Whose Citizenship Education? Hong Kong from a spatial and cultural politics perspective

This article was downloaded by: [University of California Santa Cruz]On: 30 October 2014, At: 18:17Publisher: RoutledgeInforma Ltd Registered in England and Wales Registered Number: 1072954 Registeredoffice: Mortimer House, 37-41 Mortimer Street, London W1T 3JH, UK

Discourse: Studies in the CulturalPolitics of EducationPublication details, including instructions for authors andsubscription information:http://www.tandfonline.com/loi/cdis20

Whose Citizenship Education? HongKong from a spatial and cultural politicsperspectiveThomas Kwan-choi Tse aa Chinese University of Hong Kong ,Published online: 02 May 2007.

To cite this article: Thomas Kwan-choi Tse (2007) Whose Citizenship Education? Hong Kong froma spatial and cultural politics perspective, Discourse: Studies in the Cultural Politics of Education,28:2, 159-177, DOI: 10.1080/01596300701289094

To link to this article: http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/01596300701289094

PLEASE SCROLL DOWN FOR ARTICLE

Taylor & Francis makes every effort to ensure the accuracy of all the information (the“Content”) contained in the publications on our platform. However, Taylor & Francis,our agents, and our licensors make no representations or warranties whatsoever as tothe accuracy, completeness, or suitability for any purpose of the Content. Any opinionsand views expressed in this publication are the opinions and views of the authors,and are not the views of or endorsed by Taylor & Francis. The accuracy of the Contentshould not be relied upon and should be independently verified with primary sourcesof information. Taylor and Francis shall not be liable for any losses, actions, claims,proceedings, demands, costs, expenses, damages, and other liabilities whatsoeveror howsoever caused arising directly or indirectly in connection with, in relation to orarising out of the use of the Content.

This article may be used for research, teaching, and private study purposes. Anysubstantial or systematic reproduction, redistribution, reselling, loan, sub-licensing,systematic supply, or distribution in any form to anyone is expressly forbidden. Terms &Conditions of access and use can be found at http://www.tandfonline.com/page/terms-and-conditions

http://www.tandfonline.com/loi/cdis20

http://www.tandfonline.com/action/showCitFormats?doi=10.1080/01596300701289094

http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/01596300701289094

http://www.tandfonline.com/page/terms-and-conditions

http://www.tandfonline.com/page/terms-and-conditions

Whose Citizenship Education? Hong

Kong from a spatial and cultural

politics perspective

Thomas Kwan-choi Tse*Chinese University of Hong Kong

Citizenship (education) is de facto a political and spatial concept and should be considered in local,

national, and global contexts. Adopting a spatial and cultural politics perspective and with the

dynamic formation of Hong Kong’s citizenship education as a case study, this article tries to

illustrate the politics at three different levels. It shows how citizenship and identity are hotly

contested, with the result that, while the official civic education programme is oriented towards

‘‘national education’’, a pluralistic and vibrant civil society allows the hybridization and cross-

fertilization of multiple discourses and practices to run parallel with the state project, either in a

complementary or competitive way. Civic education launched by the democratic camp in civil

society may be viewed as empowerment struggles for human rights and democracy vis-a-vis the

domestication efforts made by the government and the pro-Beijing camp, as well as the tyranny of

global capitalism.

Citizenship Education in Question: Locality, power, and discourse

‘Citizenship’, a contested political notion central to cultural politics, has been

elevated to the centre of the public agenda. Citizenship is important because it is a

part of the discourse of democracy, civil society, and our public sphere. Citizenship

also links the micro- and macro-politics of institutional entitlement with different

kinds of rights and, therefore, it articulates civil society and the state in the form of a

new social movement.

Born of public culture and being itself a part of society’s project of citizenship

building, citizenship education is closely connected to ideology and politics.

Citizenship education is also a matter of representations and discourse of and for

someone and, in the last instance, a matter of ‘‘positionality’’ of the place from which

one says what, to whom, for what purposes, and in whose interest (Barker, 2000).

Citizenship education often reflects the society at large. An interesting case by

which to examine the development of citizenship education under the impact of

globalization, nationalization, and localization over the years is Hong Kong. The

*Department of Education Administration and Policy, The Chinese University of Hong Kong,

Shatin, NT, Hong Kong. Email: [email protected]

ISSN 0159-6306 (print)/ISSN 1469-3739 (online)/07/020159-19

# 2007 Taylor & Francis

DOI: 10.1080/01596300701289094

Discourse: studies in the cultural politics of education

Vol. 28, No. 2, June 2007, pp. 159�177

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Uni

vers

ity o

f C

alif

orni

a Sa

nta

Cru

z] a

t 18:

18 3

0 O

ctob

er 2

014

territory, previously a British colony and now a Chinese Special Administrative

Region (SAR), has an atypical political status with the post-colonial transition which

has been ongoing since 1997. Further, a pluralistic and vibrant civil society made the

development of citizenship education even more complicated and dynamic.

In short, Hong Kong’s special international position, belated decolonialization

and, hence, partial democratization, together with the transfer of sovereignty from

the British government to the People’s Republic of China (PRC), rather than local

people, has resulted in a peculiar path towards citizenship development in Hong

Kong in comparison with many other places in the world. The difficult situation of

developing full citizenship of the residents has more or less reproduced itself in the

realm of civic education, and this is aptly illustrated by the disputes and struggles

concerning civic education during the transitional and post-transitional periods (Lee

& Sweeting, 2001). Obviously, citizenship education comes from both above, by

the state, and below, by society. Whilst there has been considerable discussion

concerning the official project of citizenship education (Lee, S. M., 1987; Leung,

Chai, & Ng, 2000), relatively little attention has been paid to alternative discourses

and practices, particularly on the part of civil society. Adopting a spatial and cultural

politics perspective, this article tries to illustrate the politics of citizenship education

in multiple contexts at the global, national, and local levels. It begins with a brief

conceptual discussion of the impact of globalization, nationalization, and localiza-

tion, respectively, on the formation of citizenship. After highlighting the distinctive

features of Hong Kong, most notably the marginalization of civic education in the

colonial era and the advent of the official ‘‘national education’’ hegemony project in

the post-colonial era, it then examines its counter-discourses in civil society alongside

the global, national, and local dimensions.

