12 Democratic development and the changing engagement of social work in Hong Kong Races Begum Baig Introduction This chapter will explore the various ways in which social workers in Hong Kong have, or have not, engaged with political issues, often involving social welfare advocacy approaches. It begins with an historical overview of the Brit- ish colonial experience leading to the beginning of decolonisation in the late 1970s ‘The chapter highlights the way that goverments and civil society struggled to come to terms with issues of human rights protection and deme- cratisation, and how social workers started to become part of what has been described as the Umbrella Movement, arguably the most significant political action in Hong Kong in the twenty-first century, Ever since the negotiation of ‘the change of sovereignty, the colonial government took the initiative in democratisation and introduced partial democracy in 1980s. However, after the handover, the Chinese government and the Hong Kong Special Administrative Region (HKSAR) government were reluctant to progress with the democrati- sation, Such reluctance triggered the public to use a democratic movement to confront the Chinese sovereign state. The Sino-British Joint Declaration opened up the possibility of universal suffrage as a form of democratisation in Hong Kong, and democratic movements have intensified. The chapter uses this con- ‘text, in particular the ideas that challenge the move from partially representa- tive democracy constructed by the government to deliberative democracy led by the public, to explore how social workers became involved in this situation, of political conflict and shared hopes for democratisation. Such changes occurred not only because of the impact of the democratic movement, but also ‘an awareness of international influences on the development of the social work profession in Hong Kong, bearing in mind the experience of social workers in other regions of conflict, Colonialism, sovereign states and democratisation in Hong Kong It is important to examine the history of colonialisation in Hong Kong in order to understand how social work policy and practice has developed. Under the British ‘Crown colony government’ system, the representative ofSocial work in Hong Kong 157 the Crown had the ultimate power in delivering health, social care and other forms of local administration (Lau, 1997). Hong Kong was granted a Royal Charter which declazed that Hong Kong was a separate colony which inclu- ded a Legislative Council and an Executive Council as part of this colonial process. The governor administered the colony alongside the Executive ‘Council (which acted as the personal advisory body), the Legislative Council (which members of both were selected and appointed by the governor) and assisted by the civil servants. The structure of the Crown colony government ‘was designed to ensure total control by the coloniser and thus prevented most forms of public involvement in the administration. A small number of British administrators assumed total control and had the effect of minimising any chance that the Hong Kong population could grasp power and direct the ulairs of the colony (Baig, 2012). om the early colonial period beginning in 1842 and to the 1960s, the general public was grossly underrepresented in the government and policy ‘was formed by ideologies of economic laissez-faire and executive-led decision- making. The colonial government justified these principles by highlighting achievements of economic prosperity and stability. This was matched by social policies that espoused minimal involvement of the state and depen- dence on voluntary and community sector provision of health and social welfate services. In the post-Second World War period, the social and poli- tical systems began a process of change, coinciding with pressures for demo- cratic accountability. Yet many of the problems of a democratic deficit remained. Policies tended to be delivered despite the disengagement of the government from the community, causing a separation of functions of state ‘and society; and resulted in the establishment of political elites. These elites populated the Legislative Council, Executive Council and the advisory bodies (Faure, 2003). Few channels were available for public discussion and political action in @ context where legal and administrative practices were prescribed by the British colonial power. An obvious representation of this power was the maintenance of English as the lingua franca, and predominant language for the administration, as well as key social and commercial interests. This hhad the effect of preventing Hong Kong Chinese citizens becoming part of, and understanding the administration of, the colony (Ma, 2007). ‘Towards representative democracy during the late colonial period By the 1960s this eatlier sense of political stability became less manageable, ‘An important demographic factor in the changing nature of the colony were the growing numbers of refugees from mainland China escaping from com- ‘munist rule, These Chinese settlers tended to have a strong refugee identity, as outsiders seeking refuge in Hong Kong, whilst having little citizenship rights ‘with which to negotiate with the government (Ngo, 1997; Ma, 2007). How- ‘ever, the second generation of these settlers started to develop strong ties with Hong Kong society. Discontentment against the colonial government158 Races Begum Baig increased a the public became more aware of social needs that were being frustrated by political exclusion. The unspoken agreement between the gov- ferment and society on the basis of ‘no democracy, laissez-faire, and little welfare’ was