2015年4月1日，我正式成為青年事務委員會主席。如今踏入兩週年，我亦有幸獲再度委任，正好藉此機會回顧過去，展望將來。 Continue reading
嚴格而言，青年政策不算創新；不少國家早已設立了類似的政策。有海外機構（Youth Policy Lab）就指出，截至2014年，全球超過六成的國家都設有青年政策。從英國、澳洲、新西蘭、加拿大魁北克省，以至澳門的例子可見，青年政策不是一張羅列所有相關措施的清單，而是一個全面的框架，高層次地勾劃出社會對青年的願景，以及政府在青年工作方面投放資源的重點。
1st April 2017 marks the two-year anniversary and the renewal of my appointment as Chairman of the Commission on Youth (“CoY“). I would like to take this occasion to review my past term’s work, and outline my priorities for the next term. Continue reading
During my term, I met with young people and stakeholders in youth development at 460 occasions to have a better understanding of their situations, thoughts and needs. I also placed much emphasis on engaging and soliciting views from the public through social media. Three observations can be made from these exchanges.
First, Hong Kong’s youth face many challenges in their transition to adulthood – striving to excel in school, find a good job, attain financial independence and, for many, buy a property; maintain a global outlook and competitiveness in this age of interconnectivity and ever-evolving technology; cope with the stresses that modern life brings to one’s physical and mental wellbeing; establish healthy and loving relationships within one’s family and community, so on and so forth.
Second, existing youth-related measures tend to mostly benefit at-risk youth and the elites. One of my priorities have been to reach out to young people who are neither at risk nor at the top – what I call the “middle 80%”. Successful youth development work should take into account the plurality of young people and support each and everyone of them in fully realising their potential. Such is the vision of the CoY – to foster a culture of multi-faceted excellence.
Third, many young people have expressed an interest in political and social issues and they would like to have greater influence on policymaking. They should be given more opportunities to voice their opinions and their views should be properly recognised. They should especially have a say in the future direction of youth development work.
Through the efforts of the Hong Kong SAR Government (“HKSARG”) acting together with stakeholders in other sectors, we have witnessed a rise in the quantity and quality of youth-related measures (which is not the same as a youth policy, and I will turn to this below). The Youth Development Work of the Current-term Government 2012-2017: Review and Outlook, a booklet recently released by the Home Affairs Bureau (“HAB”), summarises existing measures to promote multi-faceted development, global perspectives, volunteerism, youth engagement and community participation. The booklet did not include initiatives at a community level, many of which I have observed to be innovative and impactful. In reviewing youth-related measures (whether government-led or not), I have been mindful to identify best practices and encourage more cross-sectoral exchanges so that, together, we can scale measures that truly benefit our youth.
While reviewing individual measures is important, what we often forget is that these measures affect a young person’s growth and development in a way such that they cannot be viewed in isolation. A young person who does not have sufficient guidance on life planning may find himself in a job that does not suit him and feel trapped or financially vulnerable; or a teenager who has experienced cyberbullying might express his frustration in ways that harm himself or the society.
Hong Kong has many youth-related measures, but they are often the efforts of bureaux and non-governmental actors working in silos.
What Hong Kong lacks is a youth policy to facilitate coordination between stakeholders and lay down a central guiding principle for youth development in the long term.
I dedicated much of my time last year to reviewing Hong Kong’s historical development of a youth policy and overseas experience. The 1980s saw an attempt to introduce a youth policy to consolidate existing efforts in youth development, but it did not come to fruition. Back then, a Central Committee on Youth (“CCY”) was set up to research and consult the public on the need for a youth policy. Based on its findings and public opinion, the CCY recommended the colonial government to formulate a youth policy and establish a commission on youth for the task. The CCY’s recommendation for a youth policy was rejected, though its recommendation for a commission on youth was accepted, hence the CoY today.
A youth policy is not a novel idea; many countries have one. Independent think tank Youth Policy Labs’ survey in 2014 found that 62 per cent of nations worldwide have a national youth policy. Examples include the United Kingdom, Australia, New Zealand, certain states in Canada like Québec, and our neighbour Macao SAR of China. These examples all demonstrate that a youth policy is not merely a laundry list of youth-related measures; it is a high-level document that outlines a city’s vision for its young people and the government’s long-term investment priorities for achieving that vision.
While a youth policy fosters strategic direction for youth development work across the board and ensures that youth-related measures are consistent, it is not a silver bullet that will help our young people overcome all of their challenges in life. As a set of guidelines for long-term action, the effects of a youth policy may not be visible until many years later, and its impact on individual lives may not be apparent. This may be why our society has not, until recently, started to discuss whether Hong Kong needs a youth policy.
I am glad to see that after a year of public education and engagement (mostly through the website: http://youthpolicy.hk and Facebook: @hello.mingwailau.hk), many members of the public have expressed a wish to see a more comprehensive set of youth policy in Hong Kong. Young people want to see more commitment on the part of the HKSARG to youth development. HKSARG officials and other stakeholders indicated that they would benefit from a central vision to underpin their actions.
2016-2017 has been an exciting time for Hong Kong’s youth development.
In the Policy Address 2017, the CoY was invited to put forward proposals on the future direction of a youth development policy and strengthen coordination with various government departments in youth development.
In her manifesto for the Chief Election election, Ms. Carrie Lam asked the CoY to promptly complete the first draft of a youth policy, as the basis for establishing a Youth Development Commission (“YDC”).
Now is therefore the time for our society to think and talk about Hong Kong’s youth policy. In the coming 9-12 months, the CoY will conduct extensive public consultations on this.
Chaired by the Chief Secretary for Administration and comprising youth members, the YDC would steer relevant policy bureaux and departments to take forward youth development initiatives. The CoY would be incorporated into the YDC.
In the coming year, the CoY will form a dedicated focus group to coordinate a series of discussions with young people, youth groups, youth ambassadors, teachers, school principals, parents, employers, social workers, NGOs, and representatives from other groups and sectors. Apart from engaging the public on Hong Kong’s youth policy, the CoY will solicit views on individual youth-related measures.
I welcome suggestions on existing measures as well as new ones to be introduced. Below are my proposals relating to education, jobs, civic participation, and health and wellbeing, which were more fully explained in my note to all Chief Executive candidates.
The CoY’s dedicated focus group is expected to report its findings to the CoY by early 2018 for further deliberation, after which the CoY will submit final recommendations to the HKSARG regarding Hong Kong’s youth policy. Any comments on Hong Kong’s youth policy (whether as to its vision, strategy or approach), and any suggestions on ways to strengthen coordination among government departments and stakeholders in youth development, are welcome.
I look forward to carrying out the CoY’s mandate of formulating a youth policy, as the basis for establishing a Youth Development Commission. This is a milestone in Hong Kong’s youth development.
Both myself and the CoY will be in consultation with young people, government officials, stakeholders, and members of the public, with a view to crafting a youth policy that is most suited to our youth’s needs and Hong Kong’s economic and social circumstances. Together, we will shape the future direction of Hong Kong’s youth development and build a next generation that can realise their full potential to create fulfilling lives for themselves.
昨晚有幸和Facebook的網絡安全專家 Mia Garlick 以及本港的學者和非牟利機構會面，包括香港青年協會和香港小童群益會，一起探討如何為年輕人建立一個更安全的網上世界。
香港有超過九成人使用Facebook， 其中不少是年輕人。Facebook 在亞太區推出不少安全工具，確保青年可以放心使用Facebook，其工作十分有意義。
Last night, I had the pleasure of meeting with Facebook’s Asia Pacific online safety expert Mia Garlick and Hong Kong academics and NGOs, including The Hong Kong Federation of Youth Groups (HKFYG) and The Boys’ & Girls’ Clubs Association of Hong Kong (BGCA) to discuss how to make the Internet a safer and better place for youth.
Facebook shared what it is doing to enhance safety for users. More than 90% of the Hong Kong population uses Facebook so it is encouraging to see so many meaningful initiatives on their part.
But we also need other stakeholders’ support. Many cyberbullying cases and other risks on the Internet occur across platforms. The line between offline and online behaviour is increasingly blurred. So we need to strengthen work on all fronts, from school education to social workers’ outreach to media campaigns to legal intervention.
Online safety is also a broad term and it requires us to address issues like Internet addiction, cyberstalking, hate speech, fake news and privacy concerns. While solutions to these problems are varied, some common themes emerged.
We need to improve our youth’s digital and media literacy and Internet etiquette. Young users should be more alert as to Internet risks, more skilful in finding and using information online as well as in utilising various social media platforms. At the same time, we should not neglect the other side of the equation. Oftentimes a computer screen reduces people’s empathy and respect for others, and accountability for their own actions. It makes people less mindful of the impact of their actions and less willing to help others. We talked about inactive bystanders on social media which makes cyberbullying all the more harmful.
Prevention and education must be the way forward. Yet a major hurdle in awareness raising is the difficulty in defining Internet unsafe or unacceptable behaviour. Another complication is understanding and responding to online behaviour in an appropriate and timely manner, given that new platforms and Internet language emerge everyday. This is why stakeholders’ exchange is critical for the local community to move closer to reaching a consensus on fundamental definitions and best practices, as well as on next steps ahead. Hopefully, this will be the first of many similar occasions.
In the Policy Address 2017, the Commission on Youth (CoY) was asked to put forward proposals for a youth development policy. As the Chairman of the CoY, I ask for the next Chief Executive’s support in formulating a vision for our youth and reaching a unified narrative for all youth-related stakeholders and actions.
During my term as the Chairman of the Commission on Youth (CoY), I have attached great importance to communicating with our young people. Apart from official activities of the CoY, I have got in touch with young people and listened to their views through less formal channels, including small-group meetings and social media. Many of the youth that I have met are students from all ages and backgrounds, but I have also spoken to young politicians and activists, athletes, entrepreneurs, artists and ethnic minorities. To fully understand our youth and the challenges they face, we must understand the ways in which young people interact with the community at large. This is why I have made sure to engage other stakeholders as well, including parents, teachers and principals, social workers, non-governmental organisations (NGOs), and private sector actors that are active or interested in youth development.
2017 is an exciting year for Hong Kong’s youth development, but we have a lot of work to do. The CoY was asked to put forward proposals on the future direction of a youth development policy.
Youth development means different things to different people. To many, it means better education and job opportunities. To others, creating space for civic participation is more important. Every young person is as unique as the other. That is why consultation is key for Hong Kong to formulate a youth development policy that meets the diverse needs of our next generation.
That said, I will use this note to outline what I consider to be the HKSAR Government’s (HKSARG’s) and the next Chief Executive’s priorities in youth development, based on my work and engagements in the past two years. Hong Kong’s youth development policy should address the following areas: (1) education; (2) employment and vocational training; (3) the housing and economic situation; (4) civic participation; (5) national identity; (6) technology and social media; and (7) resilience and mental wellbeing.
I have heard many criticisms of Hong Kong’s education system. I have no intention to belittle these concerns, though as I have said before, blaming all education woes on the HKSARG or its officials is simplistic and unfair. It might be more constructive to consider two questions: (i) What is the aim of education? (ii) Is our education system designed and implemented in such a way to achieve this objective?
83% of local secondary students study for the purpose of landing a good job, according to a 2016 survey by Education 2.1. My exchanges with parents and teachers yield the same finding. Yet when students are not studying based on their interests or to fulfill their intellectual curiosity, this has direct implications on their subject choice and passion for learning. Year in and year out, our education system produces batches and batches of students competing for subjects that are more likely to give them a “good job” in industries such as medicine, law, business and finance; nonetheless, many of these students told me that they went through years of training to realise that their real interest lies elsewhere. Is this not a failure on the part of our education system? The introduction of Career and Life Planning (CLP) is a step in the right direction, though it is too early to determine its effectiveness.
Our education system is flawed in many ways. The workload of our students is too heavy. 91% feel pressure in preparing for the Hong Kong Diploma of Secondary Education (HKDSE), and 37% describe the pressure as “severe”. 35% of our students do not have enough time to rest and relax, and 37% do not have time to explore and develop their interests. Our assessment methods are mostly exam-based. The upshot is an educational experience that does not encourage curiosity, creativity, reflection, expression or collaboration, all of which are skills essential in modern society.
We want our youth to have a personalised education that enhances their strengths and creates opportunities for them to explore and pursue their interests starting from an early age. We need a CLP education that is effective in enabling students to make informed choices about their future and facilitating their transition from studying to working. Currently, best practices for conveying CLP education are not known, and this should be changed through better stakeholder communication.
Effective Career and Life Planning methods should be scaled, and parents’ role in students’ life choices need to be better understood.
Many have made suggestions on how to improve our education system, and I do not need to repeat them here. These suggestions bring out the need for a complete review of Hong Kong’s education system, from its syllabus and curriculum to its assessment methods. Language is a key tool for learning, and Hong Kong has always prided itself on its students’ bilingualism. We must ensure that our students do not lose this competitive edge and continually improve our language pedagogy, including Chinese teaching for non-Chinese speaking children.
We want our students to see learning as an enjoyment and not a chore, so that they will be inspired to embark on lifelong learning.
Learning can take place in many contexts. I observed many informal activities outside the classroom and was impressed by their effectiveness in building students’ soft skills, including problem solving, relationships and wellbeing, and financial literacy. International exchange tours, such as the ones supported by the CoY, enable students to gain exposure. There is much to be said for the HKSARG to support life skills programmes and expand the international exchange network for our students.
Young people find that, compared to their parents, they have fewer job opportunities and witness smaller pay rises as they climb up the career ladder. Comparing relevant figures in 1991 and 2011, more working youth are in lower-paid associate professional jobs, as opposed to higher-paid managerial and professional jobs. More young people have taken up low-waged, low-skilled service and sales jobs over the past 20 years.
The youth wage growth rate dropped from 45.6% in 1993-1998 to 25.6% in 2008-2013. The starting salary of a fresh university graduate was $13,158 in 1993, but fell to $10,860 in 2013, somewhat eroding the common belief that a university degree guarantees financial return. The problem is exacerbated for youth without a university degree. In 2015, the median monthly earnings of a non-degree holder was HK$16,450, significantly lower than the HK$27,500 of a degree holder.
Our youth enjoy less occupational and earnings mobility than the older generation. The unfortunate truth is there is a mismatch of demand and supply in our labour market. The demand for high-skilled professionals has not caught up with the increased (and still increasing) supply of university and sub-degree graduates. Hong Kong has an excess of sub-degree holders, and this excess was projected to increase even more in 2022.
What Hong Kong needs is a broader, more diversified economic base beyond the real estate, finance and commercial sectors. While we can debate about the appropriate degree of economic intervention to diversify jobs, the HKSARG is at least in a good position to foster communications between employers and tertiary institutions to bridge the demand/supply gap. With increased communications, schools can have more clarity on needs in the labour market, and what employers look for in making hiring decisions. Schools can then be more responsive in providing training to students.
The HKSARG should enhance young people’s job-readiness through creating better opportunities for them to gain work experience in their school years. Hong Kong has many mentorship and internship programmes, yet their quality and impact are rarely evaluated.
We need to move beyond quantitative targets, and ensure that internship programmes deliver their intended outcome.
Youth who want to pursue careers in fields like the arts, sports and entrepreneurship face extra hurdles. Parental pressure and societal norms, as well as financial burden, are but a few obstacles they have to overcome in following an “unconventional” path. These young people in particular need support from the HKSARG, from infrastructure to funding to capacity- and network-building.
Housing comes up as a frequent topic of discussion in my exchanges with youth. Many tell me that buying a property in Hong Kong is almost impossible these days. Yet, for every young person who is distressed by the unaffordability of flats in Hong Kong, there is another individual who tells me that he/she does not put housing at the top of his/her concerns.
To have a clearer understanding of the issue, my team compiled a Hong Kong Youth Development Index (HKYDI) to provide a quantifiable, objective account of Hong Kong youth’s wellbeing in the past 10 years. HKYDI measures the living situation of young people in Hong Kong across six domains, one of them being economic situation. Based on the results, it is true that residential property in Hong Kong has become less affordable in the past decade. The ratio of youth employee earnings to private residential property prices has risen significantly by 112% from 2005 to 2014. However, other aspects of local young people’s economic situation have improved. Youth poverty rate has dropped by 13.1% from 2009 to 2014, and youth employee earnings have increased by 9.4% from 2005 to 2014.
The primary issue lies in our surging property prices. This should not come as a surprise; indeed there has been ample supporting data and public discussions on this subject. The average price for a small residential unit skyrocketed by 188% from 2006 to 2013, while the median monthly household income increased by a mere 30%. The takeaway is that housing is a policy imperative not only in relation to youth, but everyone in Hong Kong, and addressing it requires long-term, comprehensive strategies and coordination from the HKSARG and beyond.
Increasing housing supply is key, and the HKSARG can also take specific measures to support youth in home ownership. For example, the HKSARG can review the eligibility criteria of public housing for youth based on financial needs, and build more youth hostels (beyond the five locations already identified under the Home Affairs Bureau’s Youth Hostel Scheme). Equally important is for all stakeholders (HKSARG, young people and society at large) to put the issue into perspective. Globally, the transition from youth to adulthood has become more complex and drawn out, and many young people delay moving out of the parental home or return after living independently in college. Such is the case in the UK, the US, Australia, and European countries like Sweden and Denmark. This phenomenon suggests that home ownership is not a prerequisite to financial independence.
In many countries, home ownership is not a prerequisite to financial independence.
Many young people around the world are experiencing delayed home ownership (or financial independence, or both), and our youth need not be discouraged or frustrated simply because of this situation. What the HKSARG can do is to understand the factors affecting youth’s financial independence, and measures that other countries have taken to address this issue.
The HKSARG should introduce policies to support our young people in becoming financially self-sufficient.
I have spoken to many young people who feel that their voices are not heard or that they do not have enough influence over policymaking. These young people are passionate about certain causes or social affairs, and would like to have their views acknowledged by the HKSARG, if not taken into account. On the other end of the spectrum, there is a significant “silent majority” among local youth. The turnout rate of young voters aged 18-25 in Legislative Council elections has fallen by 15.9% from 2004 to 2012. Less than half of our young people voted in the most recent Legislative and District Council elections, with the relevant voting rate being 44.5% and 30.2% respectively. Both represent a segment of our next generation, and both phenomena reflect that our youth are not fully engaged on civic matters. While formal platforms and channels such as the Annual Youth Summit and Youth Exchange Sessions exist, they have not been successful in allowing our youth to feel adequately represented.
The HKSARG can place more emphasis on informal exchanges and social media interactions, as well as on encouraging volunteerism.
We must also not forget that community involvement entails more than political participation; it also involves volunteerism. Through engaging youth in community services, young people not only develop positive virtues like citizenship and a sense of belonging to the community, they also hone skills essential for the job market, such as leadership, teamwork, communication, creativity and problem-solving. The HKSARG should encourage and offer more opportunities for young people to give back to the community.
The HKSARG has had a long history of supporting youth exchange in Mainland China. In 2016/17 alone, the CoY funded more than 300 exchange and internship tours organised by third parties. I personally joined some of these tours to collect students’ feedback. Participants told me that they appreciated authentic exchanges with local people, and free time to explore the destination city and its culture.
This has led me to believe that, on the subject of national identity, the HKSARG’s role is to encourage our youth to learn about Mainland China and provide them with adequate opportunities to do so – no more and no less. One’s cultural identity is an individual choice and it can only be meaningfully formed through personal experience and reflection. Measures like rote-learning the Basic Law and Putonghua recital competitions have had limited effect because they convey only superficial knowledge, but do not engender a genuine understanding of Mainland China or create personal resonance.
We must also not forget the fact that Hong Kong has a unique identity and culture that is quite different from that of Mainland China. Because of “One Country, Two Systems”, Hong Kong remains a capitalist economy and has a common law legal system; we continue to use Cantonese and traditional Chinese characters predominantly in our day-to-day lives; and we have very different media outlets. We cannot blame our young people for not feeling as connected as they should be with Mainland China.
Our tech-savvy youth have access to a wide range of information and media online, representing different views on the issue of national identity as well as towards Mainland China. Some sources contain misinformation or stereotypes, and it would be unfortunate if our youth were to base their views on these sources alone. Herein lies the significance of letting our youth have a first-hand experience of Mainland China and its culture.
The HKSARG should provide youth with opportunities to make an informed decision about their cultural identity, while acknowledging that any shift in perception will come from within.
Over the years, exchange and internship programmes in Mainland China have evolved into diversified and interactive learning experiences. For one, destinations now span the whole of China. For another, the types of programmes range from cultural and historical tours, to legal and architectural internships, to volunteer service camps. Precisely because of the scale of these programmes, their standards and outcomes have not been consistent. As the HKSARG continues to support these schemes, it is imperative to evaluate their quality, especially from our young people’s perspective, to make sure that they truly benefit youth.
Policy suggestions in this area tend to focus on STEM (Science, Technology, Engineering and Mathematics) education and job creation in the IT industry. I would like to shift the focus to the profound impact that technology has on our next generation. Technology influences how young people interact with each other, and how they perceive the world and themselves. As social media becomes ubiquitous, its role in the lives of millennials has expanded beyond socialising with peers; it is now a space for them to voice opinions on public affairs and organise community actions (the social context). For many young people, social media and, more broadly, the Internet has become an important information and news source, and a platform for creating and sharing one’s work (the academic context). Risks and opportunities exist in both contexts. We need to teach our youth how to make the most out of technology whilst minimising the harm it entails.
In the social context, social media creates opportunities for young people to express themselves, thereby building self-esteem and establishing their own identity. As alluded to above, the HKSARG needs to better leverage social media as a tool to enhance civic awareness and participation. On the other hand, policies should protect our youth from privacy and safety risks, primarily through prevention and education. Cyberbullying is a real concern in many countries, such as the UK and the US, and yet Hong Kong is lacking in our understanding of the issue.
In the academic context, young people can develop competencies from seeking, evaluating and disseminating information online, and the information fluency they acquire is increasingly critical for success in the modern age. On the flip side, they do face risks of information overload and fortuitous searching.
We must ensure that youth possess the digital literacy to find and process online information and assess their credibility and quality.
The HKSARG should engage stakeholders to better understand Hong Kong youth’s social media use, particularly its potential benefits and how we can leverage it as an educational tool. Where risks exist, it should formulate intervention strategies.
The HKSARG can identify synergies between various entities, including technology companies in the private sector and NGOs to create impactful initiatives against cyberbullying.
The suicide cases among students last year have prompted discussions on the mental health of young people and the formation of a dedicated Committee on Prevention of Student Suicides. The Committee has done ample work to tackle the issue of suicide prevention, but I see these cases as also underscoring a broader principle that Hong Kong has overlooked in youth development – resilience. Resilience is a theme that underlies many youth policies across the world, including the UK, Australia and New Zealand. To borrow the UK’s definition, resilience is the “mental toughness” that helps young people deal with challenge, stress, and pressure. Once we shift the focus from suicide prevention to a proactive, holistic strategy to instil resilience, the question becomes:
How do we equip our youth with the ability to cope with adversity and overcome hurdles in life? This should guide the HKSARG in forming strategies on youth development.
Instilling resilience needs to take place in all contexts. Schools, teachers, parents, social workers, and organisers of youth programmes all play a role. There are two points that we can all remind ourselves of when interacting with our youth. First, we need to provide young people with more opportunities to experience success in different ways. We must move away from elitism and a utilitarian view of extra-curricular activities, and foster a culture of diversity where students learn to appreciate their individuality and strengths. Second, we need to encourage our youth to have a growth mindset – that is, to perceive failures and setbacks as opportunities for growth. To do this, we as adults should let young people try and even fail, and praise efforts instead of outcome. It also entails letting young people take initiative and ownership.
The HKSARG should take the lead in recognising resilience as an overarching principle of youth development. This principle should inform decision-making on allocating resources for youth programmes. The HKSARG should also raise awareness among the public of resilience, diversity, and the growth mindset, to foster a supportive environment overall for our youth to grow up in.
This note identifies the issues pertaining to youth in Hong Kong that necessitate attention and action from the HKSARG, and hence the next Chief Executive. While it does not represent the views of all young people or stakeholders in youth development, it is my personal reflection as CoY Chairman after 420 occasions of youth engagement and public outreach during my two-year term.
What is important is that these issues are all inter-connected in terms of their effect on youth. A young person who struggles in school is likely to face obstacles in finding a job and attaining financial security as well. Yet Hong Kong’s policies pertaining to youth have always belonged to the domains of different bureaux working in silos. What is equally noteworthy is that youth work involves more actors than the HKSARG, depending on the issue at hand. Some issues can be addressed by governmental measures alone; some may be more effectively dealt with at a grassroots level or with the support of the private sector.
Herein lies the significance of a youth development policy. It allows the HKSARG to adopt a cross cutting “youth perspective” in making and implementing all of its policies affecting young people.
A youth development policy is Hong Kong’s long term vision for its youth, a unified narrative for all stakeholders, and a strategic roadmap for future actions.
Our youth are our future. They need our support to be happy, healthy and resilient. A youth development policy lays down our way forward to achieve this goal, and I ask that the next Chief Executive support us in this endeavour.
綜觀世界各地，不少國家及機構都建立了一套量度當地或世界各地青年發展的指數，例如英聯邦及澳洲的《青年發展指數》（Youth Development Index，YDI）。反觀香港，似乎仍未有一套全面、客觀的青年發展指數。有見及此，我們製作了《香港青年發展指數》（HKYDI），以六個範疇、十八項指標，量度過去十年香港青年發展的狀況。HKYDI為香港首個客觀量度青年發展狀況的指數，除了供各界參考之餘，亦希望能藉此引起更多有關青年發展的討論。
英國、瑞典、澳洲和新西蘭的青年政策的另一個特點是它們對青年的態度——它們都著重青年的正面特質，並不把青年視為問題。拿英國2011 – 2015年的青年政策為例，強調給年輕人提供機會，讓他們發展所長，新西蘭也有著類此的聲明。瑞典青年政策的三大支柱的其中之一是讓青年自給自足、掌握自己的人生。另一方面，日本、蒙古和澳門的青年政策展示出一種負面的心態，以風險管理、預防偏差行為為中心 。日本主要以輔導方式解決青年問題，包括兼職並經常轉工的青年、啃老族（意謂沒有受教育或培訓，又不是在工作的青年）、退學青年、犯罪行為等。蒙古主要通過社會福利措施，減少對青年的風險和傷害。澳門以預防青年犯罪作為其政策的主要目標之一。英國、瑞典、澳洲和新西蘭在制訂青年政策時都有諮詢過年輕人，相反，沒有任何證據顯示日本和蒙古當局進行過大型諮詢，而這有否影響各地青年政策的內容，值得大家細想。
What should our youth policy look like?
Previously, we talked about how Hong Kong nearly had a youth policy in the 1980s. By “youth policy”, the Central Committee on Youth (CCY) was referring to a high-level, visionary statement of the aspirations and goals for Hong Kong youth and general principles for their development, based on Hong Kong’s developmental trends. CCY decided against a policy with concrete measures, because the public had different opinions and it would not be cost-effective to regularly review specific measures given the lead time in implementation.
I have reviewed youth policies in certain countries and regions, including the United Kingdom (UK), Sweden, Australia, New Zealand (NZ), Japan, Mongolia and Macau. They display subtle differences (for details, please see the tables below), but together they demonstrate what a youth policy should not be – a laundry list of measures relating to youth but without a unifying vision. UK, Sweden, Australia, NZ and Macau adopt a holistic approach, setting a long-term vision for their young people. This vision guides all youth-related measures, and there is a central coordinating body to ensure this; its other function is of course to allocate resources and avoid duplication of efforts. Japan’s and Mongolia’s policies are more fragmented, with measures in education, employment and welfare, but scattered across government departments without a central rationale or coordination.
Another feature that the UK, Sweden, Australia and NZ have in common is their attitude towards youth – one of positive empowerment, rather than negative problem-solution. UK, for instance, named its 2011-2015 policy Positive for Youth; much like New Zealand, it stresses on providing youth with opportunities and developing their capabilities. One of the three pillars of the Swedish policy is self-sufficiency – to give youth a real possibility to influence their everyday lives. On the other hand, Japan, Mongolia and Macau demonstrate a risk-centered mentality. Japan’s policy talks much about youth problems, e.g., “freeters” (job-hopping part-time workers), NEETs (“Not in Education, Employment or Training”), school withdrawal and delinquency, and uses counseling as the main solution. Mongolia protects youth against harms primarily through social welfare measures. Macau has juvenile delinquency prevention as one of its key objectives. Coincidentally or perhaps not so coincidentally, the first four countries consulted young people in the process of formulating their youth policies, whereas there was no evidence of any official, large-scale consultation in Japan or Mongolia.
A youth policy, like any other policy, must suit local circumstances and needs. The holistic, resilience model in the UK may not work well in the economic, social and cultural setting of Japan, and vice versa. If we were to simplify these policies into two categories, UK, Sweden, Australia and NZ seem to be on one end of the spectrum, while Japan and Mongolia seem to be on the other end, with Macau being somewhere in between. It was a shame that the CCY’s proposal for a youth policy in Hong Kong was not accepted, but if it were, what should Hong Kong’s youth policy look like?
(To be continued…)
想知道更多有關香港青年政策發展的歷史，請瀏覽互動時序表 (Interactive Timeline)，或按此下載以下文件:
放大 Click to Enlarge