British Journal of Social Work (2014) 44, 44–62

doi:10.1093/bjsw/bcs092
Advance Access publication July 4, 2012

Re-Engagement and Negotiation in a

Changing Political and Economic
Context: Social Work in Hong Kong
C. W. Lam* and Eric Blyth

C. W. Lam (BA, MSW, Ph.D.) is Assistant Professor at the Department of Applied Social
Sciences, The Hong Kong Polytechnic University, Hong Kong. Before working in academia,
he had worked in the community development, youth work, probation and mental health
services. Eric Blyth (BA, MA, Ph.D.) is Professor of Social Work at the University of
Huddersfield, Visiting Professor of Social Work at the National University of Singapore and
Adjunct Professor of Health Ethics at Tung Wah College, Hong Kong. He was Visiting
Professor in the Department of Applied Social Sciences at Hong Kong Polytechnic
University from 2008 until 2011. He is a former joint editor of the British Journal of Social
Work.

*Correspondence to Dr C. W. Lam, Department of Applied Social Sciences, The Hong Kong

Polytechnic University, Hong Kong SAR, China. E-mail: sscwlam@polyu.edu.hk

Abstract
This paper provides a commentary and analysis on the half-century development of
social work in Hong Kong, from its origins in the twin roots of Christian ideology accom-
panying British colonialism and Chinese family values, the transfer of sovereignty in
1997, the Asian financial crisis and subsequent economic recession and major cuts in gov-
ernment funding for social welfare. We pointed out that the government had tried to
co-opt social work for ideological ends. This aim was not achieved in the 1980s, but
the government has succeeded in doing so by imposing the new financial control on
the non-governmental organisations (NGOs) after 1997. We argue that the four major
political challenges ahead for social workers in Hong Kong relate to social integration,
urban maladies, social justice and indigenisation. We propose that a process of re-politi-
cisation of social work by both agencies and practitioners, seeking to reclaim social
workers’ political and professional role, is necessary in order to ensure a more equitable
distribution of community resources in Hong Kong to ensure that all citizens share in its
prosperity.

Keywords: Political participation, politicisation, indigenisation, social work

development

Accepted: June 2012

# The Author 2012. Published by Oxford University Press on behalf of

The British Association of Social Workers. All rights reserved.
 Negotiation in a Changing Political and Economic Context 45

Introduction
The development of the welfare state in Britain after the Second World
War created high societal expectations of social workers, who enjoyed
the kudos of being ‘the harbingers of greater equality and security, the guar-
antors against the misery of the inter-war years’ (Jordan, 1984, p. 72). In
practice, however, the incorporation of social workers into the system of
state bureaucracy tended to assign them a gate-keeper role in order to
limit demands for social services by redefining needs, identifying the ‘de-
serving poor’ and to serve as social control agents (Jordan and Jordan,
2000). As in the United Kingdom, social work in Hong Kong has been char-
acterised by resistance and negotiation, engagement and disengagement in
the political process.
Hong Kong was initially colonised by the British in 1842, followed by
further land acquisitions in Kowloon, until 1997, when sovereignty of the
entire territory was returned to China. Hong Kong then became a Special
Administrative Region of the People’s Republic of China (PRC) under
the ‘one country two systems’ formula and the Basic Law, that formally
afford Hong Kong autonomy except as regards foreign policy and national
defence (Hong Kong Government, 2012).
Hong Kong today is one of the most densely populated societies
and—among the world’s wealthiest countries—one of its most unequal. Sig-
nificant socio-economic and demographic variations occur within the terri-
tory (Table 1). For example, while the overall population density is 6,544
persons per square kilometre, in Kwun Tong district, the population
density is 55,204 persons per square kilometre (Census and Statistics De-
partment, 2012). While the median monthly domestic household income
in 2011 was HK$20,500 (approximately £1,660), 36.4 per cent of households
existed on a median monthly income of less than HK$15,000 (approximate-
ly £1,215) and 23.8 per cent of households had a median monthly
income below HK$10,000 (approximately £810) (Census and Statistics

Table 1 Socio-economic and demographic characteristics of Hong Kong

Surface area (square km) 20091 1,104

Population density (people per square km) 20112 6,544
Gross national income (US$ billions) 20083 219.3
Gross national income rank (n ¼ 210) 20083 36
Gross national income per capita (US$) 20083 31,420
Gross national income per capita rank (n ¼ 210) 20083 37
Median monthly domestic household income (US$) 20112 2,628
Median monthly income from main employment (US$) 20112 1,410
Gross domestic product per capita (US$) 20114 34,200

Sources: 1 Hong Kong Government, 2012

2
Census and Statistics Department, 2012
3
World Bank, 2010, p. 32
4
Tsang, 2012 (Supplement), p. 5.
46 C. W. Lam and Eric Blyth

Department, 2012). In 2010, the Gini Index for Hong Kong was 43.4—
making it one of the most unequal societies in the developed world
(UNDP, 2010). In an effort to tackle low incomes of wage earners in
Hong Kong, a statutory minimum wage of $28 (approximately £2.22) per
hour was introduced on 1 May 2011.
In this paper, we narrate the circumstances that fostered the different
roles and positions of social workers in politics in Hong Kong since colonial
times to the present day. We chart incidents and situations in the develop-
ment of the profession, beginning in the immediate period after the Second
World War that witnessed the birth of social work in the colony, recounting
the politicisation of social work in the 1980s and government efforts to
control social work after 1997. We trace the changes in Hong Kong
society, particularly the development of its political and social welfare
systems, and governmental controls over non-governmental organisations
(NGOs) that have continued to shape the social work profession. We also
argue that social workers need to reclaim their political and professional
role in order to tackle the four major political challenges facing the profes-
sion in Hong Kong, namely social integration, urban maladies, social justice
and indigenisation.