gradually undermined, partially by ensuing political actions that challenged racial segregation against the local Chinese. Riots during the late 1960s and early 1970s initiated by the younger generation were originally struggles for national identities and against the suppression of ‘Chineseness’ under colonial governance (Baig, 2012). In response, the government expan+ ded the appointment of Legislative Council and advisory bodies. Aggressive ‘administrative absorption’ was applied, for example leading to the appoint- ment of pressure group leaders to the Legislative Council, including social workers amongst a range of professionals. In parallel the government initiated reforms to welfare policy by making substantial commitments on public housing, education and social welfare. ‘These shifts in public administration, partially widening political repre- sentation, coincided with a profound and lasting moment in the colonial experience: the ending of British rule in 1997. As a way of preparing for self governance the administration prepared the ground for the acquisition of new political rights for Hong Kong citizens (Wacks, 1992). Yet despite the aspira- tions of the departing colonial power, the return of sovereignty to China was characterised by limited changes to the political system, During the negotia- tions with China leading to the Sino-British Joint Declaration (Joint Declaration) (HKSAR Constitutional and Mainland Aflairs Bureau, 2007), ‘the British were able to add in a few clauses which stipulated the election for ‘the Legislative Council, and this started the electoral practice in Hong Kong. The negotiation on the Joint Declaration in 1984 can be viewed a water shed moment. Hong Kong society started to be more aware of the potency of social and political change, leading to the formation of pressure groups and ‘new political parties, The 4 June massacre in Tiananmen Square in 1989 tended to reinforce the call by parties in Hong Kong for more consistent approaches to the protection of human rights and democracy when the Brit- ish were to withdraw (Bowie, 1990), Alongside the principles of the Joint Declaration, the obligations under international treaties, particularly the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights (ICCPR), and the International Covenant on Economic, Social and Cultural Rights (ICESCR), were retrieved and made known to the public (HKSAR Constitutional and Mainland Affairs Bureau, 2007). This had the effect of a greater public appreciation of the importance of these safeguards for Hong Kong society (Lau, 1997). The expectations were also matched by fears that, as the 1980s ended, the political system would not be fully democratised, The negotiation process that led to the Joint Declaration excluded Hong Kong interests when the Basic Law Drafting Committee was being populated. ‘The effect was to reinforce older, historical experiences of social and political exclusion in the colony. This lack of representation in the administrative pro= ‘cesses tended to galvanise pressure groups and wider civil society to pushSocial work in Hong Kong 159 harder for political reform, This occurred at the time when the Legislative Council for the enactment of the Bill of Rights Ordinance sought to safe- guard social and political rights of Hong Kong people after the change of sovereignty in 1997. Finally the Bill of Rights Ordinance was passed on 5 June 1991 and direct election of the Legislative Council was introduced in 1991 which also prompted the development of the pro-democracy camp (AKSAR Constitutional and Mainland Affairs Bureau, 2008). However this optimism for changes to the electoral system was unfulfilled, What emerged was a partial democratic process where many appointment seats remained and not all elected scats were filled using open election processes. Interestingly some seats were dedicated to professional sectors under the functional constituency principle. From representative to deliberative democracy Afier the handover, Hong Kong continues to be governed by China using the principle of ‘One Countries, Two Systems’. Although Hong Kong has a cer- tain degree of autonomy in terms of self-governance, policy making is largely determined by sovereign state. There are at least seven major areas that the Chinese government exerts influence on: democracy; legitimacy; political control; bureaucratic politics; planning and fiscal perspectives; instrumental perspectives; and the vantage point of perception (Lo, 2001). This over- arching sense of power and prescription in the policy making process con- ‘tinues in the twentyefirst century. In 2003, the HKSAR government sought to ‘enact the national security law (Article 23 of the Basic Law, the Constitution which governs HKSAR). The national security law was perceived to be a fundamental interference by the Chinese government on Hong Kong's civil and political freedoms and autonomy, leading to widespread protest by 500,000 citizens which in turn influenced and shaped the nascent democratic movement (Kwong, 2016), Perhaps because of these pressures, afler an appeal for universal sullrage in accordance with Articles 45 and 68 of the Basic Law by the pan-democrats ‘and their supporters, the Standing Committee of the National People’s ‘Congress (NPCSC) of China finally adopted the decision, that Appropriate amendments may be made to the specific method for select- ing the fourth Chief Executive and the specific method for forming the fifth term Legislative Council of the HKSAR in the year of 2012, The election of the fifth Chief Executive of the HKSAR in the year 2017 may be implemented by the method of universal sulfrage; that after the Chief