hamas maybe the de-facto authority in the Gaza Strip but as a government it controlled only 40% of the population thus making the Palestinian Liberation Organization the official government of Palestine, rather than the Hamas. Furthermore, we must note here that when Israel applied to the UN for membership in 1946, its solemn pledge to carry out the obligations mentioned in the UN Charter was sufficient to grant membership.

Evidence clearly proves that Palestine can be granted membership to the UN along with recognition as a State, yet the UN Security Council seems to be overcomplicating a very simple question. If Israel can be granted Statehood on a simple pledge to carry out the obligations mentioned in the UN Charter, and is still allowed to violate various international laws and treaties in the meantime, Palestine deserves Statehood in the least to assist them in their struggle to gain self-determination and overcome the oppression by the Israelis.

What do you think about this? Is this yet another example of the failure of the UN or an example of domination by veto power nations in the Security Council? Is the UN itself not carrying out the obligations of the UN Charter itself? Overall then, should Palestine be denied membership of the UN and Statehood because of conflicts within the UN? Evidence relates otherwise.

12


To W h a t E x t e n t i s D e m o c r a t i c Consolidation in Taiwan Successful?Matthew L.C. ChoiBachelor of Social Sciences (Government and Laws) IIThe University of Hong Kong

Taiwan is currently the only established democracy in the Greater China Region. While the Taiwanese society is heavily influenced by Chinese culture (Paolino and Meernik 2008:186), Taiwan significantly outperforms other polities in the region in terms of political and civil rights, with Freedom House ratings of 2 and 1 for political rights and civil liberties respectively1. Therefore, the experience of Taiwan, including its success and failure in different aspects, shed light on how other polities in the region should develop their own political institutions, once they begin to democratize.

Based on various literatures and my internship experience in Taipei, it is suggested that, although democratic consolidation in Taiwan is far from completed, especially in the area of political institutionalization, the success of Taiwan lies in the entrenchment of democratic ideas and values among the majority of citizens, which means a return to authoritarianism is unlikely.

1. Democratic Consolidation and its Three Aspects

In the 1990s , a f t e r the “th i rd wave o f democratization” suggested by Huntington (1991), there have been a number of works on transition and democratic consolidation in new democracies.

1. Freedom House, “Freedom in the World 2011”, athttp://www.freedomhouse.org/report/freedom-world/2011/taiwan

Juan Linz and Alfred Stepan (1996) suggests that democratic transition is complete, when“sufficient agreement has been reached about political procedures to produce an elected government, when a government comes to power that is the direct results of a free and popular vote, when this government de facto has the authority to generate new policies, and when the executive, legislative and judicial power generated by the new democracy does not have to share power with other bodies de jure”

In short, when democratic consolidation is completed, democracy has become “the only game in town”. (Linz and Stepan, 1996)

Larry Diamond (1999) defines democratic consolidation as the process when the elites, political organizations and the mass public all embrace democratic norms and beliefs, and eschew anti-democratic behavior in the political realm.

Diamond suggests three tasks that a regime must complete, in order to consolidate a new democracy successfully.

Democratic DeepeningThe first task is democratic deepening, which refers to the efforts of a new democracy to become more liberal, more respectful of citizens’ rights, more accountable and more representative of public preferences and interests.

Political InstitutionalizationThe second task is political institutionalization,

13


14

which refers to the introduction of “routinized, recurrent and predictable patterns of political behavior”.

Political institutionalization comprises of two processes. First, there should be a convergence of attitudes to support the democratic “rules of the game”.

Second, the formal institutions of the regime, for example, the executive, the legislature and the judiciary, must be strengthened to become more autonomous and competent.

Political institutionalization is essential to democratic consolidation, since only with clear rules of the game to which contending political forces can credibly commit themselves, and only with a political system capable of mediating conflicts, trust and cooperation among political actors could then be facilitated, and support to the democratic system among the public could also be built up.

Regime PerformanceThe third element of democratic consolidation concerns regime performance, which refers to the young democracy’s ability to provide the public policy outcomes which the citizens desire.

Democratic governments must win citizens’ support through better performance (Chu, Diamond and Nathan, 2008: 238). If regime performance is poor, the mass public may look nostalgically at the pre-democratic period, and may even welcome appeals from politicians who promise to roll back democratic reforms.