Welfare in Hong Kong

Because of space limitations, our own analysis begins after the Second
World War, when Hong Kong faced major social challenges, resulting not
only from almost four years of Japanese occupation and wartime privations,
but also because of the return of Hong Kong residents who had escaped the
Japanese occupation by fleeing to the Chinese mainland, and the influx of
refugees fleeing the civil war and subsequent Communist victory in the
mainland.
Despite escalating social misfortune experienced by significant sections
of the indigenous and new migrant population in the post-war period,
however, the ethos of the colonial administration was characterised by
‘non-intervention’, giving rise to a particular brand of politics—‘administra-
tive absorption of politics’—that ‘tried to gain legitimacy for its authority,
not from the Crown, but from the consent of the ruled by claiming to
conform to democratic values, if not to a democratic form of government’
(King, 1981, p. 131).
In accordance with its laissez-faire approach, the colonial administration
was willing to provide only minimal services for the people living in its
domain. The major responsibility for individual welfare was firmly
located within the family and clan networks, underpinned by ‘traditional’
Chinese virtues of self-sufficiency and self-reliance. Family values based
on Confucian ideology that emphasises parents’ duties towards their de-
pendent children and, in later life, adult children’s responsibilities
 Negotiation in a Changing Political and Economic Context 47

towards their parents, a system of roles and obligations known as ‘filial

piety’ (Chow, 1992). However, in the face of hardships whose resolution
exceeded the resources of family networks, external assistance was avail-
able from a variety of sources. These were primarily indigenous philan-
thropic agencies, such as the Tung Wah Group of Hospitals (Sinn, 1989)
and ‘kaifong’ (literally ‘neighbourhood’) associations (Wong, 1972), and
foreign NGOs funded by overseas donors providing mostly health care
and education. Many of the latter espoused a Western, Christian orienta-
tion, reflecting the missionary endeavour that accompanied political and
commercial colonisation. NGOs have been the main providers of institutio-
nalised social welfare services, including both the personnel and the ideas of
service, particularly as regards the development of social work (Lam and
Chan, 2003).
The government’s absence from post-war welfare development can be
further explained by its desire to establish Hong Kong as a low-wage
low-tax environment in order to attract international commerce and fears
that government-provided welfare would not only divert its resources, but
do so in a way that might weaken the work ethic and ultimately undermine
its primary objective (Tang, 2000).
Indeed, the government’s antipathy towards state welfare provision was
evident in its first White Paper on social welfare in 1965, in which it empha-
sised the inherent threats to traditional family functions posed by state
welfare (Hong Kong Government, 1965). It thus perpetuated the idea
that government welfare provision was appropriately seen as a last resort
when individual and family resources failed—an act of benevolence for
which citizens should be grateful, rather than as a right to which they
were entitled (Tam and Yeung, 1994). In spite of Hong Kong’s increasing
prosperity, social discontent with the colonial government’s provision for
the indigenous population culminated in riots in April 1966. Although
these were forcibly quelled after a few days, further rioting broke out in
May 1967, fuelled by the ‘ultra-left’ wing of the Chinese Communist
Party, inspired by the Great Cultural Revolution taking place in the
PRC. Following the 1967 riots, the government realised that the socio-
political landscape of Hong Kong had irreversibly changed with the rising
young generations entering the political arena. As a consequence, the gov-
ernment initiated major social policy reforms, particularly to improve edu-
cation, health care, public housing and social welfare, in order to protect the
colony’s status as an investment-friendly environment and developing
Asian hub for international business.
The government’s increased responsibility for welfare in the 1970s coin-
cided with a reduction in financial support of the territory’s NGOs by over-
seas donors because of Hong Kong’s increasing prosperity and the
disappearance from the social welfare stage of the majority of traditional
indigenous organisations. NGOs providing welfare programmes thus
became more reliant on locally generated funding and this transition
48 C. W. Lam and Eric Blyth

marked the start of a government – NGO partnership underscoring Hong

Kong’s welfare and the emergence of social work as a new profession in
the colony.

The birth of social work in Hong Kong

Social work arrived in Hong Kong as a direct consequence of colonisation
(Leung, 2000; Chow, 2008). The first social work training in Hong Kong was
established in 1950 under the Department of Economics and Political
Science at the University of Hong Kong (Leung, 2000). However, the gov-
ernment did not take any major initiative regarding social work until 1960,
when it invited Eileen Younghusband from the UK to the colony to review
training programmes and to make recommendations for the future (Young-
husband, 1960). Three years later, three scholars from North America were
invited to undertake a more in-depth study and to design training pro-
grammes for social workers (Chaisson et al., 1963). These reports provided
the blueprint for the development of social work training programmes in
Hong Kong.
The pacifying role and disciplinary function of social work have been
stressed by the government as early as 1955, when the government
spelled out its expectation of social work, to ensure:
. . . fewer social unfits, more individual self-reliance, and less dependence
upon ‘charity’ by families or persons. . . . and (perhaps most important of
all) less gullible material for subversively-minded persons to work on—in
short, citizens with a much more highly developed social consciousness
and sense of social responsibility than had existed previously (Social
Welfare Officer, 1955, p. 1).

Contrarily, two influential voices in the colony—Rev. Karl Stumpf, Dir-

ector of the Department of Social Service of the Lutheran World Feder-
ation, and Professor Peter Hodge, Chair Professor of Social Work at
Hong Kong University—encouraged social workers to be politically
aware and engaged. Stumpf called for social workers to tackle the root
causes of social problems by advocating for more resources to improve
social conditions. He contended that social workers, and all other citizens,
had to become active in the issue of redistribution of social resources to deal
with the underlying causes of social problems. This also assumed that a pol-
itical role was necessary for social workers if Hong Kong was to be changed
for the better (Lutheran World Federation, 1972). In the same vein, Hodge,
who was greatly influenced by the British Fabian tradition, urged his
students to work for the creation of a type of society that ‘will tend to
develop a system of social policies which assures to all its members
equal access to all status, and equal rights to material and symbolic,
life-sustaining and life-enhancing resources, goods, and services’
 Negotiation in a Changing Political and Economic Context 49

(Hodge, 1976, pp. 11– 12). Their ideas were endorsed by some young social
workers who had laid down the foundation of politicisation of social
workers in Hong Kong in the 1980s.