Executive is selected by universal sullrage; the election of the Legislative Council of the HKSAR may be implemented by the method of electing all the members by universal suffrage. (HKSAR Government, 2009, 42)160 Races Begum Baig This volte face appeared to introduce an optimistic moment that Hong Kong ‘could gain universal suffrage; one measure, the election of the chief executive in 2017 and the Legislative Council in 2020, reinforced this sense of opti- ‘ism, Shifts in attitudes in civil society intensified the activities of the emer- gent Democratic Movement in preparation for what was hoped to be a democratic election. The Occupy Central with Love and Peace (OCLP) ‘movements were initiated in February 2013 by Benny Tai, a law professor at the University of Hong Kong. Thereafter the OCLP organised a seties of public education seminars and few ‘Deliberation Days’ aiming to draw the attention of the public about demands for universal suilkage and public discussions on political reform (But, 2013; Cheung and Chong, 2014), However, while the public was generally prepared for universal sulfrage, the political reform package that informed the electoral system tabled by the NPCSC on 31 August 2014 stated that ‘a Hong Kong Chief Executive can- idate has to “love the country and love Hong Kong” (SCMP, 2014, 1). Itis apparent that the statement implied that there would be no election of gov erment based on universal suffrage, rather a political provess that would be screened by the Chinese government. With a lack of commitment in fulfilling the promise of democratisation, more protest social movements emerged when university and secondary school students statted to boycott classes 10 demonstrate anger at this sense of betrayal. They occupied government headquarters, later supported by thousands of citizens after the police fired twargases, This in turn sparked further protest, in particular through the emergence of the Umbrella Movement where thousands of people occupied few business districts for seventy-nine days, calling for democratisation and even an independent of Hong Kong freed from the Chinese sovereign state. Social work, human rights and democratic principles It is this context of historical and political change, and past colonial and more recent neo-colonial processes, that inform how social work emerged in Hong Kong. Although it is difficult to generalise, it will be argued in the second half of this chapter that issues of human rights, democracy and social work practices have intertwining relationships with each other. The period since the end of the Second World War in particular was characterised by changing social work practices that were informed by rights-based approa- ‘ches, Marshall's (1964) pioneering discourse on citizenship is pertinent in this respect. He argued for the need to draw upon human tights frameworks to demonstrate the interdependence of social, civil and political rights that may be protected or denied by the state. His use of three domains of citizenship in terms of social, civil and political rights, he believed, could guarantee the recognition of status of individual by the state and ensure full participation in ‘the society. It is important that social and economic assurance by the state is needed before citizens can gain access to formal political rights; conversely civil and political rights are necessary for citizens to demand social rightsSocial work in Hong Kong 161 ‘according to the standards prevailing in the society’ (Marshall, 1964, 72; Castles and Davidson, 2000). It can be argued that, to ensure the entitlement of the three forms of citi- zenship, an inclusive and democratic political system is necessarily built. A ‘democratic system not only can ensure the civil and political rights of citizens ‘under the rules of equal distribution of political power, it should also be the platform where public interest and citizens’ concerns are used to address def- icits in the political structure, A well-defined democratic system that ensures the equal participation of its citizens should make the government accoun- lable to the public by presenting policies that respect the livelihood of its citizens and build community solidarity (Heywood, 2000; Kaminski, 2015), In the post-war period, social workers and their organisations sought to ‘embed these and other radical ideas in professional policy and practice. The original version of the Code of Ethics of the National Associations of Social Workers (NASW), in 1960 spelled out the importance of democracy for the profession where ‘social work is based on humanitarian, democratic ideals’ (Keeney et al., 2014, 2). Such a position not only indicates that a democratic system is necessary for the practice of social work but, importantly, that social workers are also important agents in ensuring that a democratic system respects individual dignity and equality. Allport (1960, 292) used the meta- phors of servant and prophet to describe the relationships between social services and democracy, stating that ‘social service can make itself not only ‘the servant but also the prophet of democracy’. Social workers should be prepared to be at the forefront of engaging with disadvantaged groups, and have the duty to work through systems to ensure that marginalised citizens can overcome the difficulties they experience in exercising their political rights, In non-democratic regimes, building a democratic system becomes a basic mission for social workers to develop the ideals of equality through social work practices. In both democratic and non-democratic regimes, social ‘workers need to challenge the existing social and political systems, and bring about