Citizenship in Local, National, and Global Contexts

Citizenship per se is a political and spatial concept and should be considered in local,

national, and global contexts (Williams & Humphrys, 2003a, 2003b). The rapid

social changes in the form of inter-woven processes of globalization have been

significantly redefining the notion of citizenship, which is traditionally tied to modern

nation-state political order. Paradoxically, the advent of globalization is coupled with

a reaction of localization. When analysing citizenship we must consider more than

one representation of it. These are various versions of citizenship, as defined by

different agents of power in multilevel contexts, coupled with various locations and

forces, and the dynamic citizenship negotiated and contested among different actors

(a political dimension). Viewed in this way, location means not just a place (a spatial

dimension) where practices of citizenship take place, but a particular context in

which social forces operate or take effect. As citizenship is a multidimensional

construct composing various elements, it has nested statuses and identities, diverse

rights and duties, and complicated meanings of virtues. The discussion of citizenship

in various discourses and places directs our attention to the variations across groups

160 T. K.-C. Tse

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Uni

vers

ity o

f C

alif

orni

a Sa

nta

Cru

z] a

t 18:

18 3

0 O

ctob

er 2

014

or places even within the territory of a single political entity (most commonly a

nation-state). The simultaneous operation of these forces has led to incongruent or

even conflicting expectations of ideal or good citizenship by agencies at and in

different places or sectors.

In the case of Hong Kong, a cosmopolitan capitalist city moving from a British

colony to a Chinese autonomous region, the interaction of globalization and

localization is further complicated by the factor of nationalization. While the

processes of globalization, localization, and nationalization may be seen as

competitive, on the one hand, they can also be viewed as complementary, on the

other (Tang, 1997). In the competitive perspective, globalization means the advent of

powerful transnational forces which replace or reduce the capacity and autonomy of

nation-states whereby localization or nationalization assumes the continuity and

centrality of the dominance of national sovereignty as a central agent in running

national or local affairs. When viewed in a complementary perspective, globalization,

localization, and nationalization are interactive, mutually reinforcing processes

happening at multiple levels. In examining Hong Kong’s interaction with the

nation-state and the global community, it seems that these triple processes interact in

a dynamic manner and should be understood as a complex of economic, political,

cultural, and social phenomena which carry complementary, contradictory, and

uncertain outcomes.

Whose Citizenship Education?

Having briefly discussed the global, national, and local contexts in which Hong Kong

citizenship (education) is embedded, it seems that citizenship (education) is not so

much a direct reflection of social milieu as the exercise of power and ideology. This is

particularly salient in Hong Kong, where the civil society enjoys a high degree of

autonomy and capacity. Aside from larger social contexts, citizenship education is

mediated by a number of agents, initiators, regulators, providers, or deliverers in the

cultural�/political arena. We will now analyse the multiple discourses concerning

citizenship education articulated by various collaborators or contestants in civil

society in the light of a cultural politics perspective.

Hong Kong has always been a colony or an SAR, never a nation-state or a

democratic polity. Civic education thus displays distinctive features which deviate

from a conventional unitary model of national citizenship. In the past it was alien,

conformist, and depoliticized in nature, alienating the young from their indigenous

nationality and local politics and fostering their identity as ‘‘residents’’ or ‘‘subjects’’

in a colony rather than ‘‘citizens’’ in a nation-state (Lee, S. M., 1987). Since the

1980s the processes of decolonization and national reintegration have triggered

interest and concerns for school civic education in Hong Kong, which have resulted

in the active involvement of many concerned parties or organizations in promoting

civic education and a sudden eruption of disputes in the field of civic education.

Hong Kong’s experience is unlike many former British colonies heading towards

Citizenship Education in Hong Kong 161

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Uni

vers

ity o

f C

alif

orni

a Sa

nta

Cru

z] a

t 18:

18 3

0 O

ctob

er 2

014

independence and nation-building. Its reintegration with an existing socialist state,

the People’s Republic of China, and at the same time the maintenance of a high

degree of autonomy and a capitalist way of life for at least 50 years is unique.

Citizenship education is obviously involved in this process of cultural reformation

and nation building, in tandem with socio-political change at large.

Many post-colonialists (Bhabha, 1990; Law, W.-S., 1998) have drawn our

attention to plurality and power in cultural construction and suggested that any

solid identity or ‘‘grand narrative’’ is subject to deconstruction and critique by

debunking its homogeneity and totality and emphasizing its contradictory, incon-

sistent, and incoherent features. It is therefore crucial to analyse how different agents,

be they governmental or non-governmental organizations (NGOs), come to terms

with their own version of citizenship education in the dynamics of hegemony or

counter-hegemony formation. Viewed in this way, ‘‘citizenship’’ is also a narrative

and writing process located on contested ground with pluralistic discourses.

Components of citizenship (legal status, rights, duties, subjective identity, and

desirable virtues) are subject to continuous construction and reconstruction, either

in form of accommodation, contestation, or resistance.

In Hong Kong the existence of various NGOs in a relatively vibrant civil society,

coupled with a pluralistic education system, allows a large degree of freedom for

contestation from below and a myriad of citizenship practices which contribute to

alternative and contested notions of citizenship. Moreover, the official advocacy of

decentralized curriculum implementation in recent years means that schooling

practices in the field of civic education become more diverse and uncertain. Civil

society in Hong Kong is characterized by a proliferation of various kinds of voluntary

groups and civic organizations, divided by various purposes, diverse interests and

ideological orientation (Lui, Kuan, Chan, & Chan, 2005). This was one of the results

of a loose or soft, but authoritarian, colonial strategy for rule by the British

administration and its cautious handling of the potential threats to colonialism in the

past. Civil rights allow a certain high degree of autonomy to associations and

organizations and some guarantee against political intrusion. These civic organiza-

tions, at the interface between the state and the people, have played a critical role in

the domain of social services and social welfare in facilitating the articulation of

interests and in the creation of space for popular mobilization and political

participation. It is common for many advocacy or pressure groups and social

movements, both grassroots and elite, to join together and form an ad hoc alliance

for a common cause. In this way, issue-based and loosely knit networks forming

‘‘democratic camps’’ have appeared on many occasions since the 1980s, particularly

salient in the case of fighting for democracy and defending human rights and

livelihoods (Wong, Yuen, & Cheng, 1999).

As for the field of citizenship education, we can see a proliferation of alternative

discourses articulated within civil society, alongside the official project. As a result of

different community organizations becoming increasingly involved in promoting

civic education from the mid 1980s onwards, we see a mushrooming of civic

education programmes and publicity activities. Political change has also led to fierce

162 T. K.-C. Tse

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Uni

vers

ity o

f C

alif

orni

a Sa

nta

Cru

z] a

t 18:

18 3

0 O

ctob

er 2

014

debates and controversies regarding the proper objectives, nature, content, and

methods of implementation of civic education, which have been coloured by very

different political and ideological positions (Lee & Sweeting, 2001). Civic education

became a field of battle between opposing forces, as reflected in the drafting of the

new official guidelines for civic education in the years 1995 and 1996.

