How can theories of policy process be used to understand local heritage conservation policy since 1997?

[Type the document subtitle]

by

LEUNG YU HIN MICHAEL

[Type the abstract of the document here. The abstract is typically a short summary of the contents of the document. Type the abstract of the document here. The abstract is typically a short summary of the contents of the document.]

2

Contents

CHAPTER ONE: INTRODUCTION .............................................................................................................................4

1.1 BACKGROUND................................................................................................................................................................. 4 1.2 STUDY GOAL & RESEARCH QUESTION ................................................................................................................................ 4 1.3 METHODOLOGY .............................................................................................................................................................. 5

1.3.1 Theoretical Frameworks .................................................................................................................................... 5 1.3.2 Literature Review ............................................................................................................................................... 5 1.3.3 Local News, Publication & Internet................................................................................................................... 5 1.3.4 Interview ............................................................................................................................................................. 5 1.3.5 Survey on Local Media Coverage ...................................................................................................................... 5

CHAPTER TWO: DEFINING HERITAGE, CONSERVATION, AND POLICY.....................................................................7

2.1 HERITAGE....................................................................................................................................................................... 7 2.2 CONSERVATION............................................................................................................................................................... 8 2.3 POLICY ........................................................................................................................................................................... 9

CHAPTER THREE: ANALYTICAL FRAMEWORKS .....................................................................................................10

3.1 DAVID EASTON’S “POLITICAL SYSTEM” FRAMEWORK (PSF)................................................................................................10 3.1.1 Premises & Basic Notions ................................................................................................................................10 3.1.2 Variables ...........................................................................................................................................................11

3.1.2.1 Essential Variable..........................................................................................................................................................11 3.1.2.2 Input ..............................................................................................................................................................................11 3.1.2.3 Output ...........................................................................................................................................................................11

3.1.3 Hypotheses .......................................................................................................................................................11 3.2 SABATIER’S “ADVOCACY COALITION FRAMEWORK” (ACF) .................................................................................................12

3.2.1 Premises & Basic Notions ................................................................................................................................12 3.2.2 Variables ...........................................................................................................................................................13

3.2.2.1 Belief system.................................................................................................................................................................13 3.2.2.2 Stable Exogenous Variable...........................................................................................................................................13 3.2.2.3 Fluid Exogenous Variable.............................................................................................................................................13 3.2.2.4 Constrains and Resource..............................................................................................................................................13 3.2.2.5 Hypotheses ...................................................................................................................................................................14

3.3 KINGDON’S MULTIPLE STREAMS APPROACH (MSF)...........................................................................................................14 3.3.1 Premises & Basic Notion..................................................................................................................................14

3.3.1.1 Ambiguity ......................................................................................................................................................................14 3.3.1.2 Temporal Sorting ..........................................................................................................................................................15 3.3.1.3 Visible and Hidden Participants...................................................................................................................................15

3.3.2 Variables ...........................................................................................................................................................15 3.3.2.1 Three Streams...............................................................................................................................................................15 3.3.2.2 Policy Entrepreneurs ....................................................................................................................................................16

3.3.3 Hypotheses – Coupling & Policy Window .......................................................................................................17

CHAPTER FOUR: ORIGINAL CONSERVATION POLICY ............................................................................................18

4.1 LEGISLATION, REGULATIONS & GUIDELINES ......................................................................................................................18

3

4.1.1 Antiquities and Monument Ordinance (A&MO) ............................................................................................18 4.1.2 Graded Historical Buildings .............................................................................................................................18 4.1.3 Environmental Impact Assessment Ordinance (EIAO)...................................................................................19 4.1.4 Planning-related Laws and Regulations .........................................................................................................19 4.1.5 Land Development Corporation Ordinance (LDCO) and Urban Renewal Authority Ordinance (URAO) ....21 4.1.6 Other Laws and Regulations............................................................................................................................22

4.2 INSTITUTIONS................................................................................................................................................................22 4.2.1 Antiquities Authority & Heritage-related Bureau ..........................................................................................23 4.2.2 Antiquities Advisory Board (AAB) & Antiquities and Monuments Office (AMO) .........................................23 4.2.3 Planning-related Institutions...........................................................................................................................24 4.2.4 Urban Renewal Authority (URA) .....................................................................................................................25 4.2.5 Chief Executive (CE) and Executive Council (ExCo).........................................................................................26 4.2.6 Legislative Council (LegCo) and District Council (DC).....................................................................................26 4.2.7 Other Establishment Bodies ............................................................................................................................27

4.3 PRESSURE GROUPS, PROFESSIONAL & ACADEMICS ............................................................................................................28 4.4 FUNDING......................................................................................................................................................................29

4.4.1 Government Funds...........................................................................................................................................29 4.4.2 The Hong Kong Jockey Club Charities Trust (HKJCCT)....................................................................................30 4.4.3 Lord Wilson Heritage Trust..............................................................................................................................30

4.5 SUMMERY ....................................................................................................................................................................30

CHAPTER FIVE: CHALLENGES & DEMANDS...........................................................................................................33

5.1 THE EXECUTIVE AND LEGISLATURE ...................................................................................................................................33 5.2 PUBLIC OPINION ...........................................................................................................................................................36 5.3 PRESSURE GROUPS, PROFESSIONAL & ACADEMICS ............................................................................................................41 5.4 WAYS OF ADVOCACY .....................................................................................................................................................46 5.5 MAJOR CRISES ..............................................................................................................................................................47

5.4.1 Kom Tong Hall & Morrison Building...............................................................................................................48 5.4.2 Central Police Station Compound (CPSC)........................................................................................................50 5.4.3 Queen’s Pier......................................................................................................................................................52

5.5 WRAP UP.....................................................................................................................................................................54

CHAPTER SIX: POLICY CHANGE.............................................................................................................................55

6.1 FROM REVIEW TO INITIATIVES .........................................................................................................................................55 6.2 ORGANIZATIONAL RESTRUCTURE .....................................................................................................................................57 6.3 NEW CONSERVATION MEANS .........................................................................................................................................58 6.4 RESOURCE ALLOCATION .................................................................................................................................................61 6.5 INACTION POLICIES ........................................................................................................................................................62

CHAPTER SEVEN: CONCLUSION............................................................................................................................64

4

Chapter One: Introduction

1.1 Background Heritage Conservation in Hong Kong has become a heat topic in the last decade. The Government of Hong Kong Special Administrative Region (“the Government”) and private developers have faced massive oppositions in their development projects in the city. Because of economic development, constructions of infrastructures and urban redevelopments, for decades built heritages are threatened by demolitions and constructions. However, in the last decade, these projects were hindered by emerging conservation movements in which stakeholders including local residents, localists and politicians started participating in anti- demolition demonstrations, heritages conservation advocacy and public education. Emerging pressure groups for conservations grew in civil society. And Hong Konger showed increasing awareness and consensus on heritage conservation. This essay is written to examine relevant policy processes, in order to understand the emerging changes on the conservation policy. On other words, this essay will discuss how local heritage conservation policies changed since handover.

1.2 Study Goal & Research Question This study aims to understand changes on local heritage conservation policy. It is worth studying, first, because this arena is a relatively new scope of study which deserves to be investigated. Fact, information, news, and survey and interview founding about heritage conservation will be examined based on suitable policy frameworks. Second, the issue, as an emerging policy agenda, was crucially related to future development and renewal of the city, and to some extent to local public administration. The trend of rising pressure groups and conservation campaigns will probably continue to fight for a more comprehensive and effective conservation policy in the foreseeable future, so this study is hoped to help public administrators better understand and consider heritage issues for their policy making. With these two aims, it is the suitable to carry out this study. On the other hand, it is a pure research instead of a policy-oriented research. It is planned to help understanding local heritage conservation policy, but no practical or detailed policy advices would be provided to public administrators. And based on this preliminary study, further researches for applied policy recommendations can be conducted. The core research question of the study is to find out reasons of the changes on local heritage conservation policy since 1997. Theories on policy processes will be applied as frameworks to analyze those changes. While no single framework is expected to analyze the whole conservation policy or to explain all related policy changes, instead, respective strengths of the frameworks would be chosen for analysis to different parts of the issue. As this paper is intended to study the

5

policy changes emerged after the handover, the research focused on the time period of the HKSAR Administration instead of during the British colonial Government.