reforms in order to ensure the rights of individuals are protected. As others in this book have alluded to, such approaches concur with the definition of social work used by the International Federation of Social Workers (IFSW) where social workers should ‘recognise rights that are accepted by the global community” (IASSW and IFSW, 2014, 2). It has been argued that this strong connection between human rights and social work is based on a commitment to equality and non-discrimination (Reichert, 2001). The fundamental principles that all citizens should have equal access to social resources and treatment resonate with social work values, bearing in mind, however, that practice is often highly regulated by the political systems, point which will be made later in the chapter. In many countries social ‘workers’ organisations have endorsed the importance of social engagement in democracy and political movements (Mmatli, 2008). Such political activism aims to make the government accountable to its citizens as well as to empower individuals to unlock their power and capacity on influencing their162 Races Begum Baig livelihood, This can include a range of approaches, including information sharing, to enable disadvantaged groups to be informed and hold the ‘government accountable to the public Social work and political conflict: opportunities for change in contemporary Hong Kong In the first part of this chapter, it was argued that democratic processes and policy making in Hong Kong have been stymied both before and after the period of handover from Britain to China. These factors create challenges ‘and opportunities for social workers, particularly given the profession's com- mitment to human rights and social justice. It is important now to explore ‘what this means for social work in Hong Kong, now and into the future. The origins of contemporary social work practice can be traced to moments uring the 1970s when the profession, at least partially, embraced political activism and lobbying economic and social, if not political, change. The government’s neoliberal welfare ideology, for example, became the target for change. In order to strengthen local communities and the livelihoods of indi- Viduals, families and groups, after riots took place in the 1960s, the colonial government became pressured to fund community organisations under the Neighbourhood Level Community Project (NLCDP) to execute the idea of community-based welfare and development (Lam and Blyth, 2012), Although the idea of NLCDP was to stabilise the communities after the riots, it became a community development tool for social workers to advocate for social change. In appreciating the conditions of local communities, social workers started to lobby and pressure the government for policy and welfare changes They became involved in educating communities about important social policy issues and also organised protests against the government. Social ‘workers employed by these organisations under the NLCDP built strong local networks with the public and other agencies in civil society. Coalitions were formed on different social issues (Leung, 1996) that informed much social ‘work practice, These interventions allowed social workers to build alliances ‘with communities at an important time when the colony was moving to a process of decolonisation and the negotiation on the Joint Declaration ‘between the governments, At this important juncture, social workers started to ‘use community work skills to promote political views and to educate the public on human tights and democracy (Chui and Gray, 2004), Thus community ‘work set the ground for political socialisation of the general public. But by the time of the late 1980s, then, when negotiations were taking place ‘about the change of sovereignty, social workers, as with the wider public, became ‘more focused on seeking full democratic processes. Many were actively orga- nised protests and demonstrations to demand democracy and human rights. ‘When the colonial government adopted the District Administration Scheme in cearly 1980s, this had the effect of opening up a democratic representative gov- cemance structure where social workers, originally working at community level,Social work in Hong Kong 163 started to take more active roles in the Democratic Movement by participating in the election and running for District Councillor seats. Thus social workers sought to forward social and political agendas through their ditect political participation in the system (Chui and Gray, 2004). For example, in the 1985 District Council election, twenty-two social workers stood for the election and. ‘twenty were elected, which accounted for more than 10 per cent of the District ‘Council Board membership. Thirty were elected in the following election (Lam and Blyth, 2012). As for the Legislative Council, a specific sector under the Functional Constituency was dedicated to social workers in recognition of their ppolitical status, meaning that at least one social worker would serve as Legisla- tive Councillor with the key role in policy making, especially on social welfare policy (Fung, 1996; Lam and Blyth, 2012). Social work and the post-colonial democratic movements This political engagement by the profession was significantly affected by the changes that occurred after the handover. In the mid 1990s a social work organisation contracted under NLCDP organised a sitin protest in order 0 criticise the government for the rehousing of tenants living in roof-top hous- ing (Ma, 2007). The protest later turned into violence with many resultant injuries, Soon after the incident, the Hong Kong government significantly decreased the number of NLCDP representatives from fifty-two in 1999 to seventeen in 2017 (HKSAR Legislative Council, 2005; HKSAR Social Wel- fare Department, 2017). Unsurprisingly such government responses have challenged the effectiveness of social work in seeking greater democratisation of Hong Kong. In addition the HKSAR government changed its social ser vice delivery model from community-based to more on micro-level psycho- social interventions (Lam and Blyth, 2012). Together with the new mode of funding launched in 2001, the government has taken up @ more stringent monitoring system on social service organisations’ work performance. In addition, waves of financial crises experienced by Hong Kong afler the change of sovereignty further encouraged the HKSAR government to pursue ‘more conservative positions on welfare spending ‘The effects of these political decisions had the potential to marginalise the social work role in advocating for change, Social workers tended to be unable to organise communities to advocate for policy change and social service organi- sations often had reduced capacity to become involved in social and political discussions, This set the scene for yet another shift in social work policy and practice, towards more radical approaches to dealing with the democratic deficit in Hong Kong. The Progressive Social Work Network was established to rede- fine the discourse of social work and welfare development under neoliberalism policies (Cheng, 2013). The group was formed partially due to the election of the Election Committee Subsector Election in 2011. According to the Basic Law, the Election Committee consists of members elected from subsectors from profes- sional and industrial sectors in Hong Kong, of which the social welfare sector is164 Races Begum Baig 1 part, Each constituency elects the candidates to the subsector of the Election, Committee which later would elect the Chief Executive. In 2011, there were 1,044 seats from thirty-five subsectors for the election and the social welfare subsector consisted of sixty seats (HKSAR Registration and Electoral Office 201 1a). Social workers who are registered voters could vote for the sixty candi- dates to represent the subsector to elect the Chief Executive, Among nine teams of candidates, four were identified as pan-democratic teams which positioned ‘democratisation as top priority in their election platform (HKSAR Registration and Electoral Office, 2011b). These four teams included the Progressive Social ‘Work Network, DemoSocial60, the Hong Kong Social Worker's General Union and Grassroots Holder, While all teams were formed by social workers, Grass- roots Holder was a team of four candidates identifying themselves as service users, The aim of joining the election of Grassroots Holder was to breakdown ‘the perception that only professionals could elect the Chief Executive, there should be voices from the grassroots community (Lui, 2011), Although candidates of Grassroots Holder did not win seats, all sixty were won by the pan-democratic teams, whilst the pro-government teams were all defeated, Soon after the election of Chief Executive in 2012, citizens began yet again to appeal for universal suffrage which coincided with the emergence of another social work pressure group; the Reclaiming Social Work Movement was formed in 2013 as a social work activism-based organisation to join in the democratic ‘movement, Some members of the Reclaiming Social Work Movement were also _members of Progressive Social Work Network. However, instead of working as a platform for discussions, as advocated by the Progressive Social Work Network, Reclaiming Social Work Movement positioned itself as an action-based organi sation, With the start of OCLP in 2013, the Reclaiming Social Work Movement ‘and the Hong Kong Social Workers’ General Union were assisting the orga- nisers of OCLP to spread the message of democratisation and deliberative democracy to social workers, grassroots and disadvantaged communities. Toge- ‘ther with a few established practitioners embedded in some communities, these social workers assisted the OCLP organisers to reach out to marginalised groups, such as ethnic minorities, those with disabilities, working women and new arri- vals from Mainland China and other migrant communities. These groups also produced toolkits for social workers on how to advocate for democracy through a range of social work interventions ‘As the democratic movement has grown and matured, a few social workers have joined OCLP to be part of the forefront of the movement, These have including veteran social workers Fermi Wong and Shiu Ka Chun, where Shiu Ka Chun, joined by nine core members of OCLP, described themselves as the ten Occupy Central diehards in declasing their readiness to be arrested if neces- sary (Lam, 2014). These social work organisations and individual social workers remain active in the Umbrella Movement. With the increase of police violence ‘against the occupants, a few social service organisations also released statements condemning police violence and called for democratisation in Hong Kong, including the Hong Kong Christian Service and the Hong Keng Council ofSocial work in Hong Kong 165 Social Service (an umbrella organisation of more than 460 social service agencies as members) (Hong Kong Christian Service, 2014; Hong Kong Council of Social Service, 2014. ‘The changing pattern of social work involvement in democratic movements ‘As discussed above, the changing pattern of social work engagement in the democratic movement before and after the handover is now apparent. The carly stages of this action was characterised by intense and widespread par- ticipation alongside other stakeholders, including service users and commu- nity groups. Groups organised by social workers were formed, and together with the social workers’ union, social workers’ engagement in the demo- cratic movement remained. However, given the political conditions and the intention of the state to resist protest, these activities have diminished, As wwe speak few social service organisations feel able to protest, even if they wished to. Activism now tends to be reduced to individual events and activities rather than through collective engagement. Such patterns of poli- tical protest are not unusual in these circumstances, In many states around ‘the world where neoliberal policies inform and shape systems of health and social care social workers can struggle to have their voices heard. The state tends to impose tight control over social welfare and expenditure and of social service organisations. It has been argued that the intensification of control after the handover led to the depoliticisation of social work (Lam and Blyth, 2012). Whereas the British colonial government partnered with social service organisations to provide welfare and social services, this rela- tionship, after the handover, was turned into ‘funderservice operator approaches (Lam and Blyth, 2012). With the introduction of the Lump Sum Grant subvention system in 2001, the interference of the government increased through financial control and service performance and monitoring systems; this had the effect of further creating competition among organi- sations for the tendering of services. In order to maintain their financial stability, organisation operators tend to work on programmes and activities that would be supported by the government, The intensified forms of mon- itoring and control that are associated with these approaches often hinder social workers and social service organisations in engaging with political movements, Apart from this financial control, the decline in community work and the development of professionalisation in terms of micro-level psychotherapeutic practices has tended to lead to the depoliticisation of social work, An argument that has been noted elsewhere suggests that when social work practice has shifted from anti-oppressive practice to more user participatory, user-led approaches the result can lead to a retreat to more of ‘a focus on micro-level social work practice and service development (Rush and Keenan 2014). Subsequently, social work students and practitioners acquire lesser macro-level social work practice training,166 Races Begum Baig Although these broader international trends may adversely allect the eapa- city of social workers to engage in processes of political change, there are still opportunities to rediscover the radical part to social work policy and practice, In the case of Hong Kong the democratisation process before the handover ‘was not solely contingent on the change in political structures, rather there ‘were movements and protests that touched upon Marshall's (1964) domains, including the identification of key civil and social as well as political rights. When the democratic movement called for changes in electoral system, this alluded to concepts of equality and non-discrimination. Democratisation could be seen as a wider project that sought to enhance human rights. ‘Although the democratic movement before and after the bandover empha- sised principles of identity construction to guard against the authoritarian regime, advocates and social workers involved in the democratic movement before the handover were able to draw on concepts of citizenship to enhance ‘their arguments. What was called for was the development of civil society voices to explore new approaches under the diversified agenda of democrati- sation, And thus the position of social workers’ involvement in the democra- tisation process becomes clearer. The movement should be used to call for better social protection and the mobilisation of service users; this concurs with the value base of a professional which espouses social change, social justice and the protection of human rights, However, these principles did not necessarily concur with the actions of the democratic movement after the handover, which was largely focused on political cchange in guarding against the interference from the Chinese sovereign state. Social rights and protection were not high on the agenda of the political move ‘ment. Although few social work organisations attempted to bring the discussion on social protection and democracy to the political agenda, it did not success fully gain the general public’s support. The lack of social rights discussion within the democratisation debate made social workers’ and social service organisa tions’ discourses apparently less legitimate. As a result social workers’ involve- ‘ment in the post-handover democratic movement was based mainly on debates about Hong Kong citizen identity, and not what it meant to be a social worker, ‘This was mirrored in other stakeholder groups, for example where the mobilisa- tion of service users was also based on the importance of political participation rather than championing social rights within the democracy. Besides the differences on the agendas, the structure of the movement also determined what was possible for social workers to achieve. It became difficult for social workers to find a space for their voice during and after the transition period. It has been argued that the British government used arguments about democracy and human rights in Hong Kong to politically attack China's authoritarian, communistic regime (Baig, 2012). As the colonial government pplayed an important active