CUHK
News Centre

“The Advantages and Limitations of the Participation of Professionals in Public Affairs” Research Report Release and Public Policy Forum was held recently. It was co-organised by the Hong Kong Professionals And Senior Executives Association (HKPASEA), and the Hong Kong Institute of Asia-Pacific Studies at The Chinese University of Hong Kong (CUHK). The research result of “The Advantages and Limitations of the Participation of Professionals in Public Affairs” was released and a number of policy recommendations to promote measures and practices that encourage and facilitate professionals to participate in public affairs were made.

Mr. Thomas LEE, President of the HKPASEA and Prof. Fanny CHEUNG, Pro-Vice-Chancellor of CUHK, delivered the welcome speeches. Dr. Herman HU, Past President of the HKPASEA, Mr. Addy WONG, Deputy Vice President of the HKPASEA, Dr. Henry HO, Chairman of the Research Committee of the HKPASEA, and Dr. Victor ZHENG, Director of Research of the Hong Kong Institute of Asia-Pacific Studies at CUHK, presented the research backgrounds and delivered the research result.

Key findings of the research

The Hong Kong Institute of Asia-Pacific Studies, CUHK was commissioned by the HKPASEA to conduct the study. The research team conducted a non-probability online survey from March to May 2019 and 746 successful cases were obtained. From April to May, five focus groups were also held, involving a total of 38 interviewees from different industries, including finance, legal, medical, engineering, and architecture.

The survey used an 11-point scale (from 0 to 10, with 5 as the midpoint). A higher rating represented a better evaluation. The survey revealed that,

• Most respondents were willing to be a member of an advisory or statutory body, with an average willingness rating of 6.52. Respondents who indicated a very high level of willingness (a rating of from 9 to 10) constituted 22.1%, whereas those who indicated a low level of willingness (a rating of less than 5) constituted only 17.7%.
• The respondents generally agreed that it is important to have the qualities listed below to participate in public affairs. They gave the following average ratings to those qualities, listed here in descending order: “Honesty and integrity” (9.26), “Social responsibility” (8.92), “Professional knowledge and experience” (8.52), “Leadership and analytical skills” (8.42), “Social network” (8.05), “Creativity and innovation ability” (7.92), “Know government and politics well” (7.78).
• The main reasons that the respondents gave for participating in public affairs were: “Personal reasons” (such as raising one’s social status, accumulating social capital, fulfilling aspirations, having a sense of belonging; 47.7%), “Work reasons” (such as helping one’s career or professional development, company encouragement; 39.5%), and “Social and governmental reasons” (such as assisting the government to implement policies, improving society; 38.2%). Only a minority of respondents chose “Public affairs position reasons” (such as the attractiveness of the remuneration and influence from holding a public affairs position; 13.1%) and “Family reasons” (such as family encouragement; 4.3%).
• The main reasons that the respondents gave for not participating in public affairs were: “Work reasons” (such as long working hours, high work pressure, being focused on career, no support from the company; 49.9%), “Family reasons” (such as taking care of one’s family, objections from family members; 24.1%), “Personal reasons” (such as obstructing the development of personal interests, no ability or interest; 17.0%), “Social and governmental reasons” (such as disagreement with the government, difficulty in changing the status quo, no knowledge on ways to participate; 15.4%), and “Public affairs position reasons” (such as a waste of time, irregular participation times, low remuneration; 15.0%).
• Although the respondents tended to agree that the government supports professionals in participating in public affairs, the average rating on this matter was only 5.98. Less than 10% of the respondents gave a very high rating (a rating of from 9 to 10), whereas around 20% gave a negative evaluation (a rating of less than 5). Similarly, although the respondents tended to agree that their employers supported professionals in participating in public affairs, the average rating on employer support was only 6.14. Less than 15% of the respondents gave a very high rating (a rating of from 9 to 10), whereas around 20% give a negative evaluation (a rating of less than 5).
• Regarding the five government measures that could encourage professionals to participate in public affairs, the measures that the respondents thought would be effective were, in descending order: “Encourage professional groups to include participation in public affairs positions as a recognized category of Continuing Professional Development” (56.0%), “Advertise and promote channels of participation” (27.2%), “Increase the remuneration of public affairs positions” (22.4%), “Raise the power of public affairs positions” (21.5%), “Establish channels of participation on the Internet” (16.9%).
• Regarding the six government measures that could help employers to encourage professionals to participate in public affairs, the measures that the respondents thought would be effective were, in descending order: “Provide economic incentives for employers” (41.7%), “Encourage the establishment of a company culture of employee participation in public affairs” (34.0%), “Provide participation guidelines for companies” (28.9%), “Promote the values of public affairs participation to companies” (25.4%), “Commend exemplary employers” (20.9%), “Inform employers regularly on the participation of their employees” (5.5%).

Policy recommendations

Based on the opinions of the respondents as expressed in the online survey and in the focus group interviews, thirteen policy recommendations are made in this study to the government, employers, and the various professions for their reference. These recommendations include:

• Government: (1) Increase and promote explicit channels of participation; (2) improve the mechanism for screening members of advisory and statutory bodies; (3) break the stereotype of advisory and statutory bodies as “rubber stamps”; (4) lower the cost of participating in advisory and statutory bodies; (5) increase economic incentives for talented people to hold public affairs positions; (6) enhance arrangements for the Member Self-recommendation Scheme for Youth; (7) set up youth committees under advisory and statutory bodies; (8) develop a regular secondment system for young members, and (9) promote secondments and internships in government departments.
• Employer: (10) Improve the corporate governance principle of companies, and (11) set up annual leave for public services.
• Industry: (12) Establish the value of participating in public affairs, and (13) set up an observer system.