1.3 Methodology

1.3.1 Theoretical Frameworks Conceptual frameworks with variable and hypotheses will be adopted in the research for examining the components and changes of the conservation policy. Policy process theories, including David Easton’s Political System Theory, Paul A. Sabatier’s Advocacy Coalition Theory and Kingdon’s Multiple Stream Theory, are selected as frameworks in this research. Compared with other instruments i.e. theories and models in researches, a framework provides only a system in meta-theoretical level. It helps to identify elements and relationship in the system without setting well-defined variables, establishing concrete relationships, nor predicting outcomes. (Elinor Ostrom, 1999, p39-41) In this study, the theories mentioned remains in the level of conceptual frameworks, but not precise theories nor models.

1.3.2 Literature Review First, scholarly papers and books on policy process theories are reviewed. Second, academic essays, governmental, council and legal documents on local or foreign heritage conservation were also read for understanding the issue, especially in local context. For specific cases, reports of AAB or to certain heritage issues were accessed through library or internet.

1.3.3 Local News, Publication & Internet This research to a considerable extent relied on local press and publications, because first, it is the most extensive and accessible source of information, and second, it provide irreplaceable information in some area such as public opinion in certain period. Internet is also used, as an increasing number of documents and article can be accessed via websites but not elsewhere. For example, inmediahk.net, a media website allowing and promoting free publishing, is an important means of publicity for localists who little use traditional media.

1.3.4 Interview An interview to Roy Ng Hei Man, Senior Campaign Officer of the Conservancy Association, a famous local pressure group for heritage conservation since 1970s, was conducted in March 2011. It helps to directly understand viewpoints from pressure group itself to certain issues, including the cooperation among pressure groups, how they view the changes in this decade.

1.3.5 Survey on Local Media Coverage A quantitative search on local mass media and the governmental press was conducted on WIseNews, which includes a database of local press, providing articles from local newspapers, magazines and other Medias, as well as announcement and press release from the Information

6

Service Department. In this survey, unsurprisingly only local newspapers and presses are included. Full list of local presses covered by the survey is attached in Appendix X. Eight combinations of keywords both in Chinese and English are selected to be input into the database. The keywords are chosen, because they are commonly used terms and jargon. While choosing “monument” instead of “heritage” is because of the ambiguity of the latter term referring to both natural and cultural heritage, which is not a problem in Chinese term “gu ji.” Combinations chosen cover most fields in the subject. More combinations can provide a more balanced and comprehensive result, preventing skewness caused by certain incidents in certain period through the decade. The translatable combinations are listed as below:

In English In Chinese

"monument" "古蹟"

"monument" + "conservation" "古蹟" + "保育"

"monument" + "preservation" "古蹟" + "保存"

"monument" + "protection" "古蹟" + "保護"

"monument" + "revitalization or reuse" "古蹟" + "活化 / 再利用"

“declared monument(s)” “法定古蹟”

"historical building(s)" "歷史建築"

"graded historical building(s)" "*級歷史建築"

The complete result of the survey is attached in Appendix X. The survey was done on an annual basis, from 1998 to 2010. It was found that since early 2000s, there has been a stable trend of increase on local coverage about heritages and conservation, with some peaks in several years. Although there was no measures to exclude irrelevant news articles, such as travelling features and translated reporting on foreign heritages, these articles were found limited in the results, generally less than 10%. It is understandable that these unrelated articles should not rise to a substantial number during the period, nor considerably contributes to the soar.

7

Chapter Two: Defining Heritage, Conservation, and Policy

Several concepts including “heritage,” “conservation,” and "policy" will be clarified before going into the body of this research. Only with preliminary definition to these key points, policy process frameworks can be applied on them for analysis, and discussions can go on.

2.1 Heritage In general, “heritage” broadly refers anything, cultural and natural, and tangible and intangible, inherited from the past, which means “legacy.” But Howard argues that things need to be recognized as heritage, so identification is essential.1 Luckily, this study focus on built historical heritages in Hong Kong only, and a narrower definition is adopted. This cluster of heritages, mainly historical buildings, is under the same legal, institutional, funding and administrative framework. It is more possible to understand this issue, rather than the more extensive policy issue including natural and intangible heritage. Lichfield refers built heritages as "hardware aspect of heritage," which are physically existing, visible, and easily identified. He suggests three kinds of built heritages: Monuments, Buildings and Sites.2 In Hong Kong, buildings are the most common form of built heritage and more frequently exposed to the threats mentioned, like works and redevelopment projects. J. Jokilehto adopt the idea in Venice Charter, a international charter for conservation and restoration, a heritage is “imbued with a message from the past,” and “the historic monument of generations of people remain to the present day as living witnesses of their age-old tradition.” He argues value of a heritage depends on its authenticity which is the basic principle and guideline in the Venice Charter.3 The Australian International Council on Monuments and Sites (ICOMOS) Charter for Places of Cultural Significance 1999, or the Burra Charter, is based on the Venice Charter. It states “heritage” is an entity with “aesthetic, historic, scientific, social or spiritual value for past, present or future generations.” And value of heritage "is embodied in the place itself, its fabric, setting, use, associations ..." It supports that a built heritage means beyond the building itself, but includes its surrounding environment, function, and other related objects. (Art 1.2) Jokilehto also argues to concern entire historic areas instead of single buildings. 4 Nonetheless, the Charter accepts that heritage "have a range of values for different individuals or

1 Howard, Heritage management, interpretation, identity, 2003, p.6 2 Lichfield, Economics in Urban Conservation, Cambridge: Cambridge Universtiy Press, Press in association with Jerusalem Institution for Israel Studies, Jerusalem, 1998 3 Jokilehto, History of Architectural Conservation, 1986, p.6-9 4 Jokilehto, History of Architectural Conservation, 1986, p.8,9

8

groups." (Art 1.2)5 On the other words, the Burra Charter supports subjective criteria, such as collective memories, for assessments. There is no precise definition of heritage in local legislation. Antiquities and Monument Ordinance (A&MO) lacks detailed definition of heritages, not to mention for built historical heritage. The three concepts stated in The Burra Charter are not included in assessing or grading procedures by Antiquities and Monument Office (AMO). However they become influential among the public. In the media coverage survey, it is proven that the term “conservation” is replacing “preservation” and “protection.” Regarding the trend, this study adopts this boarder definition of heritage in The Burra Charter. A building with aesthetic, historic, scientific, social or spiritual values, encompassing its surrounding environment, function, and other related objects, is heritage. And subjective assessing criteria from particular groups and the public, including the concept of collective memory, will also be included.

2.2 Conservation In "Principles for the Conservation of Heritage Sites in China," conservation refers to preserving "the physical remains of sites and their historic settings," and "the authenticity of all the elements of the entire heritage site," in order to "retain for the future its historic information and all its values." (Act. 2) The Burra Charter embraces an even wider meaning of conservation to include all processes to take care of a place for retaining its historical value and cultural significance. Both documents show “conservation” goes beyond to preserve physical fabric and appears of buildings, instead, to retain historical and cultural values by all means. It further urges conservator to keep environmental setting, use, associations and other related objects unchanged as far as possible, (Art 1.2) and to respect existing fabric, use, associations and meanings. (Art. 3.1) Larkham also argues that conservation deals more than mere aesthetics, not only to conserve materials of a heritage, but also to maintain values embodied by it. And to some extent, the latter aim is rather important than the former one. 6 This research also adopts this definition of conservation which tries to keep all related elements unaltered. A cautious approach to change as little as possible is needed. Nonetheless, it is necessary to delineate the concepts “conservation” and “preservation.” These two concepts are closed and confusing in heritage policy. According to the Burra Charter, conservation means “all the processes of looking after a place so as to retain its cultural significance,” while preservation means “maintaining the fabric of a place in its existing state and retarding deterioration” (Art 1.4&1.6) Cohen argues, on an urban scale, conservation handles the urban environment as a whole, but not only architecture.7 Unsurprisingly, this research is 5 The Australian International Council on Monuments and Sites (ICOMOS) Charter for Places of Cultural Significance 1999, or the Burra Charter 6 Larkham, Conservation and the City, London: Routledge, 1996, p.85 7 Cohen, Urban Conservation, Cambridge, Mass: MIT Press, 1999, p.13

9

done in this boarder sense of “conservation” concerning policy on built heritage, because as mentioned it became more accepted from the public. In local press survey, three terms, “conservation,” “preservation” and also “protection,” increased from 1998 to 2010, but in a contrasting level. The rise of conservation mentioned in local media was much higher than the other two.

2.3 Policy W I Jenkins defines policy as:

A set of interrelated decisions taken by a political actor or group of actors concerning the selection of goals and the means of achieving them within a specified situation where these decisions should, in principle, be within the power of these actors to achieve.8

Policy, in this paper, refers to the public policy of heritage conservation in Hong Kong. Local heritage issue is basically a regulatory policy, with no connection to distributive or re-distributive issues. A policy is the authority’s decision of actions to conserve or of inaction, and related means adopted via legal and regulatory framework, participating institutions and related financial arrangements. Therefore, in this paper, the Government’s enactment of laws, reorganization of department, introduction of programmes and allocation of resource for conservation are areas of discussion of the paper.

8

10

Chapter Three: Analytical frameworks

Three analytical frameworks are applied in this study. They are chosen with reference to “important features of science” by Lave and March (1975) and King, Keohane, and Verba (1994). Although not all of them fulfills criteria for scientific theories including clearly defined variable and hypotheses, and falsifiable hypotheses, as mentioned, they are suppose to act as frameworks, less requiring clear definitions especially on directions and magnitudes. As frameworks, the three theories chosen need to identify elements and relationship in the system, but not to further measure their detailed directions and magnitudes. These frameworks establish casual relationships among variables. Examining causation analyzes the issue more deeply and logically. The stages heuristic is therefore excluded in this research, although it is common in analyzing policy process. And comparatively they are internally consistent which are rather important. Premises, basic notions, variables, and hypotheses of their system of the three chosen analytical frameworks will be introduced as followings.

3.1 David Easton’s “Political System” Framework (PSF) David Easton’s political system theory is a general theory to analyze general political phenomena, emphasizing on abstractly analytical functions, to study and explain common political problems. This system, as a general analytical framework, can be adopted to analyze local heritage conservation policy, though not especially suitable.

3.1.1 Premises & Basic Notions Easton argues that political life is a system of behavior, and takes a behavioural approach to focus on the political interactions in a society. A political system, according to him, allows authoritative allocations of social values, inducing people to accept the results as binding. And this feature of authoritative allocations distinguishes a political system from other social systems. In the system, various political behaviours such as intensity of people’s demands to the authoirity and level of their acceptance to the authoritative allocations are identified as variables. A political system can be analyzed by examining linkage and relationship among variables. PSF is a delimited system with boundaries, cutting off between political interactions and other kinds of behaviours. Easton urges to identify whether behaviour in the real world belongs to the political system, although it may not be obvious. The system is not in a vacant space; instead, it is surrounded and also influenced by natural and social environments. The term “intra-societal environment” refers to social and physical environments within society that the political system belongs to, while extra-societal environments refer to those outside society. These two types of environments compose the “total environment.” Furthermore, PSF is an “open system” influenced by its environment. “Disturbance” refers to influences from the total environment to a

11

political system. Disturbances cause stress to the system, forcing it to respond, although there are also neutral and even positive disturbance. To maintain existing, Easton emphasizes that most political system can respond to stress.

3.1.2 Variables

3.1.2.1 Essential Variable The system needs to respond to stress aroused by disturbance, because it affects the capacity of authoritative allocations and people's acceptance to binding decisions of the system. These two basic components of a political system are known as "essential variable," which determine continuity of the system. Stress can detract them from an acceptable level, leading a system to stop functioning and collapse. To prevent its collapse, however, political systems can response to stress keeping essential variables within a critical range.

3.1.2.2 Input Input and output are variables in the theory of political system. Input is a “summary variable” including all kinds of stress. “Demand” and “support” are the two major inputs. Stresses produced in the total environment enter the political system, as forms of demands or supports. Demands directionally force the system to respond. Most of the demands are transferred with a specific conversion process under transformation rules from desires in the total environment,. While some of them may be aroused inside the system, for example, a legislator or a party discontent with the current election system and demand for changes. Easton names it "withinputs.”

3.1.2.3 Output On the other hand, output is a response of the political system to the environment. As mentioned above, a political system will response to stress, then output will be made influencing the environment and as a result the output will in turn affect back the system itself. Easton chooses to generally theorize common political behaviours, less concerning empirical and case-specified analysis. Therefore, he directly adopts the concept “outputs of the authority,” skipping complex politics of decision making processes inside the system. He argues, in a general theory, identifying and establishing relationships among observable variables, including input and output, are suitable for studying general political behaviours. He regards the internal decision making process as an invisible “black box.”

3.1.3 Hypotheses Except its impact on the total environment, output is important as it also determine inputs to the system in the future. Outputs from the authority will interact with and influence the environment, both intra-societally and extra-societally, provide feedback to the system as input. It is because the changes generate new kinds of inputs, including supports and demands. The authority will seek these feedbacks as information to modify its previous policy. This cycle of "input - output -

12

feedback - re-output" continues, called “feedback loop.” Therefore, a political system is not in a status quo, instead, it is continuously dynamic. In short, according to Easton, a political system is a large and continuous conversion process. Variables including inputs and outputs keep entering and being produced in the system. This conversion process as well as the feedback loop will continue, until the political system stop to function or collapse. This, as a general political theory, will be applied on the issue of local heritage conservation in following chapters. Although Easton lays out a structural model with delimited boundaries, but it is also fluid and its terms are not clearly defined and variables including input and output keeps non-stop changing.

3.2 Sabatier’s “Advocacy Coalition Framework” (ACF) Paul A. Sabatier and Hank C. Jenkins-Smith arised Advocacy Coalition Framework, which has been widely applied in OECD cases since then.

3.2.1 Premises & Basic Notions Sabatier’s ACF bases on five basic premises, first, to emphasize the role of technical information in the process of policy change, second, time perspective that a decade or more is needed for understanding policy change, third, “policy subsystem” as the most useful unit to analyze policy change, forth, adding journalists, researchers and policy analysts and active actors at all level of government to traditional notion of iron triangles, administration, legislature and interest groups, and finally, the belief system.9 Based on ACF, in a policy subsystem, active actors from various public and private organizations who are concerned with certain policy issue, regularly attempt to affect the policy. And advocacy coalitions, in which their members share a set of policy belief and engage in coordinated activity over a period of time, exists in most policy subsystem. They adopt strategies involving the use of guidance instruments, such as changes in rules, budgets, personnel, or information, as means to alter the behavior of authorities to promote and achieve their policy objectives. In case of conflicting strategies, a policy broker, referring a third group of actor between coalitions, may mediate and find reasonable compromise to reduce intense conflict. It will lead to governmental programme, which then affects the environment and may cause coalitions to revise their belief or alter their strategies. Sabatier also argues for the importance of interaction among coalitions, and emphasizes belief system of policy elites under which policy-oriented learning occurs. It is relatively enduring alternations of thought or behavioral intentions that result from experience and/or new information and that are concerned with the attainment or revision of policy objectives. Policy changes are the results of both the competition inside a policy subsystem and the changes outside the subsystem.

