Content uploaded by Yan Wing Leung
Author content
All content in this area was uploaded by Yan Wing Leung on Jul 26, 2016
Content may be subject to copyright.
157
CTL 11 (2) pp. 157–174 Intellect Limited 2016
Citizenship Teaching & Learning
Volume 11 Number 2
© 2016 Intellect Ltd Article. English language. doi: 10.1386/ctl.11.2.157_1
Student Union
student participation
school governance
school civic mission
civic education
constructs of child
here and now citizen
The Hong Kong Institute of Education
This article is a report on part of a larger research on student participation in school
governance in the Hong Kong context. It addresses the question ‘Is the Student Union
a tokenism of student participation in school governance in the context of Hong
Kong?’. The research adopts a mixed methodology comprising both quantitative and
qualitative methods. For the quantitative study, 3209 valid student questionnaires
from 51 secondary schools of different backgrounds were collected. For the qualita-
tive study, four schools of different levels of student participation were involved in
in-depth case studies. Semi-structured interviews and field observations with teach-
ers and students were conducted to collect qualitative data. The study revealed that
from the questionnaire, the ‘one student, one vote’ policy was an apparently fair,
transparent and democratic procedure for Student Union elections, and gave the
Student Union a positive image in relation to student participation. However, the
in-depth case studies revealed that these were superficial perceptions. Instead, it was
found that schools shared very limited powers with their Student Unions, where
the Student Union would have power only in trivial school operational matters.
The ultimate, real power was in the hands of school authorities, seriously limit-
ing the influence of student participation. Our studies further revealed that whether
students were satisfied with this disempowering situation or not, most of them had
become ‘positive and passive’. This was because they had been socialized to accept
CTL_11.2_Leung_157-174.indd 157 5/7/16 2:09:34 PM
Yan Wing Leung | Timothy Wai Wa Yuen | Eric Chi Keung Cheng …
158
the status quo, without expressing dissident voices, as they did not want to oppose
the caring school ethos that they valued. In summary, Student Unions in Hong
Kong are, in general, close to tokenism, a representative mechanism that cannot take
meaningful action to bring forth genuine changes in important school matters. This
may have negative impacts on students’ citizenship development, and ends up with
cultivating students to be non-questioning, non-participatory, cynical, passive and
docile citizens.
There has been a growing concern in the twenty-first century that without
active citizenship, comprising both voting and active participation in civil soci-
ety, democratic governance is fragile (Osler and Starkey 2005). This concern
has led to a renewed interest in civic education for democratic citizenship
internationally (Print and Lange 2012; Torney-Purta et al. 2001).
In democratic societies, liberal educators tend to consider schools as
communities in which young people learn to interact, argue, deliberate and
work together and schools have a ‘civic mission’ to teach every young person
about citizenship systematically. This comprises developing among them a
democratic spirit and preparing them as politically literate, participatory and
critically thinking citizens (Dürr 2004). The learning of democracy at school
is not always productive from schoolwork, but must be an interactive proc-
ess, which emphasizes student participation (Tholander 2007). Through active
participation in school governance matters, students are provided with oppor-
tunities to develop their own knowledge and skills through praxis. In order
to achieve the civic mission for the nurturing of democratic citizenship, both
‘teaching’ and ‘practising’ of citizenship are essential. As for teaching, recent
research has challenged the conventional view that formal civic education
had only a marginal impact (Dobozy 2007; Print et al. 2002). As for practis-
ing, treating schools as miniature political communities, the civic learning of
students is achieved through participation in school governance, particularly
in decision-making in their perceived meaningful issues in schools (McQuillan
2005; Taylor and Percy-Smith 2008).
School governance is defined as encompassing ‘all aspects of the way a
school is led, managed and run (including school rules, procedures, decision-
making structures), and the behaviour of its personnel and how they relate to
each other’ (Huddleston 2007). In order to ensure the success of civic educa-
tion, students should be encouraged to engage actively in school governance,
through which they are empowered. Failing this, the perceived contradiction
may lead to cynicism, apathy and the failure of civic education programmes
(Osler and Starkey 2005; Raby 2008; Rudduck and Flutter 2000; Schimmel
2003; Tse 2000). Hence, schools have been described as ‘laboratories of demo-
cratic freedom’ (Bäckman and Trafford 2006) and ‘crucibles of democracy’
(McQuillan 2005).
The involvement of students in school governance, known as ‘democratic
school governance’ or ‘participatory school governance’ (Huddleston 2007), has
well-supported ethical, educational and instrumental justifications. Ethically,
the United Nations Convention on the Rights of the Child (UNCRC), espe-
cially Articles 12 and 15, have explicitly laid down the rights of children to
express their views freely and to be heard on all matters affecting them, as
well as the rights to freedom of association and peaceful assembly. It calls for
CTL_11.2_Leung_157-174.indd 158 5/7/16 2:09:34 PM
Is Student Union a tokenism of student participation …
159
treating students as ‘here and now citizens’ in the school communities, and
endorsing their rights and responsibilities in influencing the matters affecting
them (Leung and Yuen 2009a; Roche 1999).
From an educational perspective, participation is positively related to
students’ general attainment, self-esteem, sense of belonging, self-efficacy,
responsibility (Schulz et al. 2009) and improving school discipline, teacher–
student relationships, and attitudes towards school (Bäckman and Trafford
2006). All these benefits may have direct or indirect positive impacts on
students’ citizenship development, resulting in different modes of citizenship
(Ho et al. 2011).
Alderson (2000) argued that Student Unions, providing formal, democratic,
transparent, whole-school policy forums, is a practical and symbolic indicator
of respect for children’s rights, which can channel positive understanding and
enthusiasm from even the youngest of children. However, research examining
the autonomy and authentic participation of the Student Union, especially in
Asia, is limited. This research not only reports on the formation and function
of Student Unions in Hong Kong, it also discusses whether Student Unions
are a form of tokenism of student participation in school governance. Finally,
this article highlights a few issues on the impacts of the recent Umbrella
Movement on student participation for further research.
Forms/levels, and scope, of student participation
Student participation can take different forms (Hart 1992; Tsang 1986) or
levels (Dürr 2004; Hart 1992). Hart (1992) proposed the ladder of partici-
pation comprises eight levels: the three lowest levels in non-participatory
stages, ranging from ‘manipulation’ to ‘tokenism’, and the other five levels
with different degrees of participation, ranging from ‘assigned but informed’
to ‘children initiated, shared decision with adults’. Lister (2007) argued that,
if a ‘participatory mechanism’ does not allow for meaningful action to make
genuine differences, it does not show genuine recognition and respect, and
the so-called participation may become an empty exercise, or at most just a
token gesture. Concerning the scope of student participation, Article 12 of the
UNCRC emphasizes that all matters affecting the child are relevant. However,
in reality, schools tend to confine it to ‘trivial matters’ such as extra-curricular
activities, giving an impression of tokenism (Tse 2000). Two significant school
matters frequently debated are school rules and dress codes (Osler 2000; Raby
2005). In Hong Kong, school rules and school uniform symbolize the distribu-
tion of power. School rules usually contain many items of prohibited conduct
plus a list of penalties and students’ rights are seldom mentioned. Some rules
are vague that flexible interpretations are possible, making the enforcing
of rules arbitrary. The rules are usually ‘top-down’ and students are seldom
involved in developing them. Procedures for amending perceived unfair rules
and appealing against unfair treatment are rarely present and, if they exist,
there tends to be a whole hierarchical and authoritarian school management
hurdle to pass through (Morojele and Muthukrishna 2011). Senior students,
who are nearly adults and more competent, are usually patronized by adult
childishness, which casts adults as children (Young-Bruehl 2012). All these
measures are considered as means to control students, putting them in a
powerless position. By muting the students, the rules cultivate students to
CTL_11.2_Leung_157-174.indd 159 5/7/16 2:09:34 PM
Yan Wing Leung | Timothy Wai Wa Yuen | Eric Chi Keung Cheng …
160
be non-questioning, non-participatory, cynical, passive and docile citizens
(Ho et al. 2011; Raby 2005). Occasionally, in such uneven power distribu-
tion, students fight back, hurting the relationship between students and their
school.
Student voice and Student Union/Council
The concept of ‘student voice’ has received increasing attention in the United
Kingdom in past decades after the ratification of the UNCRC in 1989. Lundy
(2006) argued that ‘pupil voice is not enough’ and suggested the following four
elements: space, voice, audience and influence. ‘Space’ refers to the idea that
children must be provided with safe and inclusive opportunities to express
their views when they choose to do so. ‘Voice’ means that children should
be facilitated to express their views. Their right to express their views is not
dependent upon their capacity to express a mature view, but on their abil-
ity to form a view, mature or not. ‘Audience’ denotes that the children’s voice
must be heard by people who can make a difference. ‘Influence’ stands for the
idea that the views must be taken seriously and given ‘due weight’. Children
should be told what decision was made, how their views were regarded and
the reasons why action has proceeded in a certain way. There are many ways,
both formal and informal, of achieving Lundy’s ideas and the Student Council
(used interchangeably with Student Union hereafter) is a commonly adopted
strategy (Wyness 2003).
The Hong Kong context
Hong Kong is a cosmopolitan city where liberty and rule of law are cherished.
It was a British colony for over a century but was returned to the People’s
Republic of China (PRC) in 1997. The principle of ‘One Country, Two Systems’
allows Hong Kong to maintain its existing way of life with a high degree of
autonomy. Fourteen international conventions on human rights, including
the UNCRC have been extended to it before 1997 and remained unchanged
after the return of sovereignty. In order to prepare youths to face new political
challenges ahead, six official documents on civic education have been issued
(Leung, Yuen & Ngai, 2014). However, notwithstanding these documents,
the implementation of civic education in Hong Kong is, in reality, not much
more than a ‘lip service’. It is moralized and depoliticized, such that the teach-
ing content is kept as politically conservative as possible and, may even be
replaced by moral education (Leung and Yuen 2012). Students’ participation in
school governance is limited and research about it is scanty (Leung and Yuen
2009b).
Generally, schools in Hong Kong tend to be conservative, authoritar-
ian, paternalistic and do not encourage student participation (Tse 2000). In
order to enhance the decentralization of administrative power to schools,
the Government introduced the non-mandatory School Based Management,
giving schools more flexibility and greater control over their finances and
administration, in accordance to their values, beliefs and visions (EMB and
ED 1991). Thus, the introduction of participatory elements to school govern-
ance became possible. However, Leung et al. (2014a) found that as educa-
tional policies rarely encourage student participation, the practice of student
participation is nearly a ‘mission impossible’. Instead, representations from
alumni are included. This may imply that the policy-makers are holding
a construct of a child as immature, irrational, incompetent, dependent and
CTL_11.2_Leung_157-174.indd 160 5/7/16 2:09:34 PM
Is Student Union a tokenism of student participation …
161
needing representation by their adult senior fellows (James 2011; Lodge 2005;
Young-Bruehl 2012). At the school level, Leung et at. (2014a) discovered that
schools were more inclined to inform students and consult them through
formal and controlled channels, rather than real participation and sharing of
powers with students. Student participation was limited to trivial operational
matters, or implementation within a broad policy framework fixed by the
school authority. Lai and Wu (2003) revealed that Student Unions are merely
a platform for leadership training. Nevertheless, Leung and Yuen (2009a) and
Yuen and Leung (2010) found that a committed school can still effectively
enlist students in governance through student voice.
This article is a report on part of a larger research on student participation
in school governance. The research adopts a mixed methodology compris-
ing both quantitative and qualitative methods for triangulation. The quantita-
tive method describes a general picture of student participation, particularly
through Student Unions in school governance, by a questionnaire survey. The
qualitative method of in-depth interviews, on the other hand, enriches our
understanding of Student Unions in school governance through a nuanced
analysis of the case study schools.
Quantitative survey
Invitation letters with survey questionnaires were sent to all 460 secondary
schools in Hong Kong, followed by telephone calls. A total of 51 schools
participated voluntarily. The 51 schools covered different backgrounds to meet
the diversity of samples in terms of banding, sex of students (single sex or
co-education), religion of sponsoring body, and whether they were aided by
the government. In every school, the questionnaires were randomly allocated
to the students. Finally, 3209 valid student samples were collected and the
respondent rate was 89 per cent.
The design of the self-administrated questionnaire was based on interna-
tional researches relating to student participation in school governance and
in political activities, including International Association for the Evaluation
of Educational Achievement (IEA) (Amadeo et al. 2002; Torney-Purta et
al. 2001), National Foundation for Educational Research (NFER) (Keating
et al. 2010) and International Civic and Citizenship Study ICCS (Schulz et al.
2009), with reference to the local context. The questionnaire contained seven
sections of 65 questions (excluding demographical background), to explore
students’ perceptions on the following: (1) good citizenship; (2) school efforts
in nurturing good citizenship; (3) school policy on their participation in school
governance; (4) the scope and forms of participation in school governance;
(5) participation through Student Councils (Table 1); (6) the facilitating and
hindering factors for their participation; and lastly, (7) their demographic back-
ground. This article focuses on Section 5, addressing our research question, ‘Is
the Student Union a tokenism of student participation in school governance
in the context of Hong Kong?’.
A four-point Likert Scale (strongly disagree, disagree, agree and strongly
agree) was adopted to measure teachers’ and students’ perceptions. The scale
does not have a midpoint, forcing respondents to make a definitive choice, so
as to minimize ambivalent results due to a tendency to stick to the midpoint.
Strongly Disagree was valued as ‘1’, and Strongly Agree was valued as ‘4’.
CTL_11.2_Leung_157-174.indd 161 5/7/16 2:09:34 PM
Yan Wing Leung | Timothy Wai Wa Yuen | Eric Chi Keung Cheng …
162
Means were used to present the level of respondents’ agreement to the
specific items. While 1 was the minimum and 4 was the maximum, the pass-
ing mark of the mean was 2.5. A mean closer to 4 indicated that students
had more positive attitudes towards the items; while a mean lower than the
passing mark indicated that students held negative attitudes towards the item.
Standard deviation (SD) was provided for each item to quantify the amount of
variation of the data values.
Qualitative case studies
From the questionnaire, an aggregated score based on the sum of scores of
items measuring the perception of ‘the degree of participation of students in
school governance’ was calculated for each individual school (total score being
128). Four schools were invited to take part in the case studies – two of them
had high scores (87.16 for School LI and 87.46 for School SK); one of them
had a median score (76.48 for School SM); and the last school had a low score
(73.82 for School LK). In this way, the case study schools covered high, middle,
and low-achieving schools.
In the case study, in-depth semi-structured interviews were conducted
with principals and teachers individually, while the semi-structured inter-
views with students were conducted in focus groups. In total, 38 teachers
and four principals were individually interviewed and thirteen student
focus groups, with a total of 53 students, were interviewed. Each interview
lasted 60 to 90 minutes. The interviewed teachers included mainly those
who were responsible for Student Unions, student affairs, discipline and
civic education in their respective schools. They were included because they
would usually be responsible for nurturing student development in these
areas. The interviewed students were a diverse group: some have posts in
student unions, some have other leadership positions, and some do not hold
any such responsibilities, providing views of both office-bearers and other
students. Semi-structured interview guidelines were used for interviews. The
interview guidelines for teachers and principals focused on their perceptions
of such matters including what a good citizen is, school policy for student
participation, students’ participation in school governance (particularly
the role of Student Unions), and the hindering and facilitating factors for
student participation in school governance. The guidelines for student inter-
views were very similar, except that they also contained questions regarding
students’ perceptions of their competence in participation. The interview-
ees were probed for further information, elaboration and clarification in the
process.
Data analysis
For the quantitative data, SPSS version 21 was used to generate descrip-
tive and inferential statistical results. In analysing the qualitative data, the
researchers adopted a method that shared some of the attributes Glaser and
Strauss (1967) described as ‘constant comparative method’. Each interview
transcript was compared with another transcript, one incident with another
incident, one category with another, so as to discover emerging patterns. The
researchers shared the qualitative data collected and made decisions together
on coding, categories, data saturation, etc. This helped to avoid excessive
subjectivity in inference.
CTL_11.2_Leung_157-174.indd 162 5/7/16 2:09:34 PM
Is Student Union a tokenism of student participation …
163
In addressing the key research question ‘Is Student Union a tokenism of
student participation in school governance in the context of Hong Kong?’,
Table 1 below, labelled as ‘Students’ perception on participation of Student
Union in school governance’, shows the general results of all schools and the
case study schools as revealed by the questionnaire survey.
Moreover, two relevant questions from the survey questionnaire, Items 7
and 8, are also listed below:
Item 7: ‘Does your school have a Student Council?’ (95 per cent, yes)
Item 8: ‘Students organized cabinets by themselves through elections by
students on the ‘one student, one vote’ principle’ (91.3 per cent, yes).
All samples School LI School SK School SM School LK
Mean SD Mean SD Mean SD Mean SD Mean SD
1a. School consults Student Council
before making important deci-
sions that affect students
2.51 0.78 2.76 0.67 2.89 0.63 2.45 0.66 2.24 0.72
1b. Student Council actively submits
suggestions to school
2.79 0.78 3.00 0.65 3.17 0.66 2.62 0.63 2.26 0.82
1c. Student Council enjoys high
autonomy
2.48 0.81 2.76 0.76 2.76 0.65 2.42 0.73 2.40 0.87
1d. When Student Council makes
decisions, teachers have the final
say
3.10 0.72 2.87 0.72 3.18 0.83 3.30 0.72 3.15 0.71
1e. Student Council acts as a bridge
of communication between
school and students effectively
2.66 0.80 3.00 0.71 2.94 0.80 2.50 0.71 2.19 0.82
1f. Student Council’s function is
limited to organizing student
activities
2.76 0.76 2.98 0.67 2.40 0.70 3.03 0.70 2.88 0.79
1g. Student Council’s function is
limited to fighting for student
welfare
2.65 0.77 2.87 0.71 2.34 0.68 2.70 0.72 2.78 0.86
1h. Student Council has the right
to participate in deciding school
rules
2.05 0.92 2.40 0.97 2.17 0.86 1.61 0.74 1.67 0.81
1i. School always accepts Students
Council’s suggestions
2.37 0.82 2.63 0.89 2.71 0.62 2.26 0.81 1.99 0.72
1j. Student Council has the right to
participate in decision-making
for school policies that influence
students
2.54 0.81 2.56 0.95 2.71 0.67 2.24 0.75 2.33 0.82
1k. Student Council is just a token-
ism, without any real functions
2.40 0.97 2.68 1.00 1.83 0.92 2.32 0.96 2.83 1.01
Table 1: Students’ perception on participation of Student Union in school governance.
Source: Authors’ questionnaire survey in 2012–2013.
Note: The sample size is 3209 from 51 schools. The sample sizes of School LI, School SK, School SM and School LK
are 65, 35, 66 and 73 correspondingly.
CTL_11.2_Leung_157-174.indd 163 5/7/16 2:09:34 PM
Yan Wing Leung | Timothy Wai Wa Yuen | Eric Chi Keung Cheng …
164
In addressing the question, the mean score of item 1k in Table 1 is 2.4, giving
an impression that students tended to disagree slightly with the notion
‘Student Council is just a tokenism, without any real functions’. In the case
studies, we explored the Student Councils in depth for thorough understand-
ing and that gave a different story. The following discussion will be organized
under the headings: ‘the formation of the Student Union’, ‘the functions of the
Student Union’, and ‘the reasons for upholding ultimate control’, using both
quantitative and qualitative data, for the first two themes and qualitative data
alone for the third theme.
The formation of the Student Union
Items 7 and 8 of the questionnaire referred to above indicate that nearly
all the responding schools (95 per cent) had established Student Unions.
Indeed, 91.3 per cent of respondents revealed that in their schools ‘students
organized cabinets by themselves through election by students on a “one
student, one vote” principle’. Similar to the claims of Cox and Robinson-
Pant (2006), in the case study, teachers indicated that the open election of
Student Union office bearers contributed to citizenship development by
offering a channel for students to learn about election and democracy. In
general, the open process of the formation of Student Unions may have
given an impression that the process is fair, transparent and participatory,
providing a positive effect and countering the impression of tokenism of the
Student Union.
The functions of the Student Union
In discussing the functions of the Student Union, Luddy’s model is used as a
guide.
Space and Voice: As discussed, nearly all the responding schools have an
established Student Union (95 per cent) for communication between school
authorities and students. As revealed by Table 1, the bridging function (item 1e)
of the Student Union was generally satisfactory (all samples, 2.66), but scores
varied across different schools: School LI (3.00), School SK (2.94), School SM
(2.50), School LK (2.19). From the interviews, in addition to student unions,
both School LI and School SK had introduced regular Principal Class Visits
as a form of direct communication with their respective principals. However,
teacher K of School LI revealed that it was not a safe and inclusive mechanism
as suggested by Lundy:
We have been told by our senior colleagues not to encourage students
to raise controversial questions during the principal’s visits. After the
Principal had left, some students were in fact reprimanded for raising
the issue on air conditioners during the Principal’s visit.
(2006)
Since the general student and teacher relationship in all four schools was
relatively good, informal dialogues were common between students and
trusted teachers. In sum, Voice and Space were available both in the forms of
formal and informal channels, for the expression of students’ voice. However,
the effectiveness of such voice varies depends on how genuinely the school
authority was willing to listen.
CTL_11.2_Leung_157-174.indd 164 5/7/16 2:09:34 PM
Is Student Union a tokenism of student participation …
165
Audience: From the interview data, influential teachers (Discipline Masters,
teachers responsible for Student Unions and Prefect Councils) as well as
Principals were willing to listen to the students’ voice. However, some of them
were conservative, particularly those who were responsible for discipline. They
had great reservations about student participation, especially on issues relat-
ing to rule and order, school uniforms, limiting the influence of the Student
Union. These will be detailed later in this article.
Influence: From the mean scores of items 1f and 1g, it was found that
the students’ perception of the scope of participation of the Student Unions
of the 51 schools (2.76, 2.65), was largely limited to trivial matters relat-
ing to student activities and student welfare. This included the three case
study schools, School LI (2.98, 2.87), School SM (3.03, 2.70) and School LK
(2.88, 2.78), with the exception of School SK (2.40, 2.34). This finding was
also reflected from the mean scores of item 1j, indicating that the Student
Unions of all the responding schools (2.54) showed much lower participa-
tion in ‘school policies which influence students’. This included the three
case study schools with the exception of School SK (2.71). The restriction
was particularly serious on matters relating to formulation of school rules
(item 1h), as revealed by the mean scores of all responding schools (2.05),
School LI (2.40), School LK (1.67), School SM (1.61) and even School SK
(2.17). School matters relating to school rules were basically ‘untouchable’.
The findings echo Leung et al.’s (2014a) findings on the scope of partici-
pation, and Wyness’ (2003) findings that staff were committed to limiting
council agendas to the discussion of trivial issues. In trivializing the inter-
ests of students, staffs were often unwittingly strengthening the subordinate
position of the students’ and staff’s right to dictate the content of school
councils.
The interview data also revealed similar pattern, involvement in trivial
things only, for example, organizing student extracurricular activities, and
students’ welfare, such as the installation of a microwave heater. They were
not encouraged to participate in more important school matters. Teacher X of
School LI said:
The Student Union was authorized to be in charge of every step, from
planning to publicity, in organizing the activities in the annual Fun Day.
They were provided with financial support for this. But they did not
participate in other school matters.
The mean scores of item 1b (2.79) indicated that the Student Unions of all
responding schools, including the case study schools, but excepting School LK
(2.26), were relatively active in ‘submitting suggestions to schools’. In addi-
tion, in relation to the notion that ‘schools consult Student Unions before
making important decisions which affect students’, the mean scores of item
1a showed that all responding schools (2.51) were sometimes active, where
the mean scores of School LI and School K were 2.76 and 2.89, respectively.
Nevertheless, regardless to the effort, the successful rates of Student Union
suggestions were not high, as indicated by item 1i: ‘schools always accept
Student Union suggestions’: all responding schools (2.37), School LK (1.99),
School SM (2.26), with exceptions from School SK (2.71) and School LI
(2.63).
When asked whether ‘Student Unions enjoy high autonomy (1c)’, the
mean scores for both School SK and School LI were 2.76, above the passing
CTL_11.2_Leung_157-174.indd 165 5/7/16 2:09:34 PM
Yan Wing Leung | Timothy Wai Wa Yuen | Eric Chi Keung Cheng …
166
mark and higher than that of the mean scores of all responding schools and
the other two case study schools, whose scores were all below the passing
mark. However, when asked whether ‘when Student Unions make deci-
sions, teachers have the final say’ (Item 1d, Table 1), the responses were well
above the passing mark: all responding schools (3.10), School SM (3.30),
School SK (3.18), LKPF (3.15) and School LI (2.87), indicating that influence
was controlled ultimately by the school authorities (Alderson 2000). Echoing
what (Morojele and Muthukrishna 2011) said that there was a whole hierar-
chical and authoritarian school management hurdle, student L of School SK
revealed:
Although we are Office Bearers in the Student Union, we have to go
through many barriers to voice our views on school policies. We have
close to zero influence on the final decision on school policies.
Perhaps the perception that Student Unions had high autonomy for the two
high-scoring schools, School SK and School LI, was in fact a misconception,
as it appeared that the final say lay firmly with the school authorities.
From the above discussion, although schools were willing to provide
avenues for student voice and were willing to listen to students, it can be seen
that the influence on school governance is stringently controlled by the school
authorities. In making decisions, how seriously students’ views are considered
and given due weight (Lundy 2006) is completely controlled by the school
authorities. However, why do schools, even those with higher mean scores of
participation, uphold the ultimate control so firmly?
Reasons for upholding ultimate control
Based on data from the case studies, the following discussion will focus on a
few significant factors.
Limited understanding of children’s rights and limited trust in the students: Our
findings echoed with Lundy’s (2006), that there was a limited awareness of the
UNCRC among professionals working with and for children. Further, Leung
and Lo (2012) revealed that even Liberal Studies teachers in Hong Kong, who
were charged with the responsibility of civic educators, had limited under-
standing of the UNCRC. In the current case studies, when being questioned
about the UNCRC, all interviewees reflected ignorance. For example, Vice
Principal T of School SK said,
I have not heard of it and my colleagues do not know anything about it.
The serious ignorance of the UNCRC among teachers is unsatisfactory as
most of the students are under the age of 18 and therefore under the protec-
tion of the Convention. However, despite negligence of the Convention, the
implementation of the ‘rights to provision’ and the ‘rights to protection’ (as
part of the ‘three Ps’ of the Convention) is generally more satisfactory than
the ‘third P’, or the ‘rights to participation’ (Leung and Lo 2012; Osler 2010).
Nevertheless, the interviews revealed that the emphases on the first two rights
were based on caring and concern, instead of the concept of child’s rights.
Principal P of School SK elaborated:
CTL_11.2_Leung_157-174.indd 166 5/7/16 2:09:34 PM
Is Student Union a tokenism of student participation …
167
1. The ‘3-3-4 scheme’
is a new academic
structure for senior
secondary education
and higher education
in Hong Kong, which
began in 2009. Under
the new scheme,
students receive
three years of junior
secondary education,
three years of senior
secondary education
and four years of
university education,
compared to the old
3-4-3 scheme.
To be honest, the teachers in School SK are very caring. They care for
the students very much and help them whole-heartedly. Sometimes,
however, the care can be excessive to the extent that the autonomy of
students becomes limited.
The findings echoed well with the two competing constructs of childhood. The
excessive emphasis on the first two rights, with the construct that the child is
immature, irrational, incompetent, dependent and needs protection, may lead
to a negligence of the rights to participation, wherein the child is treated as
mature, competent, autonomous, and has independent thinking (James 2011;
Lodge 2005; Young-Bruehl 2012). Based on a deficiency model of childhood
(James 2011), some teachers interviewed did not trust that students were
mature enough to participate in school governance, especially as students in
secondary schools are now younger in age following the implementation of the
new secondary school system, that is, the 3-3-4 scheme.1 Teachers preferred
students to pay more attention to their academic work. This reflected a lack
of understanding of the construct of childhood as social actors with agency.
It also showed that teachers had poor appreciation of students: that they all
have varying degrees of competence, and can be active citizens participating
in school governance according to their competency levels (Lister 2007).
Mind-set and experiences of influential teachers: During the interviews, learn-
ing to be law abiding and obedient to maintain harmony and order, was iden-
tified as prominent themes. This was true especially for those teachers with
disciplinary and administrative duties. Significant school matters, especially
those related to school rules and school uniforms, were considered as ‘untouch-
able’ (Raby 2005; Schimmel 2003). Discipline Master L of School LK said:
Students have to be well behaved and rule abiding. If students wear
uniforms of different colours, this will become very weird and teachers
would not tolerate this.
Vice Principal K of School LI emphasized that:
Chinese education stresses harmony and stability. Hence, it is most
important that students learn to be obedient and rule abiding. Students
have to learn that there are areas of governance in which they cannot
participate. In general, about 80% of school matters are not negotiable
with students.
Similarly, Vice Principal T of School SK elaborated:
At the moment, students can only be involved in matters relating to
food served at lunchtime. No other school matter is open to student
participation. Students may want to be involved in some school matters
but they are forbidden.
This clearly reflected that some of the influential teachers had a strong tendency
towards the conception of Personal Responsible Citizenship (Westheimer and
Kahne 2004), with emphasis on being law abiding and obedient. Their beliefs
contradicted Article 12 of the UNCRC that students should have the right to
influence decisions in all matters affecting them. Moreover, the idea of some
CTL_11.2_Leung_157-174.indd 167 5/7/16 2:09:34 PM
Yan Wing Leung | Timothy Wai Wa Yuen | Eric Chi Keung Cheng …
168
‘untouchable’ school rules might be contradictory to Article 28 (2), which
states that:
State Parties shall take all appropriate measures to ensure that the school
discipline is administered in a manner consistent with the child’s dignity
and in conformity with the present Convention.
In some cases, it is the limited experiences of the influential teachers that have
created such taboos. Principal P of School SK quoted the following example:
A few years ago, some students told me that their form teacher did not
allow them to hold a Christmas party. I spoke with the teacher and she
said holding such a party is dangerous and that she had never partici-
pated in any such party. However, I saw no reason why the students
could not hold a party as I remembered having such an experience
when I was young.
In other cases, the restriction may be due to ideologies, religious or non-reli-
gious For example, ex-Principal C of School LK said:
Most teachers in my school come from traditional church backgrounds
and as such, they value submission, rule and order.
In relation to this, Vice Principal K of School LI had opined that only 20 per cent
of school affairs can be negotiated with students, and that his view stemmed
from his study of Chinese philosophy, I Ching (the Book of Change).
Political socialization of the student leaders: Some students take their school
situation for granted in that they were not conscious of their ‘powerless’ posi-
tion. They had been socialized into accepting the norms of their schools. This
included student leaders from schools that scored highly. It may be that some
students accept school norms reluctantly, while some more willingly, reflect-
ing different degrees of the success of political socialization of the schools.
Office Bearer A of the Student Union of School SK said:
Students in our school are generally obedient, simple and rule abiding.