Hybridization as Accommodation

Under pressure from the ‘‘pro-Beijing camp’’ and also due to lobbying by Oxfam and

Amnesty International for the Education Department to review the Guidelines for

civic education in schools, published in 1985, the government finally set up an ad hoc

working group in 1995 to draft a new version. To win wide recognition and

acceptance from all parties in the community, the working group deliberately

accommodated different interpretations of civic education and bypassed the debates

and disputes about orientation and the struggle for priorities of civic education. As a

result, various interpretations of civic education were reflected in the second

guidelines, which were in turn a product of political compromise (Leung, Chai, &

Ng, 2000). Interestingly, divergent concepts of citizenship proposed by different

parties have led to a more diffused, pluralistic, complex, and ever-expanding scope of

citizenship education, thus making it a ‘‘hotchpotch’’ programme (Curriculum

Development Committee [CDC], 1996). This ambivalent orientation is best

exemplified by the major aims of the second guidelines, listed as follows (pp. 5�/6).

1. To enable students to understand how the individual, as a citizen, relates to the

family, the neighbouring community, the regional community, the national community

and the world; and to develop in them positive attitudes and values conducive to

the development of a sense of belonging to Hong Kong and China, so that they are

ready to contribute to the betterment of society, the state and the world.

2. To help students understand the characteristics of Hong Kong society, and the

importance of democracy, liberty, equality, human rights and rule of law.

3. To develop in students critical thinking dispositions, and problem-solving skills that

would allow them to analyze social and political issues objectively and to arrive

at a rational appraisal of these issues. (Emphasis added)

Additionally, the guidelines enumerate 19 universal core values and 16 sustaining

values to be cultivated. Over 25 items of attitudes, beliefs, and competence are

mentioned. With such an eclectic treatment of multiple aims of civic education,

democracy, liberty, equality, human rights, rule of law, and positive attitudes and

values regarding Hong Kong, China, and the world, the conceptual framework

underlined a complementary view of collectivism and individualism, putting the

common good and individual good all together, with the multilocality contexts

extending from family to international community (Leung, Chai, & Ng, 2000). In

addition, the framework highlighted a student-centred approach to civic education,

with an emphasis on the teaching of controversial issues, as well as developing


Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Uni

vers

ity o

f C

alif

orni

a Sa

nta

Cru

z] a

t 18:

18 3

0 O

ctob

er 2

014

students’ critical thinking and other abilities. In practice, an ambivalent and eclectic

treatment of the aims and components of civic education, with many incompatible

political ideologies, leaves much room for interpretation and discretion on the part of

the practitioners.

With the publishing of the 1996 guidelines and the handover of sovereignty, the

controversy over civic education and opportunities for confrontation were tempora-

rily put on the back burner. While the national education discourse has largely

submerged or marginalized other competing civic education discourses in the post-

colonial era, the tension within and across levels of locality remains and a war of

position (in a Gramscian sense, see Simon, 1982) has been witnessed on a number of

occasions along each dimension, as will be shown in the subsequent sections.

National Level: Fighting with official nationalism

With the agreed return of Hong Kong to China in 1997, the question of national

identity became a pressing issue, as the change of sovereignty also implied a change

in political membership. Now that the people of Hong Kong had acquired a new

identity as Chinese nationals they felt alienated. The years of separation of Hong

Kong from mainland China and and the different methods of governance have led to

Hong Kong’s distinctive socio-economic development and the emergence of an

indigenous culture and, in turn, a strong sense of ‘‘Hongkongese’’ identity (Choi,

1990; Lau & Kuan, 1988; Turner, 1995; Wong & Wan, 2004). Political reintegration

of Hong Kong with China would, therefore, require reintegration at both the cultural

and psychological levels. In the past Hong Kong students were often criticized for

their lack of civic consciousness and low awareness of their nation and state.

Following the resumption of Chinese sovereignty young people’s woolly sense of

identity was seen as very unhealthy. Therefore, strengthening of the sense of

belonging to China and the national identity by ‘‘nationalistic education’’ (guo-jia

min-zu jao-yue) or ‘‘national education’’ (guo-min jao-yue) was required to foster

commonalities and unity with China among a population alienated from its

homeland for years.

Mixed with anti-colonial sentiments, requests for a more nationalistic education or

patriotic education were thus made by the pro-Beijing camp, which emphasized that

the most important aims of civic education was to help the students to understand

their mother country and nation, the ‘‘one country, two systems’’ policy and to

cultivate a sense of belonging to China and a sense of pride in being Chinese.

Indeed, the first Chief Executive, Mr Tung Chee-hwa, highlighted national

education and patriotism to develop a national Chinese identity and called on the

community and organizations to work together to turn young people into

contributing and responsible individuals. National education has thus been

incorporated into the school education system through a number of schooling

measures and various civic education and cultural events over the years. Official civic

education explicitly put the emphasis on promoting students’ understanding of the

164 T. K.-C. Tse

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Uni

vers

ity o

f C

alif

orni

a Sa

nta

Cru

z] a

t 18:

18 3

0 O

ctob

er 2

014

Basic Law and the ‘‘one country, two systems’’ principle and providing them with a

knowledge of China and Chinese culture. A set of new curricula guidelines have

replaced the 1996 ones, to help local children and teenagers become good citizens,

establishing positive values and attitudes, such as responsibility, commitment,

perseverance, and national identity (CDC, 2001, 2002). Obviously, the ‘‘good

citizen’’ being officially advocated is one who concurs with the duties and obligations

of the individual to society, virtues associated with traditional Chinese culture and

values, and has a strong flavour of ethno-cultural nationalism (Morris, Kan, &

Morris, 2000; Morris & Morris, 2000a, 2000b). However, education on human

rights and democracy has been downplayed as further democratization was

disapproved of by the central and the SAR governments.

After a huge turnout for the demonstration on July 1, 2003, concerning Article 23

of the Basic Law*/legislation on national security*/and the poor leadership of Mr

Tung, some Chinese officials on the mainland, shocked by the mass demonstration,

have again underscored the importance of enhancing patriotic education in Hong

Kong schools. They attributed the fierce opposition to anti-subversion legislation to,

among other things, the lack of a sense of national identity, particularly among young

people. They accused patriotic education in Hong Kong of being insufficient and

pressed for its strengthening (Boost patriotic education, SAR told, 2003). Since then

the Hong Kong government has launched a series of in-school and out of school

activities to enhance national education, with the aims of developing a sense of

belonging to the ‘‘motherland’’ and a respectful attitude to the national flag and

national anthem in students and of encouraging them to cherish and practice

traditional Chinese culture. Moral and civic education is one of the four key tasks

advocated in the current curriculum reform, with national identity being one of the

priority values schools have to develop. They are also required to strengthen

commitment to the betterment of the country among their students. Chinese

Olympic medalists and the mainland’s successful completion of space missions

involving Chinese astronauts have been used to boost such national education.

Students are expected to develop a spirit of perseverance and enhance their national

pride through their new role models on the mainland. The advocacy of a nationalistic

education made by the pro-Beijing camp has been backed up by the provision of

teaching kits, patriotic rituals, and exchange programmes with mainland China,

while the Tiananmen crackdown on June 4, 1989, has been made a taboo topic of

discussion.

