Post on 12-Jan-2016
Civil Society Index 2006
2. ENVIRONMENT
2. ENVIRONMENT To what extent is the external environment
disabling / enabling the development of civil society?
2.1. Political context 2.2. Basic freedoms & rights 2.3. Socio-economic context 2.4. Socio-cultural context 2.5. Legal environment 2.6. State-civil society relations 2.7. Private sector-civil society relations
Score: 1.5 (Not disabling, nor enabling)
2.1. Political context Score: 1.7 (Somewhat enabling)
Political rights: Lack of full democracy; yet restrictions on people’s political rights are limited.
Political competition: Having three major parties; resources and the level of institutionalization of political parties are in no way comparable with the Western counterparts.
Rule of law: Society is governed by fair and predictable rules, which are generally abided by.
Corruption: A moderate level of corruption. State effectiveness: Government bureaucracy is
functional but some aspects of which are perceived to be insufficient.
Decentralisation: The decision making power have always been rather centralized.
2.2. Basic freedoms & rights Score: 1.3 (Somewhat disabling)
Civil liberties: The protection of HK people’s basic rights and freedoms is guaranteed by the Basic Law.
Information rights: Citizens are allowed to get access to government documents, but the scope of which is limited.
Press freedom: Article 27 of the Basic Law: provide for the freedom of speech, and of the press and publication. Yet there are some violations of violations of press freedom (e.g. self-censoring).
2.3. Socio-economic context Score: 2.0 (Somewhat enabling)
Poverty: HK is by no means a poor society Civil war: None in the last five years. Recent severe ethnic/religious conflict: None in the
last five years. Severe economic crisis: No debt problem. Severe social crisis: SARS at spring of 2003. Severe socio-economic inequities: Increase in the gap
between the rich and the poor. Pervasive adult illiteracy: Adult illiteracy rate aged 15
and above < 10%. Lack of IT infrastructure: High prevalence on the use of
IT.
2.4. Socio-cultural context Score: 1.0 (Somewhat disabling)
Trust: A low level of general trust. Tolerance: A low level of tolerance in the society. Public spiritedness: A low level of public spiritedness in
the society.
2.5. Legal environment Score: 1.8 (Somewhat enabling)
CSO registration: The CSO registration process can be judged as relatively supportive.
Allowable advocacy activities: Constraints on CSO’s advocacy activities are minimal.
Tax laws favourable to CSOs: The Inland Revenue Ordinance contains provision of tax exemption for ‘non-profit-making’ or ‘voluntary’ org.
Tax benefits for philanthropy: Tax advantages for tax-exempt charity; Tax exemptions cover profits tax; stamp duty; estate duty; and business registration tax.
2.6. State-civil society relations Score: 1.7 (Somewhat enabling)
Autonomy: Government interference is quite minimal on CSO registration and application to organize activities in public places.
Dialogue: There are limited dialogues between government and individual CSOs (e.g. advisory committees and consultative bodies).
Cooperation / support: Allocation of government resources for CSOs is usually done on a programme basis. Mainly falls in education and social welfare.
2.7. Private sector-civil society relations Score: 1.0 (Somewhat disabling)
Private sector attitude: Business in general had a positive but indifferent view to CSOs.
Corporate social responsibility: The concept of corporate social responsibility was rather underdeveloped.
Corporate philanthropy: There are some involvements of business sectors into philanthropy, yet only a limited range of CSOs receives funding of this kind.