role in democratisation, the movement became a top- down process which focused on legislation and reforming the electoral system under the negotiation of the Joint Declaration. Such top-down process required participants to have substantive knowledge of human rights and democraticSocial work in Hong Kong 167 processes in order to be able to be involved in the movement (Chui and Gray, 2004). Instead of mobilising the grassroots communities to participate in the ‘movement, advocates and social workers mobilised the communities to voice their needs and concerns and bring these opinions to the government for the negotiation of the democracy and human rights mechanisms. Under the state- ‘constructed representative democratic system, social workers took up the role as organisers and opinion leaders rather than direct activists. After the handover, the HKSAR government was more reluctant to champion the democratisation, agenda. The space and capacity for public involvement in government policy agendas has been constraining (Baig, 2012) and there is some indication that bottom-up, citizen-initiated democratic movements can have their voices heard. From the mounting of large-scale protests calling for democratic reform, to Deliberation Day organised by the OCLP, the ditect participation of individual citizens was important, Thus, afler the handover, the role of social workers has changed from opinion leader to facilitator, Social workers mobilised citizens, especially the disadvantaged groups, to join these political actions, ensuring the movement to be more inclusive of citizens with diverse backgrounds and information of political reform could be made available to ditferent communities. Conelusio the future of social work in Hong Kong The government's unfulfilled promise on democratisation implies that the democratic movement in Hong Kong will continue to seck ways to create political change. The second part of this chapter has highlighted the way in which the democratic movement has been shifting from state-driven to public-driven approaches, and the use of unconventional political actions after the handover has been part of these processes. There is a need to constantly re-evaluate the social work role and its engagement in political conilict in Hong Kong. ‘The connection between social work and democracy depends strongly on how a democratic system should enhance social protection and tackle deprivation, It ‘can be argued that social workers, with others, had and have important roles to play in political change in Hong Kong, for example at the moment before the hhandover when there was engagement with the democratic movement. However, important discourses about social and buman rights have lessened as a result of administrative and political changes initiated by the Chinese government. Issues of social protection for disadvantaged groups could hardly be raised in this cli- mate. However, more than ever, social workers need to restore more radical agendas on social rights and politics in order to ensure the fulfilment of citizen- ship of citizens from all social classes. The international trends of professional- ism and de-politicisation may, or may not, help the situation in Hong Kong. If social work education is less focused on commmunity-level interventions and political participation then the profession is less likely to embrace more radical approaches to politics. The restoration of different, more socially dynamic forms of social work practice can enable social workers and social work students to168 Races Begum Baig acquire sufficient knowledge to analyse the political situation and their roles in ‘the democratisation process. Social work organisations also have a crucial part to play in resisting conventional, neoliberal policies and discover ways of taking ‘part in political action and enabling employees to engage in movements for social change (Lam, 2017). If these conditions are created, then Hong Kong social workers, like others in different regions of political conflict, will have significant roles to play. References Allport, G, (1960), Personality and Social Encounter. Boston: Beacon Press Baig, RB. 2012). From colony to special administrative region: Ethnic minorities participation in the making of legislation against racial discrimination in Hong. Kong. Social Transformations in Chinese Societies, 8(2), 173-200, Bowie, W.D. (1990), The effect of the Tiananmen Square massacre upon negotiations for the draft basic law of the Hong Kong special administrative region. Penn State International Law Review, 8), Axtile 5 But, J. 2013, 24 May). Occupy Central organisers set democracy ‘D-Day’. South China Morning Post. Retrieved 3 July 2018, from www-semp.com/news/hong-kongla sicle/1244408/democracy-d-lay-fal-june-9 ‘Castles, $. and Davidson, A, (2000), Citizenship and Migration: Globalization amd the Politics of Belonging. Basingstoke: Macmillan. Cheng, WH. 2013, 28 May). Progressive social work declaration. Inmediahk, Retrieved 26 February 2019, from www.inmediabk nevinode/1016728 ‘Cheung, T. and Chong, T. 2014, 10 March). Beijing's words will not halt Occupy Central’ plans, says organiser Benny Tai. South China Morning Post. Retsieved 3 July 2018, from www semp cominewsshong-kong/artile/1 444666 /beijings-wordsowi |-notchalt-occupy-centrale-plans-says-organiser ‘Chui, E. and Gray, M. 2008) The politcal activities of social workers in the c of changing roles and political transition in Hong Kong. Journal of Secial Welfare 13Q), 170-180, Faure, D. (2003). Coloniatiom and the Hong Kong Mentality. Hong Kong: Centre of Asia Studies, Hong Kong University Pres. Fung, HLL, (1996), Politics and social work. In Social Work in