Consequences of Failure in Democratic ConsolidationDiamond (1999) warns that if democratic consolidation fails, deconsolidation may occur. The regime may either revert to authoritarianism, or may reta in the formal appearance of democracy, with the presence of elections and

political parties, but loses the ability to hold elected officials accountable for their actions, provide genuine representation for the public, or to guarantee the rights of citizens.

2. Is Democratic Consolidation in Taiwan Successful?

Political scientists have different views regarding whether Taiwan’s democratization is successful. While Rigger (2004) is extremely optimistic and labels Taiwan’s experience as the “best-case” democratization, Weng (2010) describes Taiwan’s democracy as an “adolescent democracy”, facing a number of salient problems. Others are more pessimistic, with Mattlin (2008:19) commenting that the democratic transition in Taiwan seems to have stuck at a halfway house, and Shih (2008) seeing Taiwan’s democratization a failure.

It is l ikely that different viewpoints are reached, by observing different aspects of Taiwan’s democracy. Therefore, we shall see whether democratic consolidation in Taiwan is successful, from the three aspects of democratic consolidation suggested by Diamond (1999).

3. Political Institutionalization in Taiwan

Political institutionalization comprises of two processes. First, there should be a consensus among political elites and ordinary citizens to comply with and support the “rules of the game”, which allows trust and cooperation between political actors. Second, formal structures of the democratic political system should be strengthened. From both aspects, Taiwan’s political institutionalization is far from completed.

Trust and Cooperation among Political ElitesFirstly, political actors still achieve political objectives by extra-legal means, raising doubts on the political elites’ commitment to democratic procedures. Shelly Rigger (2008) noted in 2004,


15

candidate Chan Lian ( 連戰 ) challenged the presidential election result by calling the election invalid on television, staging a protest to occupy a block of Ketagalan Boulevard (凱特格蘭大道 ) in front of the Presidential Office Building in Taipei, and filing several complaints and lawsuits aimed at overturning the election.

During my visit to the Legislative Yuan, on 12th June 2012, the Legislative Yuan was left dysfunctional as legislators from the opposition Democratic Progressive Party staged a filibuster and slept in sleeping bags in the assembly hall for five consecutive days, in order to prevent the passing of the proposed amendment to the Act Governing Food Sanitation in the Kuomintang-controlled legislature before recess.

The reason for the Democratic Progressive Party to oppose the amendment was legitimate (i.e. to ban the import of beef from the United States containing ractopamine for public health), but the opposition legislators, nevertheless, disrespected the procedures of the legislature. On the other hand, some Kuomintang legislators suggested the use of physical force to remove the opposition legislators, or an executive order by the President to bypass the legislature2. All these highlighted the immaturity of Taiwan’s democracy.

Secondly, Taiwan’s politics remain hyper-competitive, in a “winner-take-all” mode. Politicians act in a way more to gain political advantage, then to advance public policy goals rationally, resulting in incoherence in policy-making after every election (Wong, 2008:289), for example, in the United States beef controversy, the Kuomintang accused the

2. “KMT considers executive order as showdown with opposition over US beef reaches climax”, The China Post, 15/6/2012, at http://www.chinapost.com.tw/taiwan/national/national-news/2012/06/15/344417/KMT-considers.htm

Democratic Progressive Party during former President Chen’s administration of supporting the import of beef, while the Democratic Progressive Party accused President Ma of opposing the import of beef and pork in 2007, before he assumed the presidency3.

Furthermore, in an occasion in the Legislative Yuan, I was told that funding from local governments to different social service providers varies greatly, depending on which party these organizations have affiliation with, and whether the local government is controlled by the ruling party or the opposition.

During the last week of my stay in Taipei, the Democratic Progressive Party accused the executive controlled by Kuomintang of building administrative bodies headed by government officials in counties controlled by the opposition, bypassing the local government4.

Competence of InstitutionsWhile the public has very low level of confidence and satisfaction on the legislature (Tsai, Chen and Yu, 2008, Chang and Chu, 2008), the greatest challenge ahead of Taiwan’s political institutionalizations lies in the building of a competent judiciary.

Although Taiwan has progressed towards an independent and competent judiciary, Weng (2009:116) comments that Taiwan still lacks effective rule of law, and “the mighty and powerful seems to be above the law”. One obvious result is corruption.