Even if we disagree with and dislike a school rule, we accept it albeit
unwillingly, without complaining. Submission to school rules has been
developed into the school ethos. I think if one of us would dare take the
lead, and speak up against a rule, we might then be confident to stand
up together. But no one would dare to do this.
Further conversations found that the unwillingness to stand up against school
authorities might not necessarily stem from a fear of teachers, who have been
caring and supportive, but rather from the pressure of conformity. Office
Bearer B of the Student Union of School SK elaborated:
We do not want to stand up alone as this would be too conspicuous. We
do not want to be different. We would need plenty of courage to stand
up against the norm.
This strong pressure of conformity might be the result of an ethos favouring
Christian students in School SK. Vice Principal T said:
CTL_11.2_Leung_157-174.indd 168 5/7/16 2:09:34 PM
Is Student Union a tokenism of student participation …
169
In our school, all our teachers and about 80% of our students are
Christians. We are like a family. It is natural that it will be more difficult
for the 20% of students who are not Christians to express their voice as
they may not feel like a member of the family.
It would appear that the school was not sensitive to the violation of the
UNCRC Item 2 on being inclusive and non-discriminatory (Lundy 2006). For
School LI, the socialization of students appeared to be so effective that even
senior student leaders, aged 17 and 18, accepted school norms without any
reservation. Former Office Bearer A of the Student Union said:
Our school rules are just like a piece of iron – nothing can be changed
… No change is needed.
In this vein, the current President B of the Student Union said:
When I was in junior form, I was unhappy with the school in that we
had little chance of participating in school matters. But when I look back
as a sixth form student and the President of the Student Union, I have
a much better understanding of why, as junior students, we were not
allowed to participate in school matters. After frequent dialogue with
senior teachers, I understand the difficulties we face and believe that the
current school practice is the best way.
The senior student leaders agreed to be protected by adults whom they
believed knew what was best for them and cared for them. They preferred
this over being treated as autonomous beings. It would appear that these
senior students, who are nearly adults, have been patronized by adult childism
(Young-Bruehl 2012). However, teacher H of School LI argued that although
the students were not satisfied, they were tamed by the caring relationship
between teacher and student:
Our teacher-student relationship is very good. Teachers are very caring.
In many cases, although students did not agree with school rules or poli-
cies, they observed them albeit unwillingly because they did not want to
cause any trouble to the teachers.
Being even more critical, teacher K of School LI argued that students were not
only tamed, but that they were controlled by brainwashing and scolding:
The students have been moulded and brainwashed. Younger teach-
ers tended to agree that students dared not talk about school policies
because, for example, when students question about the air conditioners
in the school, they would be seriously reprimanded.
It appeared that students were perceived to be ‘a risk to society’ and had to be
stringently controlled by ‘carrots and sticks’, so as to tame their immature and
rebellious nature, as revealed by childism (James 2011; Young-Bruehl 2012).
Under such a caring ethos, supplemented with scolding, students would not
dare fight back, even though they may not be satisfied with the uneven power
distribution, because they would not want to upset the caring school ethos
(Raby 2005; Schimmel 2003).
CTL_11.2_Leung_157-174.indd 169 5/7/16 2:09:34 PM
Yan Wing Leung | Timothy Wai Wa Yuen | Eric Chi Keung Cheng …
170
2. The Umbrella
Movement is a loose
pro-democracy
political movement
that was meant to
be a protest against
the decision of the
Standing Committee of
the National People’s
Congress (NPCSC) of
31 August about the
method of electing
the Chief Executive
of HKSAR. The yellow
umbrella was a symbol
of defiance and
resistance.
Generally speaking, the above findings echo well with Leung et al. (2014)
that Hong Kong schools are basically conservative, authoritarian and unwill-
ing to share power with students. Specifically, though, at the surface, the
answer to the research question ‘Is the Student Union a Tokenism of Student
Participation in School Governance in the context of Hong Kong?’ is negative,
as indicated by the mean score of 2.4 given to Item 1k. However, this may be
attributed partly to the positive image generated by the process of formation
of Student Unions by the ‘one student, one vote’ policy, an apparently fair,
transparent and democratic procedure.
In our in-depth studies, we found that this may be a misperception. In
most of the schools we studied, space in the form of formal and informal
channels was available for the expression of students’ voice, and audiences
were also available as listeners. However, the ultimate, real power was always
vested in the hands of school authorities, limiting the influence of student
participation. The school shared some powers with their Student Unions,
but that was limited to trivial school matters. In managerial school matters,
students were only occasionally consulted. In significant matters relating to
school rules and uniform, they were required to adhere strictly. Our studies
have further revealed that under a caring but disempowering school ethos,
most of the students had become ‘positive and passive’. They had been social-
ized to accept the status quo, without expressing dissident voices, as they did
not want to disturb the caring ethos of their schools. From the perspective of
the UNCRC, the rights to protection and provision have dominated the school
ethos to the extent that the rights to participation have been marginalized.
In summary, the Student Unions in Hong Kong are, in general, close to
tokenism. They are not allowed to take meaningful actions on significant
school matters, so as to make genuine differences (Lister 2007). Alderson
(2000) warned that a tokenistic Student Union is simply a means of incor-
porating children into a ‘fundamentally non-democratic regime’ and it has as
much or more negative impact than having no union at all, because a token
union can increase students’ scepticism. This may have negative impacts on
students’ citizenship development, cultivating students to be non-questioning,
non-participatory, cynical, passive and docile citizens (Ho et al. 2011; Raby
2005; Schimmel 2003).
However, looking ahead, it is doubtful how this mode of student partici-
pation in school governance can face the challenges resulting from the much
enhanced civic consciousness and sense of self autonomy among students,
emerging from the recent massive Umbrella Movement.2 Their eagerness to
be involved in decision-making in public life may potentially be transferred to
their daily school life and translate into demands for real sharing of power in
school governance. That is, there is a significant shift, in the mind-set of our
youth, in relation to the construct of childhood from one emphasizing that a
child is immature, irrational, incompetent, dependent and needs protection, to
one emphasizing that a child is mature, competent, autonomous, with inde-
pendent thinking, capable of being a social actor with agency. This will create
a bigger gap of understanding between students and teachers. In addition,
we argued that as more and more youth are engaged in the pursuit of post-
materialist values, through unconventional means, including civil disobedi-
ence globally (Cummingham and Lavalette 2004; Saha 2000), the shift in the
paradigm of construct of childhood will becoming more and more common,
CTL_11.2_Leung_157-174.indd 170 5/7/16 2:09:35 PM
Is Student Union a tokenism of student participation …
171
widening the gap of understanding between students and teachers. Much
research and work would have to be done to address these pressing global
challenges.
This work was supported by the Research Grants Council of Hong Kong SAR
under a General Research Fund (HKIED 842812).
Alderson, P. (2000), ‘School students’ views on school councils and daily life at
school’, Children & Society, 14: 2, pp. 121–34.
Amadeo, J. A., Torney-Purta, J., Lehmann, R., Husfeldt, V. and Nikolova, R.
(2002), Civic Knowledge and Engagement: An IEA Study of Upper Secondary
Students in Sixteen Countries. Amsterdam: IEA, Amsterdam: The International
Association for the Evaluation of Educational Achievement.
Bäckman, E. and Trafford, B. (2006), Democratic Governance of Schools,
Strasbourg: Council of Europe.
Cox, S. and Robinson-Pant, A. (2006), ‘Enhancing participation in primary
school and class councils through visual communication’, Cambridge
Journal of Education, 36: 4, pp. 515–32.
Cummingham, S. and Lavalette, M. (2004), ‘“Active citizens” or “irresponsible
truants”? School students strike against the war’, Critical Social Policy, 24: 2,
pp. 255–69.
Dobozy, E. (2007), ‘Effective learning of civic skills: Democratic schools succeed
in nurturing the critical capacities of students’, Educational Studies, 33: 2,
pp. 115–28.
Dürr, K. (2004), Education for Democratic Citizenship 2001–2004. The
School: A Democratic Learning Community. The All-European Study on
Pupils’Participation in School, Strasbourg: Council of Europe.
Education and Manpower Bureau and Education Department (1991), The
School Management Initiative – Setting the Framework for Quality in Hong
Kong Schools, Hong Kong: Hong Kong Government Printer.
Glaser, B. G. and Strauss, A. L. (1967), Discovery of Grounded Theory, Chicago:
Aldine.
Hart, R. A. (1992), Children’s Participation: From Tokenism to Citizenship, Florence:
United Nations Children’s Fund.
Ho, L.-C., Sim, J. B.-Y. and Alviar-Martin, T. (2011), ‘Interrogating differentia-
ted citizenship education: Students’ perceptions of democracy, rights and
governance in two Singapore schools’, Education, Citizenship and Social
Justice, 6: 3, pp. 265–76.
Huddleston, T. (2007), ‘From student vocie to shared responsibility: Effective
practice in democratic school governance in European schools’, Council of
Europe, Strabourg.
James, A. (2011), ‘To be (come) or not to be (come): Understanding children’s
citizenship’, The ANNALS of the American Academy of Political and Social
Science, 633: 1, pp. 167–79.
Keating, A., Kerr, D., Benton, T., Mundy, E. and Lopes, J. (2010), Citizenship
Education in England 2001–2010: Young People’s Practices and Prospects for the
Future: the Eighth and Final Report from the Citizenship Education Longitudinal
Study (CELS), London: Department for Education.
CTL_11.2_Leung_157-174.indd 171 5/7/16 2:09:35 PM
Yan Wing Leung | Timothy Wai Wa Yuen | Eric Chi Keung Cheng …
172
Lai, P. S. and Wu, S. W. (2003), ‘Democratic citizenship and civic education: A
study of the citizenship learning of student council in Hong Kong’, Journal
of Youth Studies, 6: 1, pp. 158–65.
Leung, Y. W. and Lo, Y. L. I. (2012), ‘Are Liberal Studies teachers ready to
prepare human rights respecting students? A portrait of teachers’ attitudes
towards human rights’, Intercultural Education, 23: 4, pp. 341–58.
Leung, Y. W. and Yuen, W. W. T. (2009a), ‘Participatory citizenship and student
empowerment: Case study of a Hong Kong school’, Citizenship Teaching
and Learning, 5: 1, pp. 18–34.
—— (2009b), ‘School civic education since 1980s: A brief review of the litera-
ture in Hong Kong’, Educational Research Journal, 24: 2, pp. 257–92.
—— (2012), ‘The development of civic and moral education in Hong Kong’s
changing context’, in J. J. Cogan and D. L. Grossman (eds), Creating
Socially Responsible Citizens: Cases from the Asia-Pacific Region, Charlotte:
Information Age Publishing-Iap, pp. 35–56.
Leung, Y. W., Yuen, W. W. T. and Ngai, G. S. K. (2014), ‘Personal responsi-
ble, participatory or justice-oriented citizen: The case of Hong Kong’,
Citizenship Teaching and Learning, 9: 3, pp. 279–95.
Leung, Y. W., Yuen, W. W. T., Cheng, C. K. and Chow, K. F. (2014), ‘Is student
participation in school governance a “Mission impossible”?’, Journal of
Social Science Education, 13: 4, pp. 26–40.
Lister, R. (2007), ‘Why citizenship? Where, when and how children?’, Theoretical
Inquiries in Law, 8: 2, pp. 693–718.
Lodge, C. (2005), ‘From hearing voices to engaging in dialogue: Problematizing
student participation in school improvement’, Journal of Educational Change,
6: 2, pp. 125–46.
Lundy, L. (2006), ‘“Voice” is not enough: Conceptualising Article 12 of the
United Nations Convention on the Rights of the Child’, British Educational
Research Journal, 33: 6, pp. 927–42.
McQuillan, P. J. (2005), ‘Possibilities and pitfalls: A comparative analysis of
student empowerment’, American Educational Research Journal, 42: 4,
pp. 639–70.
Morojele, P. and Muthukrishna, N. (2011), ‘Child participation in school gover-
nance: The case of prefects at a primary school in Lesotho’, Perspectives in
Education, 29: 4, pp. 49–57.
Osler, A. (2000), Citizenship and Democracy in Schools: Diversity, Identity,
Equality, Trentham, Stoke-on-Trent: Trentham Books.
—— (2010), Students’ Perspectives on Schooling, Berkshire: Open University
Press.
Osler, A. and Starkey, H. (2005), Changing Citizenship: Democracy And Inclusion
in Education, Maidenhead: Open University Press.
Print, M. and Lange, D. (2012), School, Curriculum and Civic Education for
Building Democratic Citizens, Rotterdam: Sense Publishers.
Print, M., Ørnstrøm, S. and Nielsen, H. S. (2002), ‘Education for democra-
tic processes in schools and classrooms: The case of Denmark’, European
Journal of Education, 37: 2, pp. 193–210.
Raby, R. (2005), ‘Polite, well-dressed and on time: Secondary school conduct
codes and the production of docile citizens’, Canadian Review of Sociology
and Anthropology, 42: 1, pp. 71–91.
—— (2008), ‘Frustrated, resigned, outspoken: Students’ engagement with
school rules and some implications for participatory citizenship’, Human
Rights & Humanitarian Law, 16: 1, pp. 77–98.
CTL_11.2_Leung_157-174.indd 172 5/7/16 2:09:35 PM
Is Student Union a tokenism of student participation …
173
Roche, J. (1999), ‘Children: Rights, participation and citizenship’, Childhood-a
Global Journal of Child Research, 6: 4, pp. 475–93.
Rudduck, J. and Flutter, J. (2000), ‘Pupil participation and pupil perspective:
“Carving a New Order of Experience”’, Cambridge Journal of Education,
30: 1, pp. 75–89.
Saha, L. J. (2000), ‘Education and active citizenship’, Prospects and Issues, 22: 1,
pp. 9–20.
Schimmel, D. M. (2003), ‘Collaborative rule-making and citizenship education:
An antidote to the undemocratic hidden curriculum’, American Secondary
Education, 31: 3, pp. 16–35.
Schulz, W., Ainley, J., Fraillon, J., Kerr, D. and Losito, B. (2009), ICCS 2009
International Report: Civic Knowledge, Attitudes, and Engagement Among
Lower-secondary School Students in 38 Countries, Amsterdam: International
Association for the Evaluation of Educational Achievement.
Taylor, M. and Percy-Smith, B. (2008), ‘Children’s participation: Learning from
and for community development’, International Journal of Children’s Rights,
16: 3, pp. 379–94.
Tholander, M. (2007), ‘Students’ participation and non-participation as a situa-
ted accomplishment’, Childhood-a Global Journal of Child Research, 14: 4,
pp. 449–66.
Torney-Purta, J., Lehmann, R., Oswald, H. and Schulz, W. (2001), Citizenship and
Education in Twenty-Eight Countries: Civic Knowledge and Engagement at Age
Fourteen, Amsterdam: International Assn Evaluation Educ Achievement.
Tsang, W. K. (1986), ‘School governance democratization: Clarification
and interpretation of concepts’, in W. Y. Fung (ed.), School Governance
Democratization, Hong Kong: Hong Kong Christian Council, pp. 13–26.
Tse, T. K. C. (2000), ‘Mission impossible: A reconsideration of democratic
Education in school’, Educational Practice and Theory, 22: 1, pp. 39–55.
Westheimer, J. and Kahne, J. (2004), ‘What kind of citizen? The politics of
educating for democracy’, American Educational Research Journal, 41: 2,
pp. 237–69.
Wyness, M. (2003), ‘Children’s space and interests: Constructing an agenda for
student voice’, Children’s Geographies, 1: 2, pp. 223–39.
Young-Bruehl, E. (2012), Childism: Confronting Prejudice against Children, New
Haven, CT: Yale University Press.
Yuen, T. W. W. and Leung, Y. W. (2010), ‘Engaging students in school gover-
nance: A case study of the challenges and the way forward’, International
Studies in Educational Administration, 38: 3, pp. 57–79.
Leung, Y. W., Yuen, T. W. W., Cheng, E. C. K. and Guo, C. (2016), ‘Is Student
Union a tokenism of student participation in school governance?’, Citizenship
Teaching & Learning, 11: 2, pp. 157–174, doi: 10.1386/ctl.11.2.157_1
Dr Leung Yan Wing is an adjunct associate professor of the Department of
Education Policy and Leadership, the co-director of the Centre for Governance
and Citizenship, Hong Kong Institute of Education. Currently his research
and teaching are mainly on civic education, human rights education, national
education, values education, civic missions of schools, political socializa-
tion, students’ participation, civil society and educational policies. Dr Leung
CTL_11.2_Leung_157-174.indd 173 5/7/16 2:09:35 PM
Yan Wing Leung | Timothy Wai Wa Yuen | Eric Chi Keung Cheng …
174
has published widely in international, regional and local journals, presented
papers in many international and local conferences. He has been involved in
many internally and externally funded projects and consultative work with
schools.
Contact: D2-1/F-33, 10 Lo Ping Road, Tai Po, New Territories, Hong Kong.
E-mail: ywleung@ied.edu.hk
Timothy W. W. Yuen serves as an Assistant Professor in the Department of
Education Policy and Leadership, The Hong Kong Institute of Education. His
research interest is on citizenship/ political education and education policies.
His recent publications can be found in Intercultural Education, International
Journal of Educational Management, Compare, Citizenship Teaching and
Learning, International Studies in Educational Administration, and Citizenship,
Social and Economics Education: An International Journal.
Contact: D3-1/F-13, 10 Lo Ping Road, Tai Po, New Territories, Hong Kong.
E-mail: tyuen@ied.edu.hk
Dr Eric Cheng is a specialist in educational management, knowledge
management and Learning Study. He is currently associate professor of
the Department of Curriculum and Instruction of the Hong Kong Institute
of Education. Eric has been successful in launching more than ten research
and development projects with external and competitive funds in the capac-
ity of Principal Investigator (PI). His publication covers the areas of school
management, Learning Study and knowledge management. He is the author
of an academic book entitled Knowledge Management for School Education
published in 2015 by Springer.
Contact: D2-1/F-06A, 10 Lo Ping Road, Tai Po, New Territories, Hong Kong.
E-mail: eckcheng@ied.edu.hk
Ms Chunlan Guo serves as a research assistant in the Department of Education
Policy and Leadership, The Hong Kong Institute of Education. She is also a
Ph.D. candidate in the Department of Geography and Resource Management,
The Chinese University of Hong Kong. Her research interests include gender,
children’s geography, migration and urbanization in China.
Contact: D2-1/F-44, 10 Lo Ping Road, Tai Po, New Territories, Hong Kong.
E-mail: clguo@ ied.edu.hk
Yan Wing Leung, Timothy Wai Wa Yuen, Eric Chi Keung Cheng and Chunlan
Guo have asserted their right under the Copyright, Designs and Patents
Act, 1988, to be identified as the authors of this work in the format that was
submitted to Intellect Ltd.
CTL_11.2_Leung_157-174.indd 174 5/7/16 2:09:35 PM