Politicisation of social work and social welfare

The 1980s also witnessed the dominance of neo-conservative approaches to
welfare, especially as regards restraint on welfare spending, that echoed the
policies of the Reagan and Thatcher governments in the USA and the UK,
respectively—approaches to which social workers were inimical.
Social movements had become active in the late 1970s in Hong Kong.
Meanwhile, the government endorsed the Neighbourhood Level Commu-
nity Development Projects (NLCDP) which became eligible for funding
from the Social Welfare Department in 1978, to serve deprived and transi-
ent communities, such as squatter areas and temporary housing areas.
Social workers engaged as community organisers (working in either
NLCDPs or in independent NGOs such as the Society for Community
Organizations) had been active in pressurising local government officials
to improve the environment for the residents and organising residents to
lobby the government for policy changes. Indeed, the Hong Kong Social
Workers’ General Union (2010) was formed in 1980 following the arrest
and prosecution for illegal assembly of community organisers, while
leading a march of service recipients on government offices.
Social workers were described as ‘particularly active’ in political partici-
pation at this time in a study undertaken by Chui and Gray (2004, p. 178).
Another academic also noted that community workers had embraced social
reform and provided a bridge for political communication between govern-
ment authorities and local residents as their professional roles (Leung,
1996). As Chu (2003) observed, the government was well aware of the pol-
itical nature of community work, but regarded it as a ‘safety valve’ for en-
abling residents to ventilate their grievances. A number of grassroots
organisations were created by the NLCDPs and exerted tremendous pres-
sure on the traditional government-sponsored residents’ associations. Some
NLCDPs and their allied resident groups even joined and formed territory-
wide coalition groups focusing on various housing issues and became power
bases for mobilisation and social movements (Leung, 1996).
Social workers also participated actively in electoral politics, especially
following the proclamation of the Sino-British Joint Declaration on the
future of Hong Kong in 1984. Twenty-two social workers stood for election
in the 1985 District Board elections, of whom twenty were elected and they
accounted for more than 10 per cent of the District Board membership.
Three years later, among the 490 candidates, forty-nine social workers
stood for election to the District Boards, of whom thirty were successful
(Fung, 1996). The first-ever elections to the Hong Kong’s Legislative
50 C. W. Lam and Eric Blyth

Council—a single-chamber legislature comprising thirty members elected

directly by geographical constituencies and thirty elected by functional con-
stituencies—were held. Both the geographical and functional constituency
seats were open to elections in 1985 and 1991, respectively. In recognition of
the political status of social workers within Hong Kong, one of the thirty
functional constituencies was assigned to social workers (Hong Kong Legis-
lative Council, 2011).
It is worth noting that, as pointed out by Wilding (1996), there was a sym-
biotic relationship between welfare and democracy in the 1980s. Adopting
an optimistic tone, Chow (1998) noted that the culture of democratic par-
ticipation and citizens’ rights had become prominent in society and under-
lay the development of social welfare after the mid-1980s. He also noted
that, through the impact of social workers who became professional politi-
cians and helped shape social policy, a message was conveyed to the com-
munity that political participation was an important means of improving
social welfare. Social workers were pictured by the mass media as the
group who could determine the future of social welfare policy through
their participation in local politics (Fung, 1994; Mok, 1988). Two research
studies also found that social workers in Hong Kong were becoming
more reformist, more egalitarian and had high expectations of the govern-
ment’s role in social welfare, even if funding welfare would impose a heavy
cost on the Hong Kong economy (Wong, 1993; Chan, 1989). Social workers’
participation in politics, in our observation, had become one of the import-
ant impetuses prompting a change in the government’s residual approach to
welfare to a more active approach in social welfare (Lam and Chow, 2003).
The social expenditure as a percentage of the total public expenditure
witnessed an increase from 38.5 per cent in 1973 – 74 to 54.5 per cent in
1998– 99, with the social welfare expenditure increased from just 3 per
cent to 9.9 per cent (Table 2).

New controls and de-politicisation in social work

Chui and Gray (2004) further argued that Hong Kong social workers’ par-
ticipation in the political process had moved through the phases of a
service-oriented profession, a policy advocacy role working through infor-
mal channels, to the engagement in formal political channels and election
to District Councils and the Legislative Council. However, with hindsight,
this analysis failed to acknowledge the de-politicisation of social work in
Hong Kong, especially since the change of sovereignty in 1997. In fact, in
the 1980s, it was estimated that more than 80 per cent of the NGOs’
budgets were under-written by the government’s subvention and their ac-
tivities were largely influenced by governmental policies (Lam and Chan,
2003). NGOs have remained financially dependent on the government
since then—a dependency that may be seen as the Achilles heel of social
 Negotiation in a Changing Political and Economic Context 51

Table 2 Social expenditure Hong Kong (as percentage of total public expenditure)

1973 –741 1985 –861 1998 – 992 2010 –113 2012 –133 estimated

Education 19.8 17.4 18.2 18.9 18.9

Social welfare 3.0 5.7 9.9 12.6 11.6
Health 9.0 8.7 11.8 12.4 14.2
Housing 6.7 12.7 14.6 5.3 5.2
Total 38.5 44.5 54.5 49.2 49.9