3. See the accusations made by both parties against each other, at http://newtalk.tw/news_read.php?oid=26247http://www.libertytimes.com.tw/2012/new/mar/16/today-t2.htm4.“ 國民黨在綠縣市設黨政平台 ”, The Liberty Times, 30/7/2012, at http://www.libertytimes.com.tw/2012/new/jul/30/today-p4.htm?Slots=P


16

Rigger (2008:254) suggests that corruption is resulted, since elected and appointed officials have access to state resources, which highlights the structural problem of ineffective law enforcement against corruption, especially the poor performance of the Agency Against Corruption and loopholes in existing laws.

According to the Taiwan’s Elect ion and Democratization Study (Wang, 2008:93), the prevailing perception among the public is that corruption in Taiwan is a widespread problem, with a significant number of government officials involved.

During my eight-week stay in Taiwan, two corrupt ion scanda l which involved top government officials unfolded. First, the head of a Taiwanese recycling company accused the Cabinet Secretary-General of accepting bribes in exchange for help securing procurement contracts5, before the Next Magazine accused the vice president of involving in the scandal6.

Second, the Chiayi County Commissioner from the opposition, with her predecessor, were investigated for their alleged involvement in a corruption scandal linked to a herbal medicine biotech park project7.

5. “Taiwan Leader’s Approval Ratings Tumble”, The Wall Street Journal, 10/7/2012 http://blogs.wsj.com/chinarealtime/2012/07/10/taiwan-leaders-approval-ratings-reach-new-low-amid-scandal/6. “VP refutes bribery, KMT chairmanship conspiracy”, The China Post, 19/7/2012, at http://www.chinapost.com.tw/taiwan/national/national-news/2012/07/19/348104/VP-refutes.htm7. “Ex, current Chiayi chiefs engulfed in huge graft probe”, The China Post, 1/8/2012, at http://www.chinapost.com.tw/taiwan/national/national-news/2012/08/01/349513/Ex-current.htm

4. Regime Performance in Taiwan

Given Taiwan’s stagnation in economic growth since the early 2000s, the regime performance of Taiwan is hardly satisfactory.

Rigger (2008:266) commented that, during the period of divided government after the first transition of executive power, both the ruling Democratic Progressive Party, and the opposition Kuomintang, were to be blamed for Taiwan’s economic misery. While the government under President Chen was inexperienced and incompetent, the Kuomintang was seen as “obstructionist”, and was responsible for the deadlock in the legislature (Wong 2008:289).

The most obvious recurring theme in local newspapers during my eight-week stay, regardless of the newspapers’ political positions, was the low level of popularity of President Ma Ying-jeou, amid public anger over rising oil and electricity prices and the controversy over a capital gains tax. The TVBS opinion poll in July showed Ma’s approval rating had dropped to only 15%8.

5. Democratic Deepening in Taiwan

One should be pessimistic towards Taiwan’s democratic consolidation, based on the zero-sum game between the two major parties, the highly visible cases of corruption, and the democracy’s poor regime performance. However, in the following, I suggest that the success of Taiwan’s democratic consolidation lies in the expansion of rights, and the entrenchment of democratic values among the public.

8. See the results of the opinion polls by TVBS and Taiwan Thinktank, at http://blogs.wsj.com/chinarealtime/2012/07/10/taiwan-leaders-approval-ratings-reach-new-low-amid-scandal/http://www.chinapost.com.tw/taiwan/national/national-news/2012/07/23/348494/President's-approval.htm


17

Taiwan has been, overall, successful in the process of democratic deepening.

First, the democracy of Taiwan performs well on representativeness, as full election for the legislature and the presidency were held since 1994 and 1996 respectively. Currently, the 113 seats in the Legislative Yuan are elected according to a “two votes, single seat district” system, in which every voter has a vote for a candidate in a single seat district, and another vote for a party (Weng, 2010).

Second, there is strong accountability among government institutions, with effective checks and balances in Taiwan’s political system based on the Constitution of the Republic of China (Rigger, 2008).

My main observation in the Legislative Yuan is that government officials are seen to be respectful and accountable to legislators.

I was surprised during a public hearing on corruption of government officials, since two-thirds of those who attended the meeting were officials from the Agency Against Corruption, Ministry of Justice, the Public Prosecutor and law courts, and they frankly discussed the problems related to their work, despite the fact that the public hearing was organized by Legislator Ou-Po Chen from the opposition, amid the corruption scandal of the former Secretary of Cabinet.

Furthermore, in a press release by legislator Shei-Saint Chen, criticizing the Ministry of Education for failing to protect students of public schools from sexual abuse, I was surprised to see an official from the Ministry of Education being present in the press release to respond to Legislator Chen’s comments.