However, the nationalistic position has triggered counter-arguments from its

critics (Lee, W.-O., 1999; Lee & Sweeting, 2001; Leung, 1998; Leung & Cheng,

1998), who have doubted the desirability of nationalism and seen a danger of

indoctrination by parochial nationalistic propaganda. Citizenship education in

mainland China*/termed ‘‘ideological�/political education’’*/explicitly implants

specific ideologies into the students and brings about conformity in loyalty to the

nation and the communist party leadership (Chen & Reid, 2002). The advocacy of

national education has raised concerns and fears about ‘‘recolonization’’ or ‘‘internal

colonialism’’ in the form of suppression of the local identity and its threat to


Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Uni

vers

ity o

f C

alif

orni

a Sa

nta

Cru

z] a

t 18:

18 3

0 O

ctob

er 2

014

individual freedoms and rights after the handover. Some have resisted the

monopolization of the interpretation of patriotism imposed by the Chinese

government and sought to develop alternatives to this dominant discourse of

‘‘patriotism,’’ which suppresses other authentic and diverse feelings towards and

expressions about their nation or state by the people (Wu, 2004). A related worry

was the possibility of national education overtaking other important aspects of civic

education, such as democracy and human rights (Editorial, 2003: Lee, A. N.-K.,

1997). Some also warned that we should avoid narrow ethnic nationalism and build

up a form of civic nationalism instead (Leung & Cheng, 1998). Moreover, an

emphasis on patriotism runs counter to the objectives of current education and

curriculum reforms, i.e. catering to the needs of individual students and nurturing

students’ critical thinking and analysis skills (CDC, 2001, 2002). Obviously, critical

thinking becomes meaningless or illusionary when national identity is fixed as an

ultimate end and students are denied choices and judgements concerning their

personal identity.

Thus, in contrast to the pro-Beijing camp, other educational organizations have

instead highlighted the values of human rights and democracy, as well as the distinct

Hong Kong identity. Other concerns and counteracting practices with regard to the

officially propounded patriotism have been found. National or patriotic education,

while still endorsed, was understood in a way different from the official line of the

Beijing government by the democratic camp. So the Hong Kong Professional

Teachers’ Union (the largest teacher union in Hong Kong) and the Hong Kong

Alliance in Support of Patriotic Democratic Movements of China (an organization

formed after the June 4, 1989, Incident) launched an alternative ‘‘patriotic

education’’ programme with an emphasis on building a ‘‘democratic China’’. This

was done by introducing the current situation in the development of democracy and

human rights in mainland China. Some organizations have also developed ‘‘Demo-

cratic China National Education’’ teaching materials based on the June 4 Incident

and the patriotic debate in Hong Kong, which highlight multiple citizenship as well

as the political dimension of citizenship and adopt a critical teaching approach in

order to encourage students to be ‘‘critical patriots.’’ Rather than emphasizing

China’s remarkable economic performance and the positive effects of economic

growth, a common theme of the dominant discourse, they instead draw attention to

the severe problems of income inequality, social problems, and environmental

degradation.

Confrontations regarding national education have not been limited to competing

versions of ‘‘patriotism’’ as stated above. Further challenges have also appeared at

both the global and local levels, as detailed below.

The Global Level: Contesting neo-liberal globalization

Today globalization, in terms of increasing global interdependence and international

exchange, presents a great challenge to conventional nation-based civic education.

166 T. K.-C. Tse

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Uni

vers

ity o

f C

alif

orni

a Sa

nta

Cru

z] a

t 18:

18 3

0 O

ctob

er 2

014

Increasing globalization requires school education to foster the essential abilities and

values necessary for living in a global village, for example respect for the cultures and

histories of other countries and an increased understanding of the international

community, as well as addressing environmental and economic concerns at a global

level. Many countries and organizations put more curricular emphasis on developing

these elements accordingly. The constant influence of external forces on Hong Kong

is often exercised, in the first place, through its international organizational linkages,

secondly, by the incorporation of worldwide norms, and, finally, by the introduction

of curriculum reforms across national boundaries, as evidenced by frequent

academic international exchanges and borrowing of policy from overseas (Rauner,

1998, 1999). Thus, following the trend in the development of citizenship education

worldwide in recent years Hong Kong has also seen a gradual incorporation of topics

like environmental protection, gender equality, multiculturalism, human rights, an

understanding of global affairs, and regional and world citizenship in local citizenship

education programmes (Lee & Gu, 2004).

The voices of some local Christian organizations and international NGOs have

supported the victims of global capitalism. Claiming to care about the severe social

injustice that people have suffered as a result of economic globalization, they appeal

for social justice and equality. A similar but more systematic education for global

citizenship emanates from other NGOs, such as Oxfam Hong Kong, a member of

Oxfam International and an independent development and relief agency based in

Hong Kong. Apart from relief projects, public education is an important part of

Oxfam’s work (Oxfam Hong Kong, 2001, 2002, 2003, 2004, 2005). In its

perspective, as the world becomes increasingly globalized an informed society is

essential to foster a sense of collective responsibility to fight injustice and inequality.

It advocates a global campaign of ‘‘fair trade’’ as a conscientious alternative to ‘‘free

trade’’ and pushes for poverty elimination. Oxfam urges the people and government

of Hong Kong to address the problem of poverty in developing countries and the

territory itself. They advocate transferring the model of ‘‘development education’’

and a ‘‘curriculum for global citizenship’’ from the UK to Hong Kong, with key

elements including social justice and equality, diversity, sustainable development,

peace, critical thinking and empowerment. According to Oxfam (Oxfam Hong

Kong, 2006):

The world in the 21st century is more interdependent than ever before. To respondeffectively to the changes in the world, a global citizen is someone who:

. Recognizes that he or she is an integral part of the world; understands the basic

rights of people; and fulfills his or her own responsibilities towards others.

. Has a high regard for values such as justice, solidarity, and equality; learns about

different cultures, gender issues, social classes, and ethnicities with an open

attitude; and resolves differences and conflicts using a respectful and peaceful

approach.

. Takes time to reflect; and comes to view and understand his or her surroundings

with a critical mindset.


Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Uni

vers

ity o

f C

alif

orni

a Sa

nta

Cru

z] a

t 18:

18 3

0 O

ctob

er 2

014

. Is concerned about poverty and injustice in the world; and is willing to actively

help create a world that is just, fair, and develops in a sustainable manner.

(Emphasis added)

In addition, Oxfam’s vision of global citizenship education seeks to provide

knowledge, promote values, and, more importantly, calls for action:

. Knowledge: Learn about the relationships between global development and local

issues; ascertain the causes of poverty and social injustice; and understand the

importance of sustainable development.

. Values: Step into the shoes of those who suffer from poverty and injustice; reflect

upon the relationships between oneself and the world; and examine the influence

and responsibility each person can assume in the world.