Sources: 1 Jones, 1990, p. 256

2
Leung, 2003 (Appendices)
3
Tsang, 2012 (Appendices).

workers’ political participation in Hong Kong. The government exercises a

major influence on the shape of social work in Hong Kong, either directly,
as an employer via the Social Welfare Department, or indirectly, via its
funding of NGOs. In 2008 – 09, of the department’s total expenditure of
HK$39.2 billion (approximately £3.2 billion), the social security system con-
sumed 72 per cent to fund the non-contributory social security system for
single parents, unemployed, disabled and older persons. The department’s
own expenditure accounted for 7 per cent (HK$3.0 billion, approximately
£243 million) to provide family services, services for older people,
medical social work services and services for offenders. The Hong Kong’s
387 NGOs received HK$8.1 billion (approximately £656 million) of govern-
ment funding (Social Welfare Department, 2010). Nevertheless, despite re-
ceiving less than 21 per cent of the total welfare budget, NGOs provide over
90 per cent of social welfare services through 3,000 service units (Hong
Kong Council of Social Service, 2011). As of June 2012, these NGOs
employed 54 per cent of Hong Kong’s 16,851 Registered Social Workers,
the Social Welfare Department employed 12 per cent and the remaining
34 per cent of registered social workers were not employed in a social
work position (Social Workers Registration Board, 2012).
Since the government funds most of the NGOs, which in turn employ the
majority of social workers, most social workers in Hong Kong are, in effect,
on the payroll of the government. Because of its dominance in resource pro-
vision, the government has delimited the scope of social workers’ political
activities through the mode of funding.
The dominant model for government funding of Hong Kong NGOs was
the ‘subvention system’, whereby government defined NGOs’ eligible
costs, expenditure ceilings and staffing standards in service provision, and
covered the NGOs’ actual costs. In 1995, the government commissioned
Coopers & Lybrand to review these funding arrangements. The review con-
cluded that existing arrangements were ineffective and insufficiently respon-
sive to meet the increasing demands of social welfare development in Hong
Kong, highlighting the high proportion of NGOs’ staffing costs, approxi-
mately 80 per cent of their total budgets. The consultancy recommended
52 C. W. Lam and Eric Blyth

that, in the future, government support to NGOs should be by means of a

‘Lump Sum Grant’ (LSG) (Coopers & Lybrand, 1996).
The government began to roll out the LSG in 2001, despite resistance
from some NGOs. By the end of 2008 – 09, about 99 per cent of NGOs
funded by the Social Welfare Department had adopted the LSG (Social
Welfare Department, 2010). Ostensibly ‘cost neutral’, the LSG payable to
NGOs was based on the median of the salary scale of each staff member
and was promoted as enabling NGOs to develop their own staffing ratios
and remuneration systems. Introduction of the LSG also formally
uncoupled NGO social workers’ conditions of service, including pay,
from those of civil servants with which they had previously been aligned.
Introduction of the LSG meant that any NGO whose social workforce
was disproportionately weighted towards experienced staff who were paid
above the mid-point on the relevant salary scale was disadvantaged by
having fewer resources either for employing other staff or for other oper-
ational expenses. These developments took place against the background
of the unfolding Asian financial crisis. In 2002 – 03, the then Financial Sec-
retary estimated that the consolidated deficit would be nearly equivalent to
5.3 per cent of GDP. He also noted that the cost of social welfare expend-
iture had increased from less than 1 per cent of GDP in 1992 to 2.6 per cent
in 2002, and claimed that this was a major contributor to the government
deficit (Leung, 2003, para. 19). Crucially, after 1997, the government rede-
fined its relationship with the NGO sector from one of partnership to one of
‘funder– service operator’ (Social Welfare Department, 2000). Two other
measures were introduced as part of the new funding package for welfare
services to ensure government control of the development of social
welfare services: the Service Performance and Monitoring System
(SPMS) and a system of competitive tending for service contracts. Where
the LSG increased the operational pressures of, and imposed tighter finan-
cial control on, most NGOs, effectively demanding ‘more for less’, the
SPMS required increased accountability from NGOs for the services they
provide through an emphasis on cost-effectiveness in service performance.
Meanwhile, competitive tendering introduced both instability (because of
the short-term nature of most contracts) and divisiveness (because of com-
petition for the same scarce resources) into the welfare sector and increased
the amount of NGOs’ resources devoted to bid development and income
generation rather than to direct service delivery. In response to their (in
practice) reduced financial circumstances, NGOs began to implement cost-
cutting measures. Since the bulk of their expenses was attributed to staff
costs, these NGOs experienced the burden of cuts, with some agencies in-
creasing the employment of contract or temporary staff, reducing social
workers’ salaries, employing fewer social workers, thus increasing the
working hours and workloads of staff, and adversely impacting on morale
(Lai and Chan, 2009).
 Negotiation in a Changing Political and Economic Context 53

At the time of writing, the government is still ‘taking follow-up actions to

enhance the system and implement all the recommendations’—a process
begun in 2008 (Social Welfare Department, 2010). In sum, the LSG and
SPMS are in keeping with this redefined relationship. Hence, while the
redefined relationship has increased the pressure on social workers in
terms of service outputs and performance, it has also disempowered them
and deprived them of their previous professional and political influence.
A recent study of messages posted on a social work online forum reports
that social workers frequently complain that they have less time with
service users because they need to spend more time on administration
(Leung et al., 2010). A similar situation has also been reported across
social work and related welfare organisations in the UK, ranging from
child protection to probation services where professional staff are
‘bogged down’ in administration, thus leaving insufficient time to spend
with service users (BBC News, 2011). Adding to this pressure was the
change of government policy in terminating new community projects in
Hong Kong’s deprived areas, which resulted in the shrinkage of the
number of sub-vented projects from forty-nine in 1999/2000 (Hong Kong
Council of Social Service, 2005) to seventeen in 2010 (Social Welfare De-
partment, 2011).

Politicisation and professionalisation in social work

As noted above, the post-1997 changes to NGO subvention by means of the

LSG have increased pressure on service outputs and enhanced government
control over NGOs and front line social workers. At the same time, the em-
phasis on professionalisation within social work has resulted in social
workers’ disengagement from, and loss of their previous influential status
in, Hong Kong politics. The active involvement of social workers in politics
diminished following the change of sovereignty and social workers were
forced to face the harsh dawn of government cutbacks in social welfare
programmes.
Social workers’ engagement with professionalisation implies a lighter in-
volvement in the political process. As observed by the then director of the
Hong Kong Council of Social Service, the support for the NLCDPs on the
part of the profession remained lukewarm (Hui, 1998). There was no strong
support for the continuation of the NLCDPs from the professional associ-
ation or NGOs, and the de-politicisation of social work was rapid and thor-
ough (Chu, 2003). It is also noteworthy that, as observed by the authors,
only sixteen social workers are elected members of District Councils (for-
merly District Boards until 1999) in 2011, accounting for less than 3 per
cent of the membership (Hong Kong Government, 2011). As noted
above, government policy oversaw a decrease in the number of NLCDPs
in Hong Kong. Not only was this a serious blow to social workers’
54 C. W. Lam and Eric Blyth

participation in the political process through diminished job opportunities

for community work; it has also resulted in a greater number of students
preferring micro-level psychotherapeutic intervention to macro-level
policy (political) practice. Research conducted in one major university in
Hong Kong by one of the authors (Lam and Chan, 2003) provided
further evidence of Hong Kong social workers’ disengagement with inter-
ventions at the political level. In this study, Hong Kong social work students
demonstrated greater affinity for micro-level interventions (e.g. individual
case work, family therapy, group work) than for macro-level practice (e.g.
community organisation and planning, social policy formulation activities).

Discussion: contemporary challenges for social work in

Hong Kong
Given the nature and scale of Hong Kong’s social problems combined with
its undoubted wealth, we consider a process of re-politicisation of social
work is required to achieve necessary reforms. Social work in Hong Kong
needs to more actively re-engage with the process of social transformation
taking place in the last two decades as providing humanitarian care for the
most vulnerable individuals in one of the world’s most affluent societies.
Some of the major challenges facing social work in Hong Kong are not
unique and relate to localised experiences of global phenomena, such as
an ageing population, the influx of migrants (primarily from mainland
China), the ghettoisation of the urban poor, the rise of managerialism
and the dominance of neo-liberal forces, and whether ‘Western’ models
of social work should give way to localised approaches that are located in
‘indigenous’ rather than imported ‘foreign’ values and traditions. Others,
however, reflect Hong Kong’s unique situation, notably its proximity to
the special economic zones in south-east China, with associated massive
economic and demographical relocations, the strains on conventional
family structures and responsibilities, especially for the so-called ‘sandwich’
generation facing responsibilities for both dependent children and depend-
ent parents, its emergence as the most expensive city on Earth in which to
live, and one of the world’s most economically unequal societies where
around one million of its seven million inhabitants live in poverty
(Oxfam Hong Kong, 2011).
That Hong Kong could afford to provide a comprehensive welfare system
for its citizens is beyond doubt. In this respect, it is quite unlike European
countries, experiencing massive government debt as a consequence of the
2008 banking crisis and resulting in swingeing cuts in public expenditure,
dictated by limited domestic financial resources and/or the demands of
creditors. Allocation of public resources in Hong Kong is exclusively
both internally and ideologically driven. The Financial Secretary’s budget
 Negotiation in a Changing Political and Economic Context 55

statement of February 2012 for the fiscal year 2012 – 13 (Tsang, 2012) pre-
dicted the level of fiscal reserves to increase to $658.7 billion (approximate-
ly £53.3 billion, equivalent to twenty months of government expenditure or
34 per cent of GDP) by the end of March 2013 (para. 160). Such was the
extent of the government’s leeway as regards the public coffers that it
was able to hand out $6,000 (approximately £490) to every individual
with permanent residency status, whether or not they are actually resident
in Hong Kong. Without the government’s commitment to the principle of
redistributive justice, however, it is not surprising that Hong Kong
remains one of the developed world’s most unequal societies.
The four major political challenges ahead for social workers in Hong
Kong relate to social integration, remedial services, social justice and
indigenisation.

Social integration

There is a need for more services catering for the specific needs of migrants
from mainland China who enter Hong Kong at an agreed number of 150 per
day (including sixty reserved for persons who were born in the mainland
and have the right of abode in Hong Kong by descent from their either
parent and thirty reserved for long-separated spouses). According to the
study by the government, the proportion in the whole population of new
arrivals who have resided in Hong Kong for less than seven years rose
from 2.7 per cent in 1996 to 3.2 per cent in 2006 (p. 7). It was also found
that their median monthly income was only 60 per cent that of the whole
working population (Census and Statistics Department, 2006). Even new
arrivals who were adequately educated nevertheless often experienced dif-
ficulty competing in the job market because their qualifications are not
recognised in Hong Kong. Social services in employment assistance and
re-training are needed. However, with the rationale that a resident’s contri-
bution towards Hong Kong’s economy needs to be reflected through his/
her eligibility for social services, the government has restricted new arrivals’
welfare rights. Since the endorsement of the Report of the Task Force on
Population Policy (Hong Kong Government, 2003), a uniform seven-year
residence rule for providing subsidised public housing services and Com-
prehensive Social Security Allowance has been applied. Thus, new arrivals
have become the most under-privileged group in Hong Kong.

Remedial services

Addictive behaviours—soft drugs, gambling, the internet—as in other mod-

ernised societies in the world, have become more serious in this highly urba-
nised city. The 2010 Annual study by the Chinese Academy of Social
56 C. W. Lam and Eric Blyth

Sciences placed Hong Kong at 271 out of 294 Chinese cities for ‘happi-
ness’—calculated through measurements of residents’ confidence in their
future, living conditions, environment and hygiene, employment and
social welfare. The report noted the widening gap between rich and poor
in Hong Kong that could undermine social stability (Cheung, 2011).