Third, the citizens in Taiwan enjoy extensive civil rights and liberties. Freedom House rated Taiwan

as one of the freest society in Asia9.

Fourth, Joseph Wong (2008:273) observes that Taiwan performs well on human rights and social rights, stating that significant progress has been made by the government in the protection of gay and lesbian rights.

I visited two leading sexual minorities’ rights advocacy groups as noted by Wong (2008), namely, the Taiwan Tongzhi Hotline Association, which mainly provides services to sexual minorities, and the Gender/Sexuality Rights Association Taiwan, a social activists group.

During my visits, I was extremely interested in how these two organizations, as actors in Taiwan’s vigorous civil society, interact with the government in a democratic society. While the Taiwan Tongzhi Hotline Association mainly works on counseling and publications, GSRAT takes a more confrontational approach, such as to demonstrate disregarding the Parade and Assembly Law, and challenge government actions in court.

The Secretary of GSRAT also told me about the organization’s cooperation and conflicts with the municipal government of Taipei then under Ying-jeou Ma. What I was told is consistent with Joseph Wong’s observation (2008:280), that after Taiwan’s democratization, the political game changes from one of suppressing dissent to one of winning support, therefore, the government has been increasingly willing to engage with organizations within the civil society.

6. Democratic Deepening and Social Welfare

Joseph Wong (2008:272) suggests that there is

9. Freedom House, “Freedom in the World 2011”, athttp://www.freedomhouse.org/report/freedom-world/2011/taiwan


a social and economic dimension of democratic deepening, besides the expansion of civil and political rights.

Wong (2006) further argues that, although democracy is a “double-edged sword” on the advancement of social welfare, in the sense that democracy results in severe constraints on rational decision-making, (Wong notes the example of the Taiwan government’s reluctance to increase the premium rates for the National Health Insurance due to pressure from electorates, despite the fact that the scheme is now in huge deficit), democracy is, nevertheless, conducive to better social welfare provision.

He argues that, in theory, political parties must respond to the pressure of the public during elections, and in reality, both the democratization in Taiwan and South Korea in the 1980-90s corresponded with a period of rapid expansion of social welfare.

Moreover, Wong (2008:282) suggests that, because of the non-ideological nature of Taiwan’s party system, unlike most European states, which have pro-labour and conservative parties across the spectrum, the contesting issues during elections concerns how much improvements in social welfare should be made, but not that whether there should be any improvements in social welfare.

In the following, we shall see how the democratic political system in Taiwan brings about progress in social welfare, using the example of the advocacy of rights of the disabled.

7. How Taiwan’s Democracy is at work: Protection of Rights of the Disabled

The following is based on my two-week field study in the Legislative Yuan, the legislature of Taiwan. I observed the work of an assistant of Legislator Yang Yu-Hsin, from the ruling

Kuomintang, who works predominantly on protection of the rights of the socially disadvantaged.

It is worth noting that the disabled are, at least in principle, much respected in Taiwan. Besides a number of constitutional guarantees and legislations to expressly guarantee their rights10 , there is a noted difference in terminology between Hong Kong and Taiwan. I learned that the term “ 殘疾人士 ”, commonly used in Hong Kong, is considered discriminatory, thus the term “mentally and physically disabled” ( 身心障礙者 ) is preferred in Taiwan.

In the following, three specific ways by which the legislature works to protect the rights of the disabled, namely the drafting of legislations, public hearings and closed-door meetings, are discussed.

LegislationCompared with the Legislative Council in Hong Kong, where the power of legislators to introduce bills is limited, a wide range of bills may be introduced to the Legislative Yuan both by the Executive Yuan, the executive of Taiwan, and the legislators. Legislators may even submit bills before the executive has ever submit its own version of the bill, for example, the long-term care insurance bill ( 長期照護保險法 ) was submitted in April 2012, two years ahead of the schedule of the executive.

The assistant of Legislator Yang, whom work I observed, worked mainly on drafting and revising two bills, one to regulate long-term care service providers, and one to create a public insurance scheme to fund long-term care services.

Both pieces of legislation aim to provide a legal

10. For example, Additional Article 10 of the Constitution of the Republic of China, “ 身心障礙者權益保障法 ”

18


basis for better financing and regulations of long term care services, when Taiwan faces the challenges from an aging population. According to the Executive Yuan, as in 2010, over 2.48 million was above the age of 65, and over 440 thousand need long term care services11.