. Action: Get to work and actively participate in building a fairer and more

sustainable world.

Obviously, this notion of responsible global citizen is remarkably different from the

model of competitive individual endorsed by economic neo-liberalism. Oxfam Hong

Kong provides resources and cooperates with educators and youth workers with the

aim of promoting an understanding of poverty and sustainable development issues

among the youth and public and encouraging them to take action to change the

inequalities in the world. Oxfam Hong Kong supports many development education

activities in Hong Kong and on the mainland (Law, P., 2006). Locally it helps to

build up a community of concerned groups working on local and global development

issues and supports school- and community-based reflection/action activities.

Another important theme of global citizenship is the notion of human rights.

Before 1997 the colonial government deliberately downplayed political affairs and

civic education, which led to political apathy and a lack of human rights awareness

among the general public (Fok, 2001). Even though Britain is a signatory of the two

international human rights covenants, no domestic human rights law existed in Hong

Kong until 1991. The rights of minorities (for example the elderly, single parents,

homeless people, new immigrants, gay and lesbian groups) subsequently received

little support from the general public. There was little formal human rights education

in school and many relevant topics were rarely or superficially covered in the school

syllabuses. As the handover approached and Sino-British talks on Hong Kong’s

future gathered pace, more people became concerned about social and political

affairs. The Tiananmen crackdown in 1989 shocked the people of Hong Kong and

triggered local concern over China’s human rights situation, as well as human rights

protection in Hong Kong after 1997.

Among many civic organizations intent on protecting human rights and promoting

human rights consciousness, the Justice and Peace Commission of the Hong Kong

Catholic Diocese (HKJP) and Amnesty International Hong Kong (AIHK) were the

leading ones (Lee & Yuen, 2003). HKJP have designed human rights courses, with

topics including basic human rights, anti-discrimination, gender equality, and

168 T. K.-C. Tse

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Uni

vers

ity o

f C

alif

orni

a Sa

nta

Cru

z] a

t 18:

18 3

0 O

ctob

er 2

014

freedom of speech and expression for senior form students, which have also been

used for moral and religious lessons in some Catholic secondary schools. Amnesty

International draws attention to human rights violations and campaigns to end

impunity on the part of the human rights violators. AIHK also disputes the set of so-

called ‘‘Asian values,’’ as advocated by some Asian governments, which deny the

universality of human rights values. For AIHK human rights education aims to

create an awareness of international human rights standards and to implement these

standards, particularly with reference to the Universal declaration on human rights

(AIHK, 2003a, 2003b). Education about and for human rights includes the

development of skills such as critical thinking, communication, problem-solving,

and negotiation, which are essential for effective human rights activism and

participation in decision-making processes.

These two NGOs have promoted human rights education in complementary ways,

and sometimes in cooperation with other NGOs. They have attempted to shape civic

education policy in terms of drafting the new civic education guidelines of 1996,

lobbying for an independent civic education subject in all secondary schools, and

providing teaching kits and professional training for teachers on the subject of human

rights education.

The anti-globalization campaign reached its climax in December 2005, when

Hong Kong hosted the Sixth Ministerial Conference of the World Trade Organiza-

tion. The Hong Kong People’s Alliance on the World Trade Organization (HKPA), a

network of 31 local and regional NGOs, including trade unions, community labour

groups, and organizations that represent migrant workers, students, women, churces,

and human rights, grasped this opportunity to reflect on the nature of international

trade today and the impact of globalization on Hong Kong and other countries,

especially those in the south. The HKPA derailed WTO’s attempts at a further

liberalization of trade and investment and attempted to raise local awareness of the

unjust distribution of global economic power. The alliance organized three marches

for those who were against the WTO to make their voices heard. It also mobilized the

public to participate in the global justice campaign by preparing an education kit and

other materials for circulation. As is apparent, civic education hence became part of

the anti-globalization movement at a worldwide level and, furthermore, the struggle

was being waged at a local level in the spirit of ‘‘think globally, act locally.’’

The Local Level: The quest for a civil movement

With its higher profile, the issue of civic education, particularly the issue of

nationalism, became more conspicuous on the eve of transition. The political

content and recommendations made for the subjects Chinese history and history

and the respective textbooks, the introduction of local history into the curriculum,

and the teaching of history after 1997 also became a focus for public attention and

disagreement, due to their manifest or latent relevance to citizenship and identity

formation. The processes of nationalization and localization also compete with each


Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Uni

vers

ity o

f C

alif

orni

a Sa

nta

Cru

z] a

t 18:

18 3

0 O

ctob

er 2

014

other, as can be seen in the postures of those advocating a national education and

those trying to preserving a local identity. Accordingly, the inclusion and teaching of

local history in the history curriculum of Hong Kong became a struggle of

interpretation of the relations between Hong Kong and China and reflected

competing understandings of Hong Kong’s relations with the Chinese mainland

(Siu, 1996; Vickers, 2002; Vickers, Kan, & Morris, 2003; Yeung, 2004).

Over the years the culture of Hong Kong has been marginal in relation to the

centre of Chinese culture. Since Hong Kong is situated on the periphery of the

Chinese, Japanese, and Western cultures, it exhibits hybrid features which are in

marked contrast to the orthodox Chinese culture. Thus, adoption of a nationalist

viewpoint in interpreting local history and the inclusion of Hong Kong history in

Chinese history would imply the domination of a Beijing-centred ‘‘Chinese culture’’

over the Hong Kong-centred local culture (Mathews, 1997). While the colonial

perspective credits the British contribution to the miraculous transformation of the

territory, the nationalist perspective advocates only national integrity and reunifica-

tion, while the post-colonial perspective advocates only a history of ‘‘Hong Kong

itself,’’ with a distinct local identity, and criticizes continuing domination as a form of

hidden internal colonialism. These disagreements were displayed in the proposals for

Hong Kong history teaching, which exhibited the shifting and conflicting construc-

tions of a local identity.

In the current political climate, with the dominance of the pro-Beijing camp and a

shift towards an emphasis on national education, the voice for democratic and

human rights education has been gradually marginalized in the official discourse.

Nevertheless, some individuals and NGOs, small in number and weak in strength in

this marginal position, have continued to be persistent proponents of civic education

for democracy, human rights, the rule of law, and global citizenship.

Apart from Oxfam, the HKJP, and AIHK previously mentioned, the Hong Kong

Christian Institute (HKCI) is noteworthy. Being committed to work for the poor and

marginalized, the HKCI is a Christian organization that focuses on facilitating

people’s contributions to the development of a local society with Christian values in

accordance with universal standards, such as human rights, liberty, democracy, social

justice, and rule of law. It also sought to provide a critical perspective on various local

issues. To facilitate the transformation of a participatory political culture, and thus

the pacing of democratization, as early as 1994 some advocates from the HKCI

introduced the British, action-oriented ‘‘political literacy’’ model into Hong Kong

(Leung & Lau, 1997).