Social justice

Despite the increase in aggregate wealth in Hong Kong, there has been a
simultaneous increase in ghettoisation, in the form of socially marginalised
people being clustered in specific geographical areas, such as old urban
areas like Sham Shui Po and Tai Kok Shui, conurbations of high population
density, but lacking in necessary community resources or facilities. More
generally, in various locations throughout Hong Kong, many people are
forced by poverty to live in cramped, unhygienic and dangerous accommo-
dation lacking in necessary amenities, known locally as ‘cage’ or ‘coffin’
homes on account of their lack of space, or in illegal extensions to existing
buildings, such as roof-top dwellings. There has also been a rise in poverty
(Hong Kong Council of Social Service, 2010) and an increase in the number
of people dependent on the Comprehensive Social Security Assistance
Scheme.
Drawing on the Global Standards for the Education and Training of the
Social Work Profession adopted by the International Association of
Schools of Social Work (IASSW) and the International Federation of
Social Workers (IFSW) (2005), Chu et al. (2009) assert that the principle
of social justice is fundamental to the practice of social work. They argue
that, in order to operationalise social justice by challenging social inequal-
ities and advocating changes in structural conditions, social workers must
engage in political actions to improve social policy and economic develop-
ment. In our view, as Gal and Weiss-Gal suggest, social workers need to
have a stronger structural understanding of poverty and support for ‘an
enhanced role for the state in dealing with issues of inequality and redistri-
bution, a greater readiness to engage in policy practice will emerge’ (Gal
and Weiss-Gal, 2008, p. 26).
Within Hong Kong’s quasi-democratic politic environment, a better-
resourced and more developed social welfare system is unlikely to be rea-
lised unless groups such as social workers exert the sort of political role
they exercised in the 1980s.

Indigenisation

There have been attempts by Hong Kong scholars to localise Western con-
cepts of social work knowledge and values in the Chinese community—to
 Negotiation in a Changing Political and Economic Context 57

develop ‘local knowledge’ and ‘indigenous practice’ and not simply trans-
plant or translate Western theories grounded in Western cultural norms
(Kwong, 1996; Lam, 1996; Lam and Chan, 2004).
In this tradition, social work values always, though with different em-
phasis, imply a dual concern for helping not only the individual in relation
to society, but also society in its relations with individuals (Blyth, 2009). The
outcomes of activities in the larger society are always judged against
whether individuals are benefited ultimately. Nevertheless, in different cul-
tures, diverse conceptions of ‘an individual’ and his/her ideal state of rela-
tionship to society are evident. The notion of the universal applicability of
humanity embedded in the conventional discourse of social work values is
hence problematic and may not fit the cultural environment of Hong Kong.
For instance, ideas about an individual and human rights in the West are
fundamentally distinct from those of Chinese culture. Human rights from
a Western perspective are informed primarily by respect for the primacy
of individual autonomy, self-determination and protection from interfer-
ence by the state and others (e.g. more powerful/senior family members)
rather than emphasising the individual’s obligations to others (except in
so far as the promotion of self-interest should not be at the expense of
causing harm to others). In this light, social and welfare rights have been
commonly discussed within the social work profession (International Fed-
eration of Social Workers and International Association of Schools of
Social Work, 2004).
However, one important thread of Chinese social culture is the suppres-
sion of individual rights. Personal obligation is regarded as primary and
basic: only when one fulfils one’s obligation is one free to enjoy individual
rights (de Barry, 1983). Hence, the extent to which the notion of basic rights
to which all humans are entitled remains a political question that social
workers in Hong Kong still needs to be answered.
Second, in Western societies, the Christian ethos of charity that upholds
respect for human rights and human needs (Plant et al., 2009) and the em-
phasis on the individual as an independent entity with rights and obligations
has led to the cultivation of human rights and equality and a commitment to
the attainment of these goals (Taylor-Gooby and Dale, 1981). This moral
tradition explains the Western emphasis on societal commitment and
moral obligation to support a collectivist approach, such that social
welfare is seen as a government responsibility and a high level of govern-
ment activity is seen as necessary to serve community interest. For instance,
there is widespread support in the UK for a relatively high level of govern-
ment responsibility for meeting the needs of needy members, funded
through comparatively high levels of personal and corporate taxation.
To the extent that the collectivist approach provides the moral base of
social work values in Western societies, there is the crucial question of
the extent to which these values are supported in the Hong Kong
Chinese community. For one important canon of Confucianism is the
58 C. W. Lam and Eric Blyth

supreme moral position of self-reliance and self-cultivation, which has the

effect of defining ‘individual problems’ as problems in the personal
domain, not in the social domain, and for which government might be
held to have some responsibility. Consequently, positive freedom and
social equality are conspicuously neglected. As Jones observed:
There are duties and obligations, but no individual rights; there are recipro-
cal relationships, but no concept of equality of relationship as being natural
or desirable between people. Quite the reverse, the pursuit of harmony
requires discretion in and compliance with the exercise of authority by
some over others (Jones, 1990, p. 36).

Of immediate importance to social work in Hong Kong is to understand

people’s perceptions of government responsibility for social welfare and
how these relate to their attitudes to human rights.

Conclusion
We propose that a process of re-politicisation of social work by both agen-
cies and practitioners, seeking to reclaim social workers’ political and pro-
fessional role, is necessary in order to guarantee a more equitable
distribution of community resources in Hong Kong to ensure that all citi-
zens share in its prosperity. Despite social workers’ formal representation
in the Hong Kong legislature, the voice of social work in the political
arena and its impact on the distribution of resources has been muted in
the last two decades.
The experiences of social workers in Hong Kong, and their on-going en-
gagement with the ‘rebirth’ of social work in mainland China (Yuen-Tsang
and Wang, 2008), however, deems the development of alternative para-
digms of ethical and political theories for social work necessary. Social
workers in Hong Kong need to understand people’s perceptions of
human rights and government responsibility for social welfare, and how
these can be related to the discourses of ‘social work communities’. This
debate should not be closed off, so that new ideas for the development of
alternative social work paradigms, respect for the deepening understanding
of different traditions of social work and different cultures can be
promoted.

References
BBC News (2011) ‘Probation staff spend just 24% of time with offenders (July 27, 2011)’,
available online at www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-politics-14302891.
Blyth, E. (2009) ‘The professionalisation of social work in England’, China Journal of
Social Work, 2(2), pp. 130– 40.
 Negotiation in a Changing Political and Economic Context 59

Census and Statistics Department (2006) Thematic Report: Persons from the Mainland
Having Resided in Hong Kong for Less than 7 Years, Hong Kong, Census and Statis-
tics Department.
Census and Statistics Department (2012) ‘2011 Population Census: Summary results’,
available online at www.census2011.gov.hk/pdf/summary-results.pdf.
Chaisson, J. D., Klein, A. F. and Moscrop, M. E. (1963) A Training Programme for Social
Work in Hong Kong—Vol.1 and Vol.2, Hong Kong, Government Printer.
Chan, D. F. (1989) ‘An exploratory study of social work values in Hong Kong’, Ph.D.
thesis, UK, University of Surrey.
Cheung, G. (2011) ‘HK a bastion of unhappiness? That’s rich’, South China Morning
Post, 6 May.
Chow, N. (1992) ‘Family care of the elderly in Hong Kong’, in J. L. Kosberg (ed.), Family
Care of the Elderly: Social and Cultural Changes, London, Sage.
Chow, N. (1998) ‘The making of social policy in Hong Kong: Social welfare development
in the 1980s and 1990s’, in R. Goodman, G. White and H.-J. Kwon (eds), The East
Asian Welfare Model: Welfare Orientalism and the State, London, Routledge.
Chow, N. (2008) ‘Social work in Hong Kong: Western practice in a Chinese context’,
China Journal of Social Work, 1(1), pp. 23 – 35.
Chu, W. C. K. (2003) ‘The relentless rise of therapeutic aspirations: A crisis for social
work practice?’, Ph.D. thesis, RMIT-University.
Chu, W. C. K., Tsui, M.-S. and Yan, M.-C. (2009) ‘Social work as a moral and political
practice’, International Social Work, 52(3), pp. 287 – 98.
Chui, E. and Gray, M. (2004) ‘The political activities of social workers in the context of
changing roles and political transition in Hong Kong’, International Journal of Social
Welfare, 13(2), pp. 170 – 80.
Coopers & Lybrand (1996) Social Welfare Department: Review of the Social Welfare
Subvention System: Changing the Way NGOs Are Funded, Hong Kong, Coopers
& Lybrand.
de Barry, W. T. (1983) The Liberal Tradition in China, Hong Kong, The Chinese Univer-
sity Press.
Fung, H.-L. (1994) ‘Parliamentary politics and social work’, in W. S. Chow (ed.), A New
Perspective of Social Work, Hong Kong, Commercial Press (in Chinese).
Fung, H.-L. (1996) ‘Politics and social work’, in I. Chi and S. Cheung (eds), Social Work
in Hong Kong, Hong Kong, Hong Kong Social Workers Association.
Gal, J. and Weiss-Gal, I. (2008) ‘Social workers and policy-practice: The role of social and
professional values’, Journal of Social Service Research, 34(4), pp. 15 – 28.
Hodge, P. (1976) ‘Inaugural lecture: The poor and the people of quality: Social policy in
Hong Kong’, in Supplement to the Gazette, Vol. XXIII, No. 5, 22 March, University of
Hong Kong.
Hong Kong Council of Social Service (2005) ‘Fact sheet on subvented community devel-
opment service’, available online at www.hkcss.org.hk/fs/Sem905_2005/memo
0817_2005.doc.
Hong Kong Council of Social Service (2010) ’Information on poverty—2010′ , available
online at www.hkcss.org.hk/cm/cc/press/detail.asp?id=447 (in Chinese).
Hong Kong Council of Social Service (2011) ‘The Hong Kong Council of Social Service’,
available online at www.hkcss.org.hk/download/folder/hkcss/council_brief_eng
.htm.
Hong Kong Government (1965) Aims and Policy of Social Welfare in Hong Kong, Hong
Kong, Government Printer.
60 C. W. Lam and Eric Blyth

Hong Kong Government (2003) Report of the Task Force on Population Policy, Hong
Kong, Government Printer.
Hong Kong Government (2011) ‘The District Council Homepage’, available online at
www.districtcouncil.gov.hk.
Hong Kong Government (2012) ‘Hong Kong: The facts’, available online at. www.gov
.hk/en/abouthk/facts.htm
Hong Kong Legislative Council (2011) ‘History of the legislature’, available online at
www.legco.gov.hk/english/index.htm.
Hong Kong Social Workers’ General Union (2010) ‘Introduction’, available online at
www.hkswgu.org.hk/web/webpages/history.html (in Chinese).
Hui, Y. F. (1998) ‘The political role of the social worker’, Social Services Quarterly, No.
145, Hong Kong Council of Social Services, pp. 9 – 10 (in Chinese).
International Federation of Social Workers and International Association of Schools of
Social Work (2004) Ethics in Social Work: Statement of Principles, Geneva, IFSW and
IASSW.
International Federation of Social Workers and International Association of Schools of
Social Work (2005) ‘Global standards for social work education’, IFSW and IASSW,
available online at www.ifsw.org.
Jones, C. (1990) Promoting Prosperity: The Hong Kong Way of Social Policy, Hong
Kong, Chinese University Press.
Jordan, B. (1984) Invitation to Social Work, Oxford, Martin Robertson.
Jordan, B. and Jordan, C. (2000) Social Work and the Third Way: Tough Love as Social
Policy, London, Sage Publications.
King, A. Y. C. (1981) ‘Administrative absorption of politics in Hong Kong: Emphasis on
the grass roots level’, in A. Y. C. King and R. P. L. Lee (eds), Social Life and Devel-
opment in Hong Kong, Hong Kong, Chinese University Press.
Kwong, W. M. (1996) ‘Local knowledge, indigenous practice’, Hong Kong Journal of
Social Work, 30(1), pp. 22– 30.
Lai, W. H. F. and Chan, K. T. T. (2009) ‘Social work in Hong Kong: From professional-
ization to “reprofessionalization”’, China Journal of Social Work, 2(2), pp. 95 –108.
Lam, C. W. (1996) ‘Indigenization of social work values in Hong Kong: A brief review’,
The Hong Kong Journal of Social Work, 30(1), pp. 10 – 21.
Lam, C. W. and Chan, C. L. W. (2003) ‘Social work and social change in Hong Kong’, in
I. Weiss, J. Gal and J. Dixon (eds), Professional Ideologies and Preferences in Social
Work: A Global Study, USA, Praeger Publishers, Greenwood Publication.
Lam, C. W. and Chan, E. K. L. (2004) ‘The indigenization of social work values in Hong
Kong: Directions for research’, in A. K. T. Tsang, M. C. Yan and W. Shera (eds),
Social Work in China: A Snapshot of Critical Issues and Emerging Ideas—Proceedings
of the International Colloquium in Beijing 2000, Canada, Faculty of Social Work, Uni-
versity of Toronto.
Lam, C. W. and Chow, N. W. S. (2003) ‘The “reluctant welfarism” of Hong Kong
government’, in P. Chang, S. S. Wang and A. K. Y. Wong (eds), Administrative
Reform in China: Proceedings of the International Conference on Reform in Public
Administration and Social Services in China, Macao, Macao Polytechnic Institute,
and Public Administration and Civil Services, Macao SAR.
Leung, J. C. B. (1996) ‘Community Development: Past, Present and Future’, in I. Chi and
S.K. Cheung (eds) Social Work in Hong Kong, Hong Kong, Hong Kong Social
Workers Association Ltd.
 Negotiation in a Changing Political and Economic Context 61

Leung, J. C. B. (2000) Building for Excellence Together, Hong Kong, Department of

Social Work and Social Administration, University of Hong Kong.
Leung, K.-C.A. (2003) Budget Speech by the Financial Secretary, Hong Kong, Hong Kong
Government.
Leung, Z., Lam, C. W., Yau, I. and Chu, C. K. (2010) ‘Re-empowering social workers
through the online community? The Experience of SWForum in Hong Kong’, Critical
Social Policy 30(1), pp. 1 – 26.
Lutheran World Federation, Department of World Service (1972) ‘Crime prevention:
What can social workers do?’, Annual Report, pp. 1 – 3.
Mok, B. H. (1988) ‘Influence through political power’, International Social Work, 31, pp.
249– 62.
Oxfam Hong Kong (2011) ‘$36.6 more needed daily for nutritional meals in Hong Kong:
Five NGOs call for meal allowances for workers’, press release, 2 October, available
online at www.oxfam.org.hk/en/news_1660.aspx.
Plant, R., Lesser, H. and Taylor-Gooby, P. (2009) Political Philosophy and Social
Welfare: Essays on the Normative Basis of Welfare Provision, London, Routledge.
Sinn, E. (1989) Power and Charity: The Early History of the Tung Wah Hospital, Hong
Kong, Oxford University Press.
Social Welfare Department (2000) Social Welfare Services Lump Sum Grant Manual
Edition 2. Hong Kong, Government Printer.
Social Welfare Department (2010) ‘Review 2007 – 8 & 2008 – 9’, available online at www
.swd.gov.hk/doc/annreport0800/pdf/report_2008_en_low.pdf.
Social Welfare Department (2011) ‘Neighbourhood Level Community Development
(NLCDP)’, available online at www.swd.gov.hk/en/index/site_pubsvc/page_comm/
sub_commdevser/id_neighbourh.
Social Welfare Officer, Hong Kong (1955) Departmental Report 1948– 54, Hong Kong,
Hong Kong Government Printer.
Social Workers Registration Board (2012) ‘Statistics’, available online at www.swrb.org
.hk/EngASP/statistic_rsw_filter_c.asp.
Tam, T. S. K. and Yeung, S. (1994) ‘Community perception of social welfare and its rela-
tions to familism, political alienation and individual rights: The case of Hong Kong’,
International Social Work, 37(1), pp. 47 – 60.
Tang, K. L. (2000) Social Welfare Development in East Asia, Basingstoke, Palgrave.
Taylor-Gooby, P. and Dale, J. (1981) Social Theory and Social Welfare, London, E.
Arnold.
Tsang, J. C. (2012) Speech by the Financial Secretary, available online at www.budget.gov
.hk/2012/eng/pdf/ speech.html.
UNDP (2010) Human Development Report 2010, New York, United Nations Develop-
ment Programme.
Wilding, P. (1996) Social Policy and Social Development in Hong Kong, Working Paper
Series, Department of Public and Social Administration, City University of Hong
Kong.
Wong, C. (1993) Social Work and Social Change, Hong Kong, Hong Kong Institute of
Asia-Pacific Studies, CUHK.
Wong, K. L. C. A. (1972) The Kaifong Associations and the Society of Hong Kong,
Taiwan, Orient Cultural Service.
World Bank (2010) World Development Indicators, available online at http://data
.worldbank.org/sites/default/files/wdi-final.pdf.
62 C. W. Lam and Eric Blyth

Younghusband, E. (1960) Training for Social Work in Hong Kong, Hong Kong, Govern-
ment Printer.
Yuen-Tsang, A. W. K. and Wang, S. (2008) ‘Revitalization of social work in China’,
China Journal of Social Work, 1(1), pp. 5 – 22.
Copyright of British Journal of Social Work is the property of Oxford University Press / USA
and its content may not be copied or emailed to multiple sites or posted to a listserv without
the copyright holder's express written permission. However, users may print, download, or
email articles for individual use.