1. Civil Society Index 2006 2. ENVIRONMENT

2.  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.