After a bill is introduced, for example, the long term care service bill that I studied, there are vivid discussions during meetings in the legislature, public hearings, and meetings between legislators and academics. Different versions of the bill were submitted, as legislators engaged with the electorate and develop their own standpoints. As on 3rd August, 2012, eight versions of the bill have been submitted to the Legislative Yuan.

Public HearingOn 2nd July, Legislator Tsai Chin-Lung and Yang organized a 2-hour public hearing, inviting representatives of stakeholders of the proposed legislation to introduce a long-term care insurance scheme. About 50 representatives from government departments, organizations representing the elderly and the disabled, and hospitals attended the public hearing.

I made three major observations. Firstly, the government officials, which accounted for one-third of all who attended the meeting, sincerely answered questions and gave detailed clarifications. The government officials were respectful to the legislators, not only since public hearings have been an established practice, but also since it is stipulated in law (“Law Governing the Legislative Yuan`s Power”) that government officials have a duty to attend public hearings.

Second, over 20 representatives from hospitals attended the public hearing, forming the largest

11. “2010 年至 2060 年台灣人口推估報告 ”，行政院經建會 (cited in Legislator Tsai and Yang’s agenda of the public hearing)

group of representatives. Although they appeared to be expressing their own views on the proposed legislation, they were likely to be protesting against the medical insurance scheme in Taiwan, which, according to them, brought considerable hardship for them to balance their revenue with the expenditures. This is consistent with the findings of Wong (2006),that policy options in a democracy is severely constrained, especially when politically powerful groups are obstacles to further reforms in social welfare.

Third, ordinary citizens in the meeting gave constructive suggestions. For example, a nutritionist suggested ways to provide healthy diets to long-term care service recipients.

Closed-door Meeting between Legislator, Government Officials and the Public

On 3rd July, I attended a closed-door meeting between Legislator Yang and her assistants, three representatives of parents of students with learning disabilities, and five government officials from the Ministry of Examination.

The mee t ing was t e rmed“coord ina t ion meeting”( 協調會 ), which aims to coordinate specific matters, for example, redesigning the form for applying special treatment in public examinations. My main finding was that the meeting was an effective means of problem solving, since government officials responded to questions sincerely, and were working for viable solutions, balancing the interests of different stakeholders, including students with learning disabilities, other students, schools and government departments.

In sho r t , the e f f e c t o f democracy and advancements in social welfare in Taiwan, from my observations, is three-fold. First, government officials are held accountable to the legislature. Second, legislators feel compelled to facilitate changes because of pressure from elections. Third,

19


ordinary citizens have faith in the democratic procedures, as a channel for expressing their opinions and bringing about changes.

Hence, my observations are consistent with the findings of Joseph Wong (2006, 2008), that democracy is a boost to advancements in social welfare, and the work of Robert Dahl (1989, 1998), that democracy fosters effective participation of citizens in the decision-making process.

8. Mass a t t i tudes in Taiwan towards Democracy

One of my observations in my stay in Taipei was that Taiwanese people that I had conversation with, in general, had negative impression towards the actual practice of democracy in Taiwan.

My observation is consistent with the results of a number of surveys, such as the Asia Barometer Survey in 2001 and 2006, the Taiwan’s Election and Democratization Study in 2001 and 2004, and the World Values Survey.

The prevailing view of the people of Taiwan is two-fold and seemingly contradictory. On one hand, just as what I observed, there is much dissatisfaction towards democracy in actual practice (Paolino and Meernik, 2008: 90), with strong distrust towards the legislature (Tsai, Chen and Yu, 2008:239). But on the other hand, there is overwhelming support for democratic principles and values.

In Taiwan’s Election and Democratization Study in 2004, over 80% of the respondents agreed with the statement that “democracy may have problems, but it is still the best system” (Wang, 2008:90). More promis ing i s the re su l t tha t , the overwhelming majority of citizens in Taiwan support the democratic way of life, irrespective

of their different ideological orientations (Wang, 2008:99).

Therefore, as Rigger (2008:266) suggests, although the majority of the public in Taiwan have negative impression of democracy’s actual performance, there is little desire to abandon democracy. Weng (2009:138) also comments that the value of democracy is accepted by the whole Taiwanese society.