The political literacy approach (Crick & Porter, 1978) suggests that citizenship

education should be issue-focused. It adopts a broad view of politics, advocates

rational procedural values, and concerns itself with combining knowledge, skills, and

attitudes and values, including intellectual, communication, and active skills in equal

measure with political knowledge. The HKCI has published a series of booklets,

newsletters, and school teaching kits on this approach over a number of years.

The HKCI does not favour the apolitical orientation of recent official initiatives, in

which ‘‘civic education’’ was replaced by ‘‘moral and civic education’’ and was

170 T. K.-C. Tse

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Uni

vers

ity o

f C

alif

orni

a Sa

nta

Cru

z] a

t 18:

18 3

0 O

ctob

er 2

014

integrated with education about sex, health, and the family. Concepts related to

human rights, politics, democracy, and social justice were replaced by a strengthen-

ing of national education. To reprioritize civic education Leung (2004) argued that:

We need civic education that can develop citizens willing to participate actively and

courageously with compassion in civil society. We need critical patriots who loveChina but do not do so blindly and who are willing to contribute actively to thenational community. We also need citizens with a global perspective who have agenuine concern for and are willing to contribute to the global communitywhenever possible. In sum, we need critical citizens with multiple identities who can

contribute actively with compassion to the local, national and global communitiesthrough their participation in both formal institutes and civil society at different levels.(Emphasis added)

The above passage clearly indicates that the HKCI tried to rescue democratic

education from the dominant nationalistic discourse with an injection of terms like

‘‘multiple identities,’’ ‘‘critical’’ and ‘‘civil society.’’ In a similar vein, the HKCI has

fostered cooperation with other local organizations, exploring the possibility of

developing a civil society with civic education, responding to and monitoring the

government in the area of democratic development and on issues of people’s

livelihood and human rights. A recent innovation in the integration of service and

social justice was the ‘‘Civic Education for Civil Society Project,’’ beginning in 2001

(HKCI, 2002, 2003, 2004, 2005). This 3 year project aimed at fostering a stronger

civil society among the youth through civic education in several local districts. Thus,

an exposure camp was held with poverty as the theme and a workshop was held for

students with topics like human dignity, tolerance, the distribution of resources,

participation, and solidarity under discussion. A joint endeavour with school

students and an environmental protection organization concerning the government’s

use of incinerators to dispose of waste was organized to meet the aim of ‘‘from service

to learning, from charity to social justice’’ (Leung, 2003). To politicize the learning

of social issues, the HKCI turned service into social-political inquiry and action. For

instance, it turned visits to homes for the elderly into discussions of the structural

social exclusion of the elderly, beach cleaning activities were broadened into an

understanding of the district’s environment problems, and a conventional flag day

was turneded into an examination of the role of NGOs in the development of society

and the issue of social welfare. The HKCI joined with other groups and individuals

to form the Civic Education Concern Group in late 2002 to lead workshops

discussing the proposed Article 23 legislation with senior form students and to

publish a relevant teaching kit. They subsequently launched a new project through

the Alliance for Civic Education (ACE) focusing on the new secondary school

subjects Integrated humanities and Liberal studies. The HKCI sought to build up a

strong network for teachers to attain alternative teaching�/learning experiences for

active involvement in the social movement.

The Hong Kong Human Rights Commission and the Hong Kong Human Rights

Monitor are also community-based organizations which promote human rights

protection in Hong Kong through monitoring and legislation (Chan, 2004). In


Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Uni

vers

ity o

f C

alif

orni

a Sa

nta

Cru

z] a

t 18:

18 3

0 O

ctob

er 2

014

response to the Education Commission’s consultation document The aims of

education, issued in early 1999, Hong Kong Human Rights Monitor (1999) defined

education as a fundamental human right and contested the missions and vision

statement with underlying values of corporate domination and neo-liberal globaliza-

tion. Instead it urged the provision of:

a learning environment which encourages and rewards critical thinking, and fosters

in each pupil that sense of personal dignity and autonomy which is required in any

responsible citizen of a liberal democracy. (Emphasis added)

Also, when countering the official discourse, it reiterated that:

greater emphasis must be given to the cultivation in students of a sense of autonomy

and the confidence to think critically. Attempts to imbue in students a sense of their

duties as citizens of the Hong Kong SAR and the People’s Republic of China must

never take priority over the need to instill in them an awareness of their rights and

obligations as individual human beings. Indeed, students need to be taught that one

of the most fundamental of their rights is the right to question and criticise authority.

(Emphasis added)

Again, we can see how an alternative vocabulary was articulated concerning the

meanings of ‘‘civic education.’’ It was a radical version of citizenship advocated to

challenge the status quo. For instance, to counter the national security issue, a special

junior secondary teaching kit concerning ‘‘civil disobedience’’ was produced in 2002.

There was also a joint human rights education programme concerning Article 23 of

the Basic Law led by the Civil Human Rights Front (CHRF) in 2003. Comprising

more than 40 NGOs in Hong Kong, the CHRF has diverse focuses of concern,

ranging from issues related to religious rights, culture, women, workers, the

underclass, ethnic minorities, and people of a different sexual orientation, to

community issues, democracy, and human rights. Against the background of

opposing Article 23 of the Basic Law, concerning subversion and sedition, the

CHRF was formed on September 13, 2002, aimed at providing a platform for joint

efforts at pushing forward movements for the promotion of human rights and the

development of civil society.

Over the last few years an annual International Human Rights Day has been jointly

organized by the Professional Teachers Union, the Hong Kong Alliance in Support

of the Patriotic Democratic Movement in China, Power for Democracy, the Hong

Kong section of Amnesty International, the Hong Kong Human Rights Monitor and

the HKCI. During these past few years the introduction of new subjects, like

Integrated humanities and Liberal studies, into the mainstream education system has

created more opportunities for civic education and facilitated cooperation between

schools and some NGOs. These NGOs have tried to support teachers and raise the

social awareness of students through curriculum development, experiential learning,

and workshops.

172 T. K.-C. Tse

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Uni

vers

ity o

f C

alif

orni

a Sa

nta

Cru

z] a

t 18:

18 3

0 O

ctob

er 2

014

Unfinished Struggles: A new social movement against national cum

neo-liberal hegemony

With a spatial and cultural politics perspective and the dynamics bearing on the

formation of citizenship education discourses in Hong Kong as a case study, I have

shown that there have been fierce contestations and negotiations concerning the

meanings of citizenship and identity among different actors in multilayer contexts

coupled with various forces. The processes of globalization, nationalization, and

localization, as multifaceted phenomena in general, interact across levels and carry

complementary, contradictory, and uncertain outcomes. Representations of citizen-

ship are thus diversified and hybridized, varying according to different agents of

power. The alternative themes of citizenship discourses are summarized in Table 1.

