Administration absorption of politics is a political strategy to increase legitimacy through elite cooptation. The colony government recruits and appoints the businessmen into the government administrative structure as Legislative Councilors and Executive Councilors and committee members of various boards of administration. It can resolve the problem of elite-mass integration and stabilize the social-economic well-being while the common interests and demand of the capitalist class can be represented and considered in policy-making.
Before 1985, Hong Kong had no elected representation in its two highest policy-making bodies, Legislative Council and Executive Council. Administration absorption of politics is first introduced to solve the first and the second crisis of legitimacy and later became the tradition. At the first crisis of legitimacy in 1840s, British merchants press the already minimal and laissez-faire government for tax reduction and government spending. The government resolved the problem through co-opting two prominent members from British merchant houses into the Legislative Council in 1850 so as to taking the interests and demands of the merchants into account during government policy making.
At the second crisis in 1880s, the British merchants developed into an even more powerful social group and demanded for free election of representatives of British nationality to the Legislative Council. However, if universal suffrage granted to British nationals, it might provoke the Chinese and could not balance the interest of all parties; and if the suffrage was granted to all property holders, a sizeable amount of wealthy Chinese merchants might dominant the government, which is a greater disaster. Therefore, the government rejected the idea but appointed 2 prominent businessmen to the Executive Council in 1896 so as to resolve the dissatisfaction.
Administration absorption of politics, YC King and SK Lau believed, is a way to neutralize the social-political forces of the capitalists as the capitalists appointed into government have to be dependent on the government’s privilege. But KP Leung believed that the co-opted capitalist can also be benefited from the administration absorption of politics as they had extensive and important control over Hong Kong economy through interlocking directorship which linked a very large number of capitalist companies together.
The administration absorption of politics first was for the British, later for the Chinese capitalists as the Chinese community could be expected to identify with their co-opted leaders and hence to comply with colony rule. However, the co-option of members of Chinese elites became outdated in 1950s and 1960s since the large part of the population was made up of the mass of refugees at that time and they knew little about these elites. Therefore, the colony government set up the City District Committees Scheme as the extension of the administrative absorption of politics at the grass-roots level in 1970s.
“Minimally integrated social-political system”
Minimally integrated social-political system is the utilitarianistic familial ethos, which refers to one of the social and political phenomena in Hong Kong, expressed by SK Lau so as to explain why the Hong Kong was stable during the rapid social changes like rapid industrialization and rapid population growth between early 1950s and mid-1970s.
In Hong Kong, the basic structural components of the society were the bureaucratic polity and the Chinese families compartmentalized from other social groups. There was lack of integration between two components because of the governance style and the value of the Chinese families. The political system in Hong Kong was undemocratic and indifferent to the population which made the population politically powerless, at the same time the population turned to their own family for assistance to solve material problem, reinforcing familistic practices and values as utilitarianistic family.
On one hand, the government adopted non-interventionist approach which makes economic matters outsides jurisdiction and the responsibility of the government so as to depoliticize the Chinese community and make the autonomous bureaucratic polity exempting from influence from other social-economic forces. The government was both unable and unwilling to adequately provide for needs of rapidly expanding population and did not meddle with customary values and practices of the Chinese community.
On the other hand, the utilitarianistic families placed the material pursuits and interests of the family above other concerns like politic which results low civic consciousness and low social participation. The local Chinese population emphasized on self-reliance, political apathy and was averse to the intervention by the government under the traditional Chinese value. The arriving refugees from China rural were only seeking a safe haven in a “borrowed time and borrowed place” for stability and quick material gains. They relied on the material support and the economic advancement from their family and kinsfolk and the “family network” which extended boundary of family to the distant relations and even friends rather than asked for government support.
Since the government had no interest to intervene the Chinese community and the Chinese community solved their problem themselves within familial context, there was very few integration between government and Chinese community which formed a minimally integrated social-political system. Therefore, both government and Chinese community co-existed peacefully and they were “boundary conscious” and wary of “intrusion” from the each other. This system became outdated when the government was taking up a greater role in social and welfare provision in the mid 70s.
And if thou with, remember;
and if thou with, forget.
Their two plus two does not equal four. Their two plus two equals whatever they want us to die for.
無信來，落選了。