According to Meernik and Paulino (2008:1), the development of attitudes that support democratic institutions is a necessary part of the democratization process. If broad segments of both the public and elites support the democratic government, then democracy should be on stable ground. Chu, Diamond and Nathan (2008:246) similarly suggest that deep and resilient public commitment is vital to democratic consolidation, while the works of Linz and Stepan (1996) and Diamond (1999) also suggest the importance of changes in mass beliefs during democratic consolidation. As Diamond states (1999:21), “the core process of consolidation is legitimation”.Wang (2008:97) comments that, considering that Taiwan lifted martial law in 1987, and held the first presidential election in 1996, the overwhelming public support for democracy is “an impressive political achievement”. Ming-Sho Ho (2010:63) also finds a mutually empowering relationship between the island’s vigorous civil society and its democratic political institutions. Therefore, as Meernik and Paulino (2009:9) suggest, Taiwan is well-positioned to complete its democratic consolidation, from the perspective of mass belief.

9 . C o n c l u s i o n : Ta i w a n’s D e m o c ra t i c Consolidation and Implications for Hong Kong

In conclusion, on one hand, Taiwan’s democracy has yet to build up institutions to effectively curb corruption, achieve the public policy outcomes that the public desire, and democratic norms and

20


procedures has yet to be “the only game in town” among the political elites.

However, on the other hand, Taiwan’s democratic consolidation has achieved impressive results, in terms of the entrenchment of democratic values among the public, and the protection of civil and political rights, given that Taiwan had never been under a democratic regime until the past two decades.

What are the implications from Taiwan’s experience for Hong Kong, on the way of embracing full democracy? The Asian Barometer Survey revealed that, compared to Taiwan, the majority of citizens in Hong Kong shows even greater support for democracy, and a half of the respondents rejected all forms of authoritarian alternatives to democracy. As Lam and Kuan (2008:188) suggests, Hong Kong stands out for its “readiness for democracy”.

Furthermore, Hong Kong has its reputation of a sound legal system, which was hailed as a model to effectively curb corruption, by lawyers and academics in the public hearing on anti-corruption efforts that I attended in the Legislative Yuan.

Therefore, one should be optimistic about the future democratic consolidation in Hong Kong, if Hong Kong fully democratizes, provided that a clear consensus is reached among political elites and the public on democratic norms and rules, and Hong Kong maintains its autonomous and competent judiciary.

ReferencesChang, Yu-tzung and Chu, Yun-han, “How Citizens View Taiwan’s New Democracy”, in Chu, Yun-han (ed.), How East Asians view democracy, New York : Columbia University Press (2008), pp. 83-113

Chen, Tsung-fu, “The Rule of Law in Taiwan: Culture, Ideology, and Social Change”, in Hsu, C. Stephen (ed.), Understanding China's legal system : essays in honor of Jerome A. CohenNew York : New York University (2003), pp. 374-410

Cheng, Joseph Y.S., “Democratization in Hong Kong”, in Bridges, Brian and Ho, Lok-Sang (eds.), Public governance in Asia and the limits of electoral democracy, Cheltenham : Edward Elgar (2010), pp. 147-171

Chu, Yun-han, Diamond, Larry and Nathan, Andrew J., “Conclusion: Values, Regime Performance and Democratic Consolidation”, in Chu, Yun-han (ed.), How East Asians view democracy, New York : Columbia University Press (2008), pp. 238-258

Dahl, Robert A., Democracy and its CriticsNew Haven : Yale University Press (1989)

Dahl, Robert A. , On DemocracyNew Haven : Yale University Press (1998)

Diamond, Larry Jay, Developing democracy : toward consolidation, Baltimore, Md. ; London : Johns Hopkins University Press (1999)

Gong, Ting and Ma, Stephen K. (eds.) , Preventing corruption in Asia : institutional design and policy capacity, London ; New York : Routledge (2009)

Ho, Ming-Sho, “Civil society and democracy-making in Taiwan: reexamining the link”, in Yin-wah and Wong, Siu-lun (eds.), East Asia's new democracies : deepening, reversal, non-liberal alternatives, London ; New York : Routledge (2010), pp. 43-64

Huntington, Samuel P., The third wave : democratization in the late twentieth centuryNorman : University of Oklahoma Press, 1991

21


Lam, Wai-man and Kuan, Hsin-chi, “Democratic Transition Frustrated: The Case of Hong Kong”, in Chu, Yun-han (ed.), How East Asians view democracy, New York : Columbia University Press (2008), pp. 187-208