Hong Kong, edited by J Chi and S. Cheung, 138-145. Hong Kong: Hong Kong Social Workers Association Heywood, A. (2000), Key Concepts in Politics, Basingstoke: Palgrave Macrnillan HKSAR Constitutional and Mainland Asfairs Bureau (2007, | July) Joint Declaration of the Government of the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland and the Goverament of the People's Republic of China on the Question of Hong. Kong. Constitutional and Mainland Affairs Bureau. Retrieved 26 February 2019, from worv.emab gou hkien/issues2 btm, HKSAR Constitutional and Mainland Affairs Bureau (2008), An Introduction to Hong Kong Bill of Rights Ordinance, Constitutional and Mainland Alfairs Bureau, Retrieved 26 February 2019, from www.cmab.gov hkidoclen/documents/policy_ resp consbilitie/the_sights_of the individvalsfhumasy/BORO InductoryChapterandBook et-Eng pal, 7Social work in Hong Kong 169 HISAR Government (2009), Consultation Document: Methods for Selecting the Chief Executive and for Forming the Legislative Council in 2012. Hong Kong: HKSAR Government HKSAR Lepislative Council (2005). LCQ 26: Community Development Services Hoag Kong: Secretary of HKSAR Legislative Council HKSAR Registration and Electoral Office (2011a, 31 October), Facts and figures Elections govhk. Retrieved 26 February 2019, from worwcelections.gov-hkiecss2011/ engligures html HKSAR Registration and Electoral Office (2011b, 24 November). Inttoduetion to candidates. Elections gox hk. Retrieved 26 February 2019, from wwwelections gov. hhklecss201I/engfintro_to_can_Social_welfare htm HKSAR Social Welfare Department (2017), Neighbourhood Level Community Development Project (NILCDP), Social Welfare Department, Retrieved 26 February 2019, from wow.swd gov.bklenfindex/ste_ pubsvelpage_commisul_commdevserhd_, seighbourb, ‘Hong Kong Cristian Service (2014, 29 September). Hong Kong Christian Service statement regarding 9.28 incident. Facebook. Retrieved 26 February 2019, from www facebook coms/bkessepcis/photow'a.426127934122544,100092.413020062099798/72639 7917428676Mype=3etheater Hong Kong Council of Social Service (2014), Encourage conversation to avoid social fragmentation. Hong Kong Council of Social Service. Retrieved 26 February 2018, from www hkess.org bkie/eont_detail aspftype_id=9&eontent_id=2151 Intemational Federation of Social Workers (2018, 2 July). Global social work state- ‘ment of ethical principles. IFSW. Retrieved 26 February 2019, from wwwalsworg/ slobal-social-work-statemeat-of-ethical-principles. Intemational Association of Schools of Social Work ([ASSW) and International Fed eration of Social Workers (IFSW) (2014). Global standards for social work educa- tion and training (final document). Adelaide, SA, Australia. Retrieved from wwwia ssuesietsorg/globalestandards-for-ocialswork-educationand-training/ Kaminski, T. 2015). Social work, democracy and human rights: What follows from the dignity of the human person? Caritas etveitas, 5, 135-183. Keeney, A.J, Smart, AM. Richards, R., Hartison, 8. Carrillo, M. and Valentine, D, (@014), Human rights and social work codes of ethics: An international analysis, Journal of Social Welfare and Hunan Rights, 22), 1-16 Kovong, YH. (2016). The growth of ‘localism’ in Hong Kong: A new path for the democracy movement? China Perspectives, 201613, 63-68, Lam, CW. and Blyth, F. (2012). Re-engagement and negotiation in a changing poli- tical and economic context: Social work in Hong Kong. British Journal of Social Work, 44(), 44-62 Lam, J. 014, 13 November). Key Occupy Central supporter ready to sacifice 10 set an example. South China Morning Post. Retrieved 3 July 2018, from wow-semp. comy/newsshong-kong/article/1638184/key-occupy-central-upporter-teady-sacrifice- setexample Lam, J. 2017, 17 December). Trio threaten to quit task force if Hong Kong govern ment refuses to overhaul ‘problematic’ funding system for NGOs, South China ‘Morning Post. Retrieved 3 July 2018, from www semp com/newsshong-kong/eomm ‘unity/article/2124652/trio-Uhreaten-quit-task-force-i-hong.kong-government Lau, CK. (1997), Hong Kong's Colonial Legacy: Hong Kong: The Chinese Univ Press170 Races Begum Baig Leung, 1C.B. (1996). Community development: past, present and future. In Social Work in Hong Kong, edited by J. Cbi and S, Cheung, 129-137. Hong Kong: Hong Kong Social Workers Association, Lo, SSH. (2001). Five perspectives on Beijing’ policy towards Hong Kong. In Poli- tical Development in HKSAR, edited by IYS. Cheng, 41-59. Hong Kong: City University of Hong Kong. Lai, K. QOL. Participation of the grassroots. Apple Daily, December. Ma, N. 2007). Political Development in Hong Kong: State, Political Society. and Civil Society. Hong Kong: Hong Kong University Press. Marshall, TH. (1964). Class, Citizenship, and Social Development. Gi Doubleday Math, T. (2008). Political activism as a social work strategy in Aftiea, International Social Work, $1(3), 297-310. Ngo, TW. (1997). Hong Kong: State and Society under Colonial Rule. Leiden: ‘Documentation and Research Center for Contemporary China, Reichert, E, (2001), Placing human rights at the center of social work professional The Jounal of Intergroup Relations, XXVU(), 43-50. Rush, M. and Keenan, M. (2014). The social polities of social work: Anti-oppressive social work dilemmas in twentysbist-century welfare regimes, Briich Journal of Social Work, 446), 1436-1453 South Ching Morning Post (2014, 31 August). Full text: NPC Standing Committee decision on Hong Kong 2017 lection framework, Retsieved 3 July 2018, from, ‘www semp com/news/hong-kong/article/1582245/full-text-npe-standing-commitee-d -kong-201-election. ‘Wacks, R. (1992). Human Rights in Hong Kong. Hong Kong: Oxford University Press rdon City: