Misplaced Pages

Reform Club of Hong Kong: Difference between revisions

Article snapshot taken from Wikipedia with creative commons attribution-sharealike license. Give it a read and then ask your questions in the chat. We can research this topic together.
Browse history interactively← Previous editNext edit →Content deleted Content addedVisualWikitext
Revision as of 01:20, 1 October 2018 edit220.246.151.82 (talk)No edit summary← Previous edit Revision as of 20:06, 29 June 2019 edit undoBrownHairedGirl (talk | contribs)Autopatrolled, Extended confirmed users, File movers, Pending changes reviewers, Rollbackers2,942,733 editsm WP:ELLINKS (27/28): Hong Kong municipal elections, 1989 → 1989 Hong Kong municipal elections; Hong Kong municipal elections, 1995 → 1995 Hong Kong municipal elections; Hong Kong municipal election, 1952 → [[1952 Hong KoTag: AWBNext edit →
Line 46: Line 46:
For decades the Reform Club and the ] dominated municipal politics as they provided most of the elected members of the ].<ref>{{cite journal | last=King| first=Ambrose Yeo-chi |date= 1975 | title=Administrative Absorption of Politics in Hong Kong: Emphasis on the Grass Roots Level | journal=] | volume= 15 | issue= 5 | pages=431| url= | accessdate= | doi=10.1525/as.1975.15.5.01p0076b}}</ref> It advocated more representative government in the territory and the improvement of public sector social services. In 1960, the two groups formed a coalition and sent a delegate to London to demand direct elections to the Legislative Council. In 1979, the Reform Club threatened to boycott elections if the Urban Council would not receive a majority of elected members and universal franchise was extended to all Hong Kong citizens. In 1982, it took part in the elections for the newly established ]s in the urban districts, which significantly extended the franchise. For decades the Reform Club and the ] dominated municipal politics as they provided most of the elected members of the ].<ref>{{cite journal | last=King| first=Ambrose Yeo-chi |date= 1975 | title=Administrative Absorption of Politics in Hong Kong: Emphasis on the Grass Roots Level | journal=] | volume= 15 | issue= 5 | pages=431| url= | accessdate= | doi=10.1525/as.1975.15.5.01p0076b}}</ref> It advocated more representative government in the territory and the improvement of public sector social services. In 1960, the two groups formed a coalition and sent a delegate to London to demand direct elections to the Legislative Council. In 1979, the Reform Club threatened to boycott elections if the Urban Council would not receive a majority of elected members and universal franchise was extended to all Hong Kong citizens. In 1982, it took part in the elections for the newly established ]s in the urban districts, which significantly extended the franchise.


Starting from the late 1960s, the Club's ability to monopolise Urban Council elections with the Civic Association eroded, in light of the emergence of the popular independent candidates.<ref>{{cite book|page=11|title=Understanding the Political Culture of Hong Kong: The Paradox of Activism and Depoliticization|first=Wai-man|last=Lam|publisher=M.E. Sharpe|year=2004}}</ref> Before the expansion of the franchise, the Reform Club had 15 members in the Urban Council of 1983. But the Reform Club's influence in the Urban Council reduced during the 1980s. Following the ], only five Reform Club members remained due to its lack of grassroots support. The Reform Club and Civic Association were gradually supplanted by the new ] including the ] and ]. When at the ] Brook Bernacchi retired, the Reform Club ceased to be active in the Hong Kong political scene. Starting from the late 1960s, the Club's ability to monopolise Urban Council elections with the Civic Association eroded, in light of the emergence of the popular independent candidates.<ref>{{cite book|page=11|title=Understanding the Political Culture of Hong Kong: The Paradox of Activism and Depoliticization|first=Wai-man|last=Lam|publisher=M.E. Sharpe|year=2004}}</ref> Before the expansion of the franchise, the Reform Club had 15 members in the Urban Council of 1983. But the Reform Club's influence in the Urban Council reduced during the 1980s. Following the ], only five Reform Club members remained due to its lack of grassroots support. The Reform Club and Civic Association were gradually supplanted by the new ] including the ] and ]. When at the ] Brook Bernacchi retired, the Reform Club ceased to be active in the Hong Kong political scene.


==Notable members== ==Notable members==
Line 68: Line 68:
! Total<br/>elected seats ! Total<br/>elected seats
|- |-
! ] ! ]
| 2,199{{nochange}} | 2,199{{nochange}}
| 33.58{{nochange}} | 33.58{{nochange}}
Line 75: Line 75:
| rowspan=19| | rowspan=19|
|- |-
! ] ! ]
| 6,374{{increase}} | 6,374{{increase}}
| 71.25{{increase}} | 71.25{{increase}}
Line 81: Line 81:
| - | -
|- |-
! ] ! ]
| 7,773{{increase}} | 7,773{{increase}}
| 79.64{{increase}} | 79.64{{increase}}
Line 87: Line 87:
| - | -
|- |-
! ] ! ]
| 3,283{{decrease}} | 3,283{{decrease}}
| 89.62{{increase}} | 89.62{{increase}}
Line 93: Line 93:
| - | -
|- |-
! ] ! ]
| 17,085{{increase}} | 17,085{{increase}}
| 56.97{{decrease}} | 56.97{{decrease}}
Line 99: Line 99:
| – | –
|- |-
! ] ! ]
| 11,716{{increase}} | 11,716{{increase}}
| 43.50{{decrease}} | 43.50{{decrease}}
Line 105: Line 105:
| – | –
|- |-
! ] ! ]
| 12,030{{decrease}} | 12,030{{decrease}}
| 47.67{{decrease}} | 47.67{{decrease}}
Line 111: Line 111:
| – | –
|- |-
! ] ! ]
| ''uncontested'' | ''uncontested''
| ''uncontested'' | ''uncontested''
Line 117: Line 117:
| – | –
|- |-
! ] ! ]
| 5,177{{decrease}} | 5,177{{decrease}}
| 39.43{{decrease}} | 39.43{{decrease}}
Line 123: Line 123:
| – | –
|- |-
! ] ! ]
| ''unknown'' | ''unknown''
| ''unknown'' | ''unknown''
Line 129: Line 129:
| – | –
|- |-
! ] ! ]
| 9,789{{increase}} | 9,789{{increase}}
| 24.90{{decrease}} | 24.90{{decrease}}
Line 135: Line 135:
| – | –
|- |-
! ] ! ]
| 16,571{{increase}} | 16,571{{increase}}
| 49.22{{increase}} | 49.22{{increase}}
Line 141: Line 141:
| – | –
|- |-
! ] ! ]
| 6,139{{decrease}} | 6,139{{decrease}}
| 16.22{{decrease}} | 16.22{{decrease}}
Line 147: Line 147:
| – | –
|- |-
! ] ! ]
| 25,709{{increase}} | 25,709{{increase}}
| 55.14{{increase}} | 55.14{{increase}}
Line 153: Line 153:
| – | –
|- |-
! ] ! ]
| 6,141{{increase}} | 6,141{{increase}}
| 12.41{{decrease}} | 12.41{{decrease}}
Line 159: Line 159:
| – | –
|- |-
! ] ! ]
| 13,249{{decrease}} | 13,249{{decrease}}
| 41.05{{increase}} | 41.05{{increase}}
Line 165: Line 165:
| – | –
|- |-
! ] ! ]
| 9,579{{increase}} | 9,579{{increase}}
| 18.76{{increase}} | 18.76{{increase}}
Line 171: Line 171:
| – | –
|- |-
! ] ! ]
| 7,291{{decrease}} | 7,291{{decrease}}
| 28.29{{decrease}} | 28.29{{decrease}}
Line 177: Line 177:
| – | –
|- |-
! ] ! ]
| 13,894{{increase}} | 13,894{{increase}}
| 15.38{{decrease}} | 15.38{{decrease}}
Line 183: Line 183:
| – | –
|- |-
! ] ! ]
| 24,486{{increase}} | 24,486{{increase}}
| 6.95{{decrease}} | 6.95{{decrease}}
Line 190: Line 190:
| {{Composition bar|2|27|hex={{Reform Club of Hong Kong/meta/color}}}} | {{Composition bar|2|27|hex={{Reform Club of Hong Kong/meta/color}}}}
|- |-
! ] ! ]
| 13,404{{decrease}} | 13,404{{decrease}}
| 6.31{{decrease}} | 6.31{{decrease}}
Line 197: Line 197:
| {{Composition bar|2|27|hex={{Reform Club of Hong Kong/meta/color}}}} | {{Composition bar|2|27|hex={{Reform Club of Hong Kong/meta/color}}}}
|- |-
! ] ! ]
| 9,045{{decrease}} | 9,045{{decrease}}
| 2.31{{decrease}} | 2.31{{decrease}}
Line 210: Line 210:
|-align=center |-align=center
! Election ! Election
! Number of<br>popular votes ! Number of<br />popular votes
! % of<br>popular votes ! % of<br />popular votes
! Total<br>elected seats ! Total<br />elected seats
! +/− ! +/−
|- |-
! ] ! ]
| 13,644{{nochange}} | 13,644{{nochange}}
| 3.83{{nochange}} | 3.83{{nochange}}
Line 221: Line 221:
| |
|- |-
! ] ! ]
| 39,929{{increase}} | 39,929{{increase}}
| 5.77{{increase}} | 5.77{{increase}}
Line 227: Line 227:
| 7{{increase}} | 7{{increase}}
|- |-
! ] ! ]
| 13,572{{decrease}} | 13,572{{decrease}}
| 2.13{{decrease}} | 2.13{{decrease}}
Line 233: Line 233:
| 5{{decrease}} | 5{{decrease}}
|- |-
! ] ! ]
| 2,136{{decrease}} | 2,136{{decrease}}
| 0.40{{decrease}} | 0.40{{decrease}}
Line 247: Line 247:
* *
{{Hong Kong political parties}} {{Hong Kong political parties}}

] ]
] ]

Revision as of 20:06, 29 June 2019

This article is about the Reform Club in Hong Kong. For other uses, see Reform Club (disambiguation) Political party in Hong Kong
Reform Club of Hong Kong 香港革新會
ChairmanBrook Bernacchi
Founded20 January 1949 (1949-01-20)
DissolvedAround 1995
IdeologyLiberalism
Political positionCentre to Centre-left
Reform Club of Hong Kong
Traditional Chinese香港革新會
Transcriptions
Yue: Cantonese
Yale RomanizationHēung góng gaak sān wuih
JyutpingHoeng gong gaak san wui

The Reform Club of Hong Kong (Chinese: 香港革新會) was one of the oldest political organisations in Hong Kong, existing from 1949 until the mid-1990s. Established by expatriates who were concerned about the Young Plan proposed by Governor Mark Aitchison Young in 1949, the Reform Club was the first semi-political party to contest in the Urban Council elections, with its longtime chairman Brook Bernacchi serving on the Council for about forty years.

It demanded expansion of the power of the Urban Council and elected representatives in the Legislative Council for years. Together with the Hong Kong Civic Association, they were the closest to opposition parties in Hong Kong active in the municipal electoral politics during the post-war colonial period. With the expansion of the franchise in the 1980s, the Reform Club gradually declined and was replaced by the more energetic political groups. The Club ceased to function after its chairman Bernacchi retired from the Urban Council in 1995.

History

The Reform Club was founded by expatriate barrister Brook Bernacchi in 1949 in the midst of the debate over the Young Plan, a plan for wide constitutional reform in Hong Kong. The immediate target of the Club was to campaign for direct elections to the Legislative Council of Hong Kong. Unlike the Hong Kong Chinese Reform Association, which was set up during the same time for similar causes, the Reform Club was dominated by expatriates.

For decades the Reform Club and the Civic Association dominated municipal politics as they provided most of the elected members of the Urban Council. It advocated more representative government in the territory and the improvement of public sector social services. In 1960, the two groups formed a coalition and sent a delegate to London to demand direct elections to the Legislative Council. In 1979, the Reform Club threatened to boycott elections if the Urban Council would not receive a majority of elected members and universal franchise was extended to all Hong Kong citizens. In 1982, it took part in the elections for the newly established district boards in the urban districts, which significantly extended the franchise.

Starting from the late 1960s, the Club's ability to monopolise Urban Council elections with the Civic Association eroded, in light of the emergence of the popular independent candidates. Before the expansion of the franchise, the Reform Club had 15 members in the Urban Council of 1983. But the Reform Club's influence in the Urban Council reduced during the 1980s. Following the 1989 municipal elections, only five Reform Club members remained due to its lack of grassroots support. The Reform Club and Civic Association were gradually supplanted by the new pro-democracy groups including the Hong Kong Association for Democracy and People's Livelihood and Meeting Point. When at the 1995 municipal elections Brook Bernacchi retired, the Reform Club ceased to be active in the Hong Kong political scene.

Notable members

Election performance

Municipal elections

Election Number of
popular votes 		% of
popular votes 		UrbCo
seats 		RegCo
seats 		Total
elected seats
1952 2,199Steady 33.58Steady 1 / 2 -
1953 6,374Increase 71.25Increase 4 / 4 -
1954 7,773Increase 79.64Increase 4 / 4 -
1955 3,283Decrease 89.62Increase 4 / 4 -
1956 17,085Increase 56.97Decrease 6 / 8 –
1957 11,716Increase 43.50Decrease 5 / 8 –
1959 12,030Decrease 47.67Decrease 4 / 8 –
1961 uncontested uncontested 4 / 8 –
1963 5,177Decrease 39.43Decrease 3 / 8 –
1965 unknown unknown 5 / 10 –
1967 9,789Increase 24.90Decrease 4 / 10 –
1969 16,571Increase 49.22Increase 3 / 10 –
1971 6,139Decrease 16.22Decrease 3 / 10 –
1973 25,709Increase 55.14Increase 5 / 12 –
1975 6,141Increase 12.41Decrease 3 / 12 –
1977 13,249Decrease 41.05Increase 3 / 12 –
1979 9,579Increase 18.76Increase 3 / 12 –
1981 7,291Decrease 28.29Decrease 2 / 12 –
1983 13,894Increase 15.38Decrease 3 / 15 –
1986 24,486Increase 6.95Decrease 2 / 15 0 / 12 2 / 27
1989 13,404Decrease 6.31Decrease 2 / 15 0 / 12 2 / 27
1991 9,045Decrease 2.31Decrease 2 / 15 0 / 12 2 / 27

District Board/Council elections

Election Number of
popular votes 		% of
popular votes 		Total
elected seats 		+/−
1982 13,644Steady 3.83Steady 2 / 132
1985 39,929Increase 5.77Increase 17 / 237 7Increase
1988 13,572Decrease 2.13Decrease 5 / 264 5Decrease
1991 2,136Decrease 0.40Decrease 1 / 272 5Decrease

References

  1. Reform Club of Hong Kong (1949). Memorandum and articles of Association of the Reform Club of Hong Kong : incorporated the 20th day of January, 1949. Ts'o & Hodgson.
  2. Jones, Catherine M. (1990). Promoting Prosperity: The Hong Kong Way of Social Policy. Chinese University Press. p. 78.
  3. King, Ambrose Yeo-chi (1975). "Administrative Absorption of Politics in Hong Kong: Emphasis on the Grass Roots Level". Asian Survey. 15 (5): 431. doi:10.1525/as.1975.15.5.01p0076b.
  4. Lam, Wai-man (2004). Understanding the Political Culture of Hong Kong: The Paradox of Activism and Depoliticization. M.E. Sharpe. p. 11.

External links

Hong Kong Political parties in Hong Kong
Parties represented in the Legislative Council
Pro-Beijing (89)
Unaligned (1)
Parties represented in district councils
Pro-Beijing (174)
Categories: