Cultural Heritage in Hong Kong, the Rise of Activism and the Contradictions of Identity

China Perspectives

2007/2 | 2007 Hong Kong. Ten Years Later

Cultural heritage in Hong Kong, the rise of activism and the contradictions of identity

Sebastian Veg

Édition électronique URL : http://journals.openedition.org/chinaperspectives/1663 DOI : 10.4000/chinaperspectives.1663 ISSN : 1996-4617

Éditeur Centre d'étude français sur la Chine contemporaine

Édition imprimée Date de publication : 15 avril 2007 ISSN : 2070-3449

Référence électronique Sebastian Veg, « Cultural heritage in Hong Kong, the rise of activism and the contradictions of identity », China Perspectives [En ligne], 2007/2 | 2007, mis en ligne le 08 avril 2008, consulté le 28 octobre 2019. URL : http://journals.openedition.org/chinaperspectives/1663 ; DOI : 10.4000/ chinaperspectives.1663

v Cultural Heritage i a t c n i

e in Hong Kong h p s c

r The Rise of Activism and the Contradictions of Identity e p

SEBASTIAN VEG

he closing of the Star Ferry Pier on 11 November dwindling due to land reclamation on both sides, which is 2006 and its subsequent dismantling in December, presumably at the heart of public concern. Commuter-style T to make room for a highway (known as “P2”) and crossing of the harbour by ferry for a token fare, arguably a a green belt on reclaimed land between Hong Kong station defining feature of Hong Kong lifestyle shared by many, will and the Hong Kong Convention and Exhibition Centre, dwindle with the inconvenient new location of the Central threw unforeseen shock waves among Hong Kong citizens. Pier (the footbridge leading to it was nowhere near comple - The 49-year old construction (just short of the 50 years the tion when the old Pier was closed), also criticized as “fake government advanced as a criterion for “significant” her - old”, on the grounds of its design modelled on the original itage) was not widely seen as architecturally spectacular, but Edwardian Star Ferry Pier rather than its gritty 1950s suc - its removal, together with that of the historic clock tower, cessor (the Star Ferry began operating in 1888). The pres - drew thousands of people for a last visit, and ended in a dra - ent controversy is in fact only part of the ongoing discussion matic (though small) sit-in, canvas-slashing by activist Ho over the past two years of government plans for redevelop - Loy, a Legislative Council (LegCo) motion requesting that ment of the Central waterfront (the Central Reclamation the dismantling be postponed pending further consultation, Urban Design Study), recently focused on the HK$5.2 bil - and petitions signed by thousands of Hong Kong citizens ((1) . lion construction of a new government complex at the Tamar As the Star Ferry Pier appeared beyond saving, after re - site in Admiralty ((4) . Civic Exchange, for one, has questioned moval of the clock tower and the destruction of the building, the need for such a hugely expanded government building in attention shifted to the adjacent Queen’s Pier, also slated for a prime location, and argued for a “Central Park” in the lo - destruction, perhaps architecturally even more understated, cation instead ((5) . The underlying assumption in this debate and less related to memories of everyday life, as it was is of course, as more generally in Hong Kong politics, that mainly used by visiting dignitaries or the arrival of the gov - the government, as well as certain members of LegCo, tend ernor. Queen’s Pier was closed on 26 April 2007, when pro - to favour business interests, especially real estate and rede - testers again staged a sit-in and petition signing. This event velopment, to which several important “tycoons” are closely received the publicised visit of movie star Chow Yun-Fat. linked, over public opinion and democratic consultation. The government responded by proposing to dismantle and reconstruct the pier at a nearby location ((2) , while the Antiq - uities Advisory Board voted to grant it Grade I historic 1. A good chronology of the events is available on the Wikipedia “Edinburgh Place Ferry Pier” entry http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Edinburgh_Place_Ferry_Pier , accessed on 20 building status, stopping just short of recommending monu - May 2007. The petition presented by SEE (Society+Environment+Economy), calling for ment status, which would ensure protection against its de - further study and consultation, had been signed by over 8,000 people at the end of May struction (the final decision rests with the Home Secretary). 2007. See: http://www.project-see.net/ . 2. See the LegCo motion at http://www.legco.gov.hk/yr06-07/english/panels/plw/papers/ Just as Donald Tsang had argued in January that too much plw0327cb1-1184-4-e.pdf . heritage conservation could harm Hong Kong’s competitive - 3. Ambrose Leung, “Pier failure shows Tsang team ‘like a weak crab’”, South China Morn - ness, Liberal Party chairman James Tien at this point as - ing Post , 11 May 2007. serted, “Foreign visitors would rather go shopping than see 4. A public consultation was held on the four proposed designs for two months; they can be viewed at http://www.tamar.gov.hk/ ; although few technical details (such as the ((3) a queen’s pavilion, which will not be at the waterfront ”. height of buildings) are provided. It appeared during the process that two designs did The rise in cultural heritage demands in fact reveals a new not meet the open-space requirements and would therefore require further approval if preoccupation with local history and geography. Rather than chosen. 5. See “Central Park. City users and public space”, http://www.civic-ex - the ferry terminal itself, it is Victoria Harbour, progressively change.org/publications/2006/centralpark.pdf , accessed on 27 May 2007.

46 N o 2007/2 Queen’s pier covered with protest posters g e s V

n e a i

Although not comparable in scope to other grassroots move - t v s i a b a ments in recent years, the cultural heritage controversy thus t e S

c n i

reveals many of the concerns central to the continued vital - © e h ity of civil society in post-handover Hong Kong. It involves p s c a wide range of NGOs, from the most local to the most in - which obtained Grade II status in 2006 after a protracted r ternational, with 17 such groups jointly presenting the peti - battle with property developers, is to be refurbished and e p tion to save Queen’s Pier ((6) . The LegCo Panel on Home opened to the public ((11) . After the final closure of the Shek Affairs has responded by setting up a subcommittee on Her - Kip Mei public housing estate, typical of the tenement itage Conservation to demonstrate its responsiveness to pub - houses built for ordinary working class Hong Kongers in the lic opinion ((7) . Similarly, the Civic Party, in the wake of the 1950s and which embody the city to many of its inhabitants, Chief Executive Election, was the first to publish a “Position it has been proposed to turn its oldest building, known as Paper on Cultural and Heritage Preservation” on 17 Block 41 (also a Grade I historic building), into a Public April ((8) in which it calls for more transparency, a profound Housing Museum, although none of the departments in - revamping of the Antiquities Advisory Board, the mutual in - volved seems willing to take initiative ((12) . One might indeed tegration of heritage preservation and urban planning, as argue that there is a clearer case in terms of significance for well as enhanced adoption of international standards, and the protection of such structures. consultation on the criteria of cultural significance. It has In fact, the controversy is not only about monuments versus been underlined in this respect that the Pier would most commercial interests, but as many activists themselves recog - probably have been preserved under current British legisla - nise, also stems from a lack of consensus concerning what is tion and, more importantly, under the criteria laid out by really significant to Hong Kong identity. For decades, the ICOMOS (International Council on Monuments and question of heritage was not raised at all, and cultural tradi - Sites) China in 2000 ((9) . One may also note that, while the tions were relegated to the private sphere, or sometimes dis - “Historical Centre of Macao” was inscribed on UN - appeared entirely. It is an interesting fact in itself that a ESCO’s World Heritage List in 2005, notably on the basis preservation movement should develop just ten years after of the criterion that “Macao bears a unique testimony to the the handover, in a context in which Hong Kong is doubtful first and longest-lasting encounter between the West and about its identity and sense of belonging. It is perhaps only China ((10) ”, no Hong Kong site has been inscribed even on after the handover that the colonial buildings, routinely de - China’s Tentative List, the document prepared by each stroyed in the 1970s and 1980s, could come to be seen as a member state to outline the sites it may consider nominating significant part of Hong Kong identity, notably because they in the coming decade. While protection even under UN - are now among the oldest in Hong Kong, such as the Cen - ESCO status remains subject to many hazards, as repeated encroachments on or destruction of heritage sites in the Peo - 6. They include: Designing Hong Kong Harbour District, Heritage Watch, Heritage Hong ple’s Republic have shown, it is nevertheless revealing that Kong, Civic Act-up, See Network, Conservancy Association, Dragon Garden Charitable the Hong Kong government has not up to now advanced the Trust, The 30s Group, Society for the Protection of the Harbour. See Chloe Lai, “Declara - tion Challenges Queen’s Pier demolition”, South China Morning Post , 19 April 2007. Re - cause of its heritage with the central authorities. In this re - ports and more links are available on www.harbourdistrict.com.hk . spect, the heritage issue incidentally also illustrates the ten - 7. http://www.legco.gov.hk/english/index.htm , accessed on 27 May 2007. Its mission is sions between Hong Kong’s complex legal situation with re - defined as: “To review the planning for redevelopment and/or preservation projects re - lating to buildings or sites with unique heritage value, including the Nga Tsin Wai Village gard to international organisations, and the values shared by project, the Dragon Garden project and other similar projects.” its inhabitants. 8. See: http://www.civicparty.hk/cp/pages/reports-e.php?lang=EN , accessed on 27 May 2007. The government has responded to the general outcry by en - 9. The ICOMOS Principles for the Preservation of Heritage Sites in China , published in 2000 and revised in 2004, while not legally binding (although approved by the China State Ad - hancing public consultation, most notably on the Tamar site ministration of Cultural Heritage), recommend in article 18 that “Conservation must be un - project. At the same time, it has genuinely sought to extend dertaken in situ. Only in the face of uncontrollable natural threats or when a major devel - opment project of national importance is undertaken and relocation is the sole means of the scope of what it understands as cultural heritage to in - saving elements of a site may they be moved in their historic condition.” clude structures that reflect the “collective memory”. It plans http://www.getty.edu/conservation/publications/pdf_publications/china_prin_2english.pdf . to call for non-commercial proposals to convert the 75-year 10. See: http://whc.unesco.org/en/list/1110 , accessed on 27 May 2007. old Liu Seng Chung tenement house in Sham Shui Po, and 11. Quinton Chan, “New Hope for Heritage conservation”, South China Morning Post , 11 appears set to turn the old Yau Ma Tei theatre into a Can - March 2007. 12. Chloe Lai, “Historic home a monument to muddle”, South China Morning Post , 10 March tonese opera house. Dragon Garden on Castle Peak Road, 2007.

47 N o 2007/2 of wh i h c an w im i tic l l po n mu ity o a t r

a ” ni do nt t u a y, l ar

a bt su c e s his p

nd sh to bject ect om ti or a t p o h st pl e c co e f and al ex,

a it h t h t h c e ge. w e dis ards n o f t demo ut ro h it def ices pu In ur Cr . v er w te: p a int h t ideas e

s a c o i y e s r ite ur at f of on que

to ina f hi t H lik e el h t for ia r i h c wh i le y Kon ong sti a deb l a s lo “he “ r t t on a i na c except t ma g to a at Kong. i al s is ly of s e,

agit r e” hat s ed rke t in def s M s e im t is mu co he t u o , p io n r h t s, ign canot r h • o nity op e urse vnal alu o it r outcme ent i aw a t b uld if genr io s m based e

ica -ba nt ques n x ay f ent stre or ainmet, t er cl pr desi i o o nce si o se d n assen e es f a a s s s be mply ro

e” ma ti l 1in 95ed cul d wha ly, t s ra o on m it ing p “ or in ef u nd n imp jor ble

dre f r i it ad h t t

cultral ity nt

tur s wo yea d

a ng ma re aut r it i r c nat er expres ban ci of lies polit i os al vat uld o ty vol ed kes yea hen 1, na ha t mo ants inhabt its tis our ” fer ely com

r trS a i l be s are -ol c n onal t t p - up i her enc r o t nd h t o des s e v Hak d u he go per p - l w t

l m i a t it c a t ( t as en rou t re n ure, ra al age he c s c si ed s n i w and ei au st ms or Bau doxi pi wh ons an vn er gh loca it v ultral is dentiy a te Chi h contr ed t on tr d res ere c onse a her o r ha p ca an e and ha compensat ment bet , f ilages us h c fl it erh ts t r vi ident p pl he a cu atst e nes lie , - o her o itectu ng es sty g aned a r pu no a s uns r e wen r e idents ad t p her ot st pec nsual Wle markhai anc a - , a s lar s

favour ura ty t city be t icton pr ron re ma h not “Hong t io s. h t es wh a li nt politca trad of fm or a its in sten g and festyle a n), rket likH e t Nev s ome e h ic r po , ev fused me h ved lu he t e

in ways lt tential t

h t by place hel t er co Kong h w s xu wh en t a nt de u we st

eir re. ong in h suc nte y r h t leave to ate in f Cent at tenmts i en a el

h urban of dis t ut Tr h t depr h f sted le r ole.’s es o es, co for cul lif e a s et i hor u her ga ad a a ts f gh t ( ral s fro an p e rher at tu it

st ar earontier l n it p di Hong Kon f it i ties nte i re” ear on dev al rom r ona d ov a he sap at m U e am u an g ca (o us ad d whe er - r es e” on he t on is, ance, y also h t time, h t pr emis e wit l, ew el d evelopr and r an a jacen a rba ve i ear at r e han t build - sev p-s it l “As s or, k

fe side T emp s a h up tsupor R n UNE can a onat cale lmi ng r era g’s fo ng t a questi he t y sc ie r tio Wed m r ng ha so l w ia’s enw fores he t s p

r in her es itu wha : i r h Dynast i s. na si of s er est eal p u u SCO’ C at s he t on tion n h wit h e - In l-s it l s) es ngs - a a ma whi in ion i D can. y s orld hina earh c ng

of ens g au l s t i cul i t and rea tur way his 186 ci e hina : t di ts in loca inl Ca y Th a t cer 4 h t g s on d ate s s tur al h l n respct, In . dy t a earl, Gar

8 perspectives ho lifof e r or 4) i e

o C nd 1950s,e ng rd en rowi f e, h on ine - To go r in h t pr f emai it er espit ity) ev den on wh a p i a d tr ly N Worl ver y a h c a e, e ha t i ng its h wit iselopmnt al hina: a h oxi colni o d P he h ic s h t if cultr ge

i ni nme t bi e har c act d Pol he T t as at eg mi

7 0 0 2 l o a i ng H d nter an t at ent di le are not is quit i gn o d i trail Di “central” s s l r be ty

ation, t S ice ou nt, w u sti e, k ac aral rea al ts uo imla S mping est agit er necs n cal ’ amo ive tdor wet he t of some ct al di ( e iro i er bu i (15 t f gove of twen hi -s - i es ready n d ve r ) r to n tyl List . h c h ls ild nd sti of g e 2 / as to Ch “ ilar y n “ rest e ofc ings Hi Li ati t in i - i c h t est eal ff erenc since as hi vpr esr Vi i ang t go st nme r nes on hi o

i l) abli t v stor at i a cult n ner c ai K f e ur h t cu ible Ch in t is 20 20 i or dev ate cult ants s y ter o Y a s ur - t no t in s hed ues e 02 07 a in i at a S s pin ur l u ar favo a is Pr ten . ( , conw at t A h (

ltural (t e 1 e p Ma is to g 4 i it er he ) n e eloprs , ti st ( t submi on UNE to on ur cer Gu fol cop he t age” he ake he Tei ed (pa a i c - l ai t ow an Ter New Teneme a sam i “ ti ar i nS SC nly gd i to t r n n def pou he t e ng o y t g ly on e hekK l O trhe ad exp da f i t f pr og nit he f ntb lo lar” ( inor ( res e same 13 ti ipM ei on ) Ha it ng . u t a o vi s cks i io k bac of - - - alnce), ka ns as o i cul n er to f a - - 14. 13. 15. i s t M Ch An Ch n i oc on 19 ar

l l Lai oe oe exh ia of c h 1 t i

Lai on i 20 a bi an

h t , , Cen “O i

i on s d 7. “H t de or

u of er t re t i w ca st

i his ta f r l ith or o g l y tor yed Z e H

and the i er c in one

ita

o arc 1 ld g s ots 976

( e ” hitec ur , S CA g

an outh is ed tur

d on

He) for aly dr Ch e of

win a b in s Mor ina ord the ign S ai Y ing gs er ifcan most w v ni as g ila Pu t

Pos g sp rec b es” uild n. ec en Th tac , t

in tly , S 2 old e g ou u

Marc 6 . held lar th ex G

b Chi en am y h na e th 207. r p al e

l e Mor P C s ons os o nig f

t t er he O v f Po fi