9 Sabatier, 1999, p.118-120

13

3.2.2 Variables Variables in ACF are grouped into three categories, policy subsystem, exogenous variables, and constrains and resources of subsystem actors.

3.2.2.1 Belief system In an advocacy coalition, goals are complex, and cognitive biases and constraints affect individuals’ perceiving and processing ability. Therefore actors’ perceptions are strongly filtered by their preexisting normative and perceptual beliefs, while their analyses to information are limited by time and computational constraints. So belief system is a crucial element inside a coalition. The belief systems of a coalition are in a hierarchical tripartite order. “Deep core” is basic normative and ontological beliefs influencing all policy subsystems, which are difficult to change. Secondly, “policy core beliefs” refers to normative commitments and causal perception across an entire policy subsystem. Sabatier regards policy core beliefs are “fundamental glue of coalition” because this level of belief represents basic commitments among specialized policy elites within the domain. Policy core beliefs of a coalition are fairly consistent for a period of time, but it will change over time following the changes in external environment and after obtaining more evidence. Thirdly, the “secondary aspect” comprises a set of subsystem-wide belief regarding seriousness of a problem, relative importance of causal factors in specific case, and policy preferences concerning desirable regulations or budgetary allocations.

3.2.2.2 Stable Exogenous Variable Exogenous variable in a ACF will affect constraints and opportunities of subsystem actors. They can be classified into two categories, one for relatively stable parameters while the other for those more dynamic. The relatively stable set of parameters includes basic attributes of the problem area, basic distribution of natural resources, fundamental socio-cultural values and social structure, and basic constitutional structure. Sabatier regards these variable are “extremely difficult to change” and therefore “seldom the subject of coalition strategies.” (p.120) Sabatier, citing Moe’s example on different strategies between coalitions in separation-of-power systems and their counterpart in Westminster-style systems, suggests that as a law is difficult to overturn once it is enacted, legislation is a typical focus of coalitions in the former system.

3.2.2.3 Fluid Exogenous Variable The set of dynamic factors are more fluid and changeable over a period of time, which according to Sabatier is probably a decade. There can be changes in socio-economic conditions. changes in systemic governing coalition, policy decision and impacts from other subsystem. Sabatier argues these variables are “critical prerequisite to major policy change.”

3.2.2.4 Constrains and Resource Most changes in exogenous variables will affect constrains and resource and then as a result affect subsystems. Resource of coalitions and their actors in a policy subsystem are influenced by constrains and resource in the environment.

14

3.2.2.5 Hypotheses Sabatier sets up nine hypotheses and later categorizes them into three groups, respectively concerning advocacy coalition, policy change and learning across coalitions. Among each category, one suitable hypothesis is selected for applying on this issue:

Hypothesis Concerning Advocacy Coalitions: II. Actors within an advocacy coalition will show substantial consensus on issues pertaining to the policy core, although less so on secondary aspects. Hypothesis Concerning Policy Change: II. The policy core attributes of a governmental action program are unlikely to be changed in the absence of significant perturbations external to the subsystem. Hypothesis Concerning Learning Across Coalitions: IV. Policy oriented learning across belief systems is most likely when there exist a forum that is: (1) Prestigious enough to force professionals from different coalitions to participate and (2) Dominated by professional norms.

(Sabatier, 1999, p.124) Sabatier‘s ACF is also a general theory possibly to be applied on various policies. But comparatively, critical terms in ACF are defined more clearly than those in Easton’s political system framework. It basically contains two casual drivers, the core value, the common belief system, among coalition members and external perturbation. And hypotheses are clearly set, so its falsifiability, and applicability as an analytical framework in this study, can be easier tested.

3.3 Kingdon’s Multiple Streams Approach (