Linz, Juan José and Stepan, Alfred C., “Toward Consolidated Democracies”, Journal of Democracy 7.2 (1996) pp.14-33

Luo, Changfa, The legal culture and system of Taiwan The Hague : Kluwer Law International (2006)

Mattlin, Mikael, Politicized society : the long shadow of Taiwan's one-party legacy, Copenhagen : NIAS Press (2011)

Pa o l i n o , P h i l i p a n d Me e r n i k , J a m e s , “Introduction”, in Paolino, Philip and Meernik, James (eds.), Democratization in Taiwan : challenges in transformation, Aldershot, England ; Burlington, VT : Ashgate, (2008), pp.1-10

Pa o l i n o , P h i l i p a n d Me e r n i k , J a m e s , “Conclusion”, in Paolino, Philip and Meernik, James (eds.), Democratization in Taiwan : challenges in transformation, Aldershot, England; Burlington, VT : Ashgate, (2008), pp.183-188

Rigger, Shelly, Politics in Taiwan : voting for democracy, London ; New York : Routledge (1999)

R i g g e r, S h e l l e y, “ Ta i w a n’s B e s t - C a s e Democratization”, Orbis volume 48 number 2, pp.285-292 (Spring 2004)

Rigger, Shelley, “The Unfinished Business of Taiwan’s Democratization”, in, Fell, Dafydd (ed.), The politics of modern Taiwan, London : Routledge (2008), volume 2, pp.243-271

Shih, Chih-yu, “The Global Constitution of Taiwan Democracy: Opening up the Image of

a Successful State after 911”, in, Fell, Dafydd (ed.), The politics of modern Taiwan, London : Routledge (2008), volume 2, pp.322-340Tilly, Charles, Democracy, Cambridge, [England] ; New York : Cambridge University Press (2007)

Tsai, Chia-hung, Chen, Lu-huei, Yu, Ching-hsin, “Comparing consensus on Taiwan democracy among the mass public and elites” in Paolino, Philip and Meernik, James (eds.), Democratization in Taiwan : challenges in transformation, Aldershot, England ; Burlington, VT : Ashgate, (2008), pp.71-86

Wang, T.Y., “Democratic commitment in Taiwan: an analysis of survey data”, in Paolino, Philip and Meernik, James (eds.), Democratization in Taiwan : challenges in transformation. Aldershot, England ; Burlington, VT : Ashgate, (2008), pp.87-104

Weng, Byron S.J., “A Short History of Taiwan’s Democracy Movement”, in Bridges, Brian and Ho, Lok-Sang (eds.), Public governance in Asia and the limits of electoral democracy. Cheltenham : Edward Elgar (2010), pp. 115-146

Wong, Joseph, Healthy democracies : welfare politics in Taiwan and South Korea, Ithaca, New York : Cornell University Press ; Bristol : University Presses Marketing (2006)

Wong, Joseph, “Deepening Democracy in Taiwan”, in Fell, Dafydd (ed.), The politics of modern Taiwan, London : Routledge (2008), volume 2, pp.272-294

江 , 亮演 , 身心障礙者福利臺北市 : 松慧 (2007)

王 , 英津 , 台湾地区政治体制分析北京市 : 九州 , 2010

22


Functions Review

The Cambridge-HKU-PKU-Princeton Debate and High Table Dinner

八九十後．超級區議員選舉論壇

23


Orientation Camps

Career Talk

Functions Review

24


Welfare Distribution

Annual Dinner

時事論壇 : 百日維新？新政府管治危機與前路

Functions Review

25


Notes________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________

26


Notes

27

________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________


Acknowledgements亞洲週刊

地址 : 香港柴灣嘉業街 18 號明報工業中心 A 座 15 樓

Submission of ArticlesThe SRPS welcomes articles on political science or public administration, as well as commentaries on current affairs and political incidents written by students. Articles on any topic with any stance are welcome. Please feel free to send us an e-mail to [email protected] should you have any enquiries.

META Magazine

電話：2111 5882地址：香港九龍新蒲崗大有街 1 號勤達中心 21 樓 2107 室

Egg Optical Boutique

Facebook page : h t t p s : / / w w w . f a c e b o o k . c o m /EggOpticalBoutique

Go and find out special offers!

Fotomax

28

Address:c/o Department of Politics and Public Administration,The University of Hong Kong,Pokfulam Road,Hong Kong

Website: http://www.hku.hk/ppaaE-mail: [email protected]

the hong kong student review of political science fall 2012

Documents