In lieu of an abstract, here is a brief excerpt of the content:

Foreword Faith, Citizenshi p an d Colonialis m in Hong Kon g Christians ar e supposed to be distinguished fro m th e rest of society by their moral commitment and, above all, to be inspired by concern for the well being of others. Both the Old and New Testament impose on the believer an unlimited duty o f care fo r th e dispossessed, th e deprived an d the underprivileged.' I n assessing the record of Christianity i n any community, it seems entirely fair , therefore, to set higher standards than would be applied to other organizations and to weigh church performance agains t these Christian precepts. Christians are, of course, members of society and are moulded by the same political and economic experiences as the rest of the community and swayed by the same aspirations an d anxieties . Th e crucia l questio n i s whethe r thei r Christia n convictions make any significant differenc e t o the way in which they behave as members of society. The Historica l Contex t In retrospect, it is tempting to accuse the Protestant and Catholic Churches of entering int o a n alliance with Britis h colonialis m afte r Worl d War II which diminished their ability to act as Hong Kong's social conscience. Could they not have done more to foster social justice, to promote democracy, to encourage x Foreword: Faith, Citizenship and Colonialism in Hong Kong the workforc e t o struggl e fo r it s rights and t o defen d th e wel l bein g o f the vulnerable in society? Should they have assumed a more 'prophetic ' role, as the Church did in South Korea for example? The Churches' performance ha s to be measured i n the historical contex t which thei r member s faced . Throughou t th e secon d hal f o f th e twentiet h century, th e entir e Hon g Kon g communit y deliberatel y refraine d fro m challenging the existing political and economic systems. Unlike elsewhere in Asia, there was a remarkable absence of radical political groups, and the trade union movemen t displaye d littl e militanc y afte r th e earl y 1950s . This self denying covenan t extende d t o th e Chines e Communis t Part y an d it s organisations although the Chinese government publicly denied the legitimacy of British rule.2 Eve n during the violent 196 7 anti-colonial campaign, Beijing stopped shor t o f calling fo r a n end to either colonialism o r capitalism i n its denunciations o f the British.3 Durin g the 1970s , the Party increasingly stood aloof fro m th e studen t activist s wh o wer e ben t o n challengin g prominen t features of colonial rule.4 The political landscape was dominated by an almost universal passivit y rationalize d b y a belief tha t Hon g Kon g woul d no t b e allowed to survive any attempts to introduce radical reforms. The colonia l administration , nevertheless , foun d i t difficul t t o tolerat e criticism. It was afflicted b y a long-standing fear that the Chinese community, including its business leaders, felt no commitment to Hong Kong.5 I n the early post-war period, the colonial administration was prepared to take direct action to stifl e oppositio n fro m th e Christia n community . I n 1953 , a Jesuit pries t published an article in a cultural magazine criticizing Hong Kong for appointing judges from the Civil Service whereas the United Kingdom selected them from the lega l profession , a practice whic h reinforce d th e independenc e o f th e judiciary.6 Th e Attorney Genera l decide d t o prosecute th e Jesuit edito r fo r contempt o f court o n the ground s tha t thi s articl e was likel y t o bring Hon g Kong's administratio n o f justice int o disrepute. The priest wa s foun d guilt y and fined. 7 At the same time, religious leaders of some standing were frequently th e objects of considerable suspicion within the upper ranks of the Civil Service. The Protestant Bishop, R. O. Hall, was perhaps the best example of this blend of social acceptance and political mistrust, for he...

Share