Similar to the social milieu in general, Hong Kong’s citizenship education has

emerged from a clash of discourses: between a morally good person, a democratic

activist, a loyal compatriot, and a global citizen; between Chinese and Western;

Table 1. Themes of citizenship discourses

Level Official discourse Alternative themes articulated by

NGOs

Global Understanding global affairs The international gap and poverty

Environment protection Social justice, solidarity, and equality,

diversity, sustainable development,

peace, critical thinking and

empowerment

Human rights

National National reunification and

Chinese identity

Democratic China

China�/Hong Kong relations:

culturalcontinuity, political, and

economic integration

Critical patriots

The Basic Law (one country)

Positive values, such as

responsibility, commitment,

perseverance

Local A sense of belonging to Hong

Kong

Distinct Hong Kong identity

Personal dignity and autonomy

Human rights, liberty, democracy,

social justice and the rule of law

The poor and the marginalized: social

exclusion

The Basic Law (two systems): civil

disobedience

Political literacy: critical thinking

Civil society


Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Uni

vers

ity o

f C

alif

orni

a Sa

nta

Cru

z] a

t 18:

18 3

0 O

ctob

er 2

014

between moral and political; between local, national, and international. While the

official civic education programme is oriented towards ‘‘national education’’ and,

hence, a patriotic conformist, a pluralist and vibrant civil society allows hybridization

and cross-fertilization of multiple civic education discourses and practices running in

parallel with the state project, in either a complementary or competitive way. Within

civil society some prominent international bodies and Christian organizations have

played a particular role in alternative civic education practices and a new social

movement (Wong, Yuen, & Cheng 1999). This democratic camp, usually an issue-

based ad hoc alliance, has been engaged in a tug of war with the government and the

pro-Beijing camp. Viewed in this way, the civic education launched by the

democratic camp represents an empowerment struggle for human rights and

democracy as against the domestication efforts made by the official and pro-Beijing

camps, as well as the tyranny of global capitalism. The shaping of struggles is very

much dependent on the dynamics and balance of different forces. Amidst the tides of

globalization, nationalization, and localization it is no wonder that the plurality of

citizenship discourses in flux are characterized by ambiguous, flexible, complex,

uncertain, contradictory, and eclectic manners, with different elements overlapping

and hybridizing. Hence, on the one hand, there is an emphasis on ‘‘Chineseness,’’

Confucian tradition, paternalism, and patriotism and, on the other, an emphasis on

the local, humanism, anti-capitalism, democracy, and Christianity.

Regarding theoretical discussions, previous literature has tended to contrast

localization (which is supposed to be directly equivalent to national forces) with

globalization, which is inadequate when apply this dichotomy to Hong Kong. The

complexity of the Hong Kong scenario points to the significance of multiple

localities*/local, national, and global*/when understanding the forces shaping

citizenship education. In addition, within every unit of locality there are different,

and sometimes oppositional, understandings of ideal citizenship among different

agents. When accepting or challenging the official hegemony each party in civil

society could utilize the opportunities available to it and put forth its preferred

version of ‘‘good citizen.’’ Some groups endorse the dominant discourse, some

directly reject it, while others subtly replace or dilute it with other notions. Moreover,

it is interesting to note that many NGOs take advantage of the gaps and

contradictions within the official discourse and insert alternative elements in the

light of worldwide norms or Christian values. This article also draws attention to the

alternative discourses and practices of NGOs in constructing citizenship education

projects, which could be an important area of study in the days to come when civil

society assumes a more prominent role in a rapidly changing political context.

Acknowledgements

The author would like to thank Agnes Ku, Hung Ho-fung, John Cable, and Keith

Punch for their advice and comments on earlier drafts of the article.

174 T. K.-C. Tse

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Uni

vers

ity o

f C

alif

orni

a Sa

nta

Cru

z] a

t 18:

18 3

0 O

ctob

er 2

014

References

Amnesty International Hong Kong (AIHK). (2003a). AIHK newsletter, July�/September, p. 3.

Amnesty International Hong Kong (AIHK). (2003b). AIHK newsletter, October�/December, p. 2.

Barker, C. (2000). Cultural studies: Theory and perspective. London: Sage.

Bhabha, H. (Ed) (1990). Nation and narration. London: Routledge.

Boost patriotic education, SAR told (2003, September 5). Standard, p. B3.

Chan, K.-M. (2004). Human rights education in Hong Kong: Development, difficulties, and the current

situation. Paper presented at the International Conference on Human Rights Education,

Chang Fo-Chuan Centre for the Study of Human Rights, SooChow University, Taiwan,

Taipei.

Chen, Y.-G., & Reid, I. (2002). Citizenship education in Chinese schools: Retrospect and

prospect. Research in Education, 67(1), 58�/69.

Choi, P.-K. (1990). From dependence to self-sufficiency: Rise of the indigenous culture of Hong

Kong, 1945�/1989. Asian Culture, 14, 161�/177.

Crick, B., & Porter, A. (1978). Political education and political literacy. London: Longman.

Curriculum Development Committee (CDC). (1996). Guidelines on civic education in schools. Hong

Kong: Government Printer.

Curriculum Development Council (CDC). (2001). Learning to learn: The way forward in curriculum

development. Hong Kong: CDC.

Curriculum Development Council (CDC). (2002). The basic education curriculum guide*/Building

on strengths. Hong Kong: CDC.

Editorial (2003, October 5). National pride*/with HK characteristics, South China Morning Post,

p. 10.

Fok, S.-C. (2001). Meeting the challenge of human rights education: The case of Hong Kong. Asia

Pacific Education Review, 2(1), 56�/65.

Hong Kong Christian Institute (HKCI). (2002). HKCI annual report. Hong Kong: Hong Kong

Christian Institute.







Hong Kong Human Rights Monitor. (1999) Response to the Education Commission’s consultation

document*/The aim of education. Retrieved July 10, 2006, from http://www.hkhrm.org.hk/

english/reports/education.html.

Lau, S.-K., & Kuan, H.-C. (1988). The ethos of the Hong Kong Chinese. Hong Kong: The Chinese

University Press.

Law, P. (2006). Education, Oxfam style: Oxfam Hong Kong*/A 30-year journey 1976�/2006.

Oxfam Magazine, 2005(1), 27�/28.

Law, W.-S. (Ed). (1998). Whose city? Post-war Hong Kong civic cultures and political discourses. Hong

Kong: Oxford University Press.

Lee, A. N.-K. (1997, August 19). National community, but local conditions. South China Morning

Post, p. 7.

Lee, A. N.-K. & Yuen, M. M.-Y. (2003). Promoting human rights education in Hong Kong

secondary schools. In J. R. Plantilla (Ed.), Human rights education in Asian schools (vol. 2, pp.

84�/95). Osaka: Hurights Osaka.

Lee, S.-M. (1987). Political education and civic education: The British perspective and Hong

Kong perspective. International Journal of Educational Development, 7(4), 251�/263.


Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Uni

vers

ity o

f C

alif

orni

a Sa

nta

Cru

z] a

t 18:

18 3

0 O

ctob

er 2

014

Lee, W.-O. (1999). Controversies of civic education in political transition. In J. Torney-Purta, J.

Schwile, & J.-A. Amadeo (Eds.), Civic education across countries: Twenty-four national case

studies from the IEA civic education project (pp. 313�/340). Amsterdam, The Netherlands: IEA.

Lee, W.-O., & Gu, R.-F. (2004). Research on global citizenship education in Hong Kong and Shanghai

secondary schools. Hong Kong: Oxfam.

Lee, W.-O., & Sweeting, A. (2001). Controversies in Hong Kong’s political transition: Nationalism

versus liberalism. In M. Bray, & W.-O. Lee (Eds.), Education and political transition: Themes

and experiences in East Asia (2nd Edn, pp. 101�/121). Hong Kong: CERC, University of Hong

Kong.

Leung, Y.-W. (1998). The conflict between civic education and nationalistic education. Reflection,

56(July), 10�/12.

Leung, Y.-W. (2003). Citizenship education through service learning: From charity to social

justice. Educational Journal, 31(1), 95�/115.

Leung, Y.-W. (2004). Reprioritising our civic education. HKCI Newsletter, 190 (July), p. 3. Hong

Kong: Hong Kong Christian Institute.

Leung, Y.-W., Chai, T. W.-L., & Ng, S.-W. (2000). The evolution of civic education: From

guidelines 1985 to guidelines 1996. In Y.-C. Cheng, K.-W. Chow, & K.-T. Tsui (Eds.),

School curriculum change and development in Hong Kong (pp. 351�/368). Hong Kong: Hong

Kong Institute of Education.

Leung, Y.-W., & Cheng, Y.-T. (Eds). (1998). Nationalistic education: Research and reflection. Hong

Kong: Joint Committee on Civic Education.

Leung, Y.-W., & Lau, K.-F. (1997). Political education in a Hong Kong setting: Theory and practice

(expanded edition). Hong Kong: Hong Kong Christian Institute.

Lui, T.-L., Kuan, H.-C., Chan, K.-M., & Chan, S. C-. W. (2005). Friends and critics of the state:

The case of Hong Kong. In R. P. Weller (Ed.), Civil society, globalization and political change in

Asia: Organizing between family and state (pp. 58�/75). New York: Routledge.

Mathews, G. (1997). Heunggoingyahn: on the past, present, future of Hong Kong identity. Bulletin

of concerned Asian scholars, 29(3), 3�/13.

Morris, P., Kan, F., & Morris, E. (2000). Education, civic participation and identity. Cambridge

Journal of Education, 30(2), 243�/262.

Morris, P., & Morris, E. (2000a). Constructing the good citizen in Hong Kong: Values promoted in

the school curriculum. Asia Pacific Journal of Education, 20(1), 36�/52.

Morris, P., & Morris, E. (2000b). Civic education in Hong Kong: From depoliticisation to Chinese

values. International Journal of Social Education, 14(1), 1�/18.

Oxfam Hong Kong. (2001). Oxfam Hong Kong annual review. Hong Kong: Oxfam.





Oxfam Hong Kong. (2006). What is global citizenship education?, Retrieved July 10, 2006, from

http://cyberschool.oxfam.org.hk/eng/minisites/gce/eng/index.htm.

Rauner, M. H. (1998). The worldwide globalization of civics education topics from 1955 to 1995.

Unpublished doctoral dissertation, Stanford University, CA.

Rauner, M. H. (1999). UNESCO as an organizational carrier of civics education information.

International Journal of Educational Development, 19(1), 91�/100.

Simon, R. (1982). Gramsci’s political thought: an introduction. London: Lawrence and Wishart Ltd.

Siu, C.-K. (1996). Political transition and curriculum reconstruction: The inclusion of local history in the

history curriculum of Hong Kong’. Unpublished M.Phil. thesis, Faculty of Education, Chinese

University of Hong Kong.

Tang, J. T.-H. (1997). Hong Kong in transition: globalization versus nationalization. In M. K.

Chan (Ed.), The challenge of Hong Kong’s reintegration with China (pp. 177�/197). Hong Kong:

Hong Kong University Press.

176 T. K.-C. Tse

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Uni

vers

ity o

f C

alif

orni

a Sa

nta

Cru

z] a

t 18:

18 3

0 O

ctob

er 2

014

Turner, M. (1995). 60s/90s: Dissolving the people. In M. Turner, & I. Ngan (Eds.), Hong Kong

sixties: Designing identity (pp. 13�/36). Hong Kong: Hong Kong Arts Centre.

Vickers, E. (2002). The politics of history education in Hong Kong: The case of local history.

International Journal of Educational Research, 37(6/7), 587�/602.

Vickers, E., Kan, F., & Morris, P. (2003). Colonialism and the politics of ‘Chinese History’ in

Hong Kong’s schools. Oxford Review of Education, 29(1), 95�/111.

Williams, M., & Humphrys, G. (2003a). Introduction. In M. Williams, & G. Humphrys (Eds.),

Citizenship education and lifelong learning: Power and place (pp. 3�/18). New York: Nova

Science.

Williams, M., & Humphrys, G. (2003b). Citizenship education and the importance of place. In M.

Williams, & G. Humphrys (Eds.), Citizenship education and lifelong learning: Power and place

(pp. 33�/45). New York: Nova Science.

Wong, P. C.-W., Yuen, M. M.-Y., & Cheng, C. Y.-T. (1999). Christian organizations, civil society

and civic education. In M. Print, J. Ellickson-Brown, & A. R. Baginda (Eds.), Civic education

for civil society (pp. 175�/192). London: ASEAN Academic Press.

Wong, T. K. Y., & Wan, P. S. (2004). Re-imagining China: The continuity and change of identity in

post-1997 Hong Kong. In S. K. Lau, T. K. Y. Wong, & P. S. Wan (Eds.), Society and politics in

Hong Kong: Continuity and change (pp. 213�/241). Hong Kong: Hong Kong Institute of Asia-

Pacific Studies, Chinese University of Hong Kong.

Wu, R. (2004) The patriotism debate and the direction of Hong Kong’s civil movement. HKCI

Newsletter, 186(March), 1.

Yeung, W.-Y. (2004, August 9�/10). Can we let students study this kind of Hong Kong history?

Ming Pao, p. D6.


Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Uni

vers

ity o

f C

alif

orni

a Sa

nta

Cru

z] a

t 18:

18 3

0 O

ctob

er 2

014

Documents

Whose Citizenship Education? Hong Kong from a spatial and cultural politics perspective