Civil Society Index 2006

1. Civil Society Index2006 2. ENVIRONMENT

2. 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)

3. 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.

4. 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).

5. 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.

6. 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.

7. 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.

8. 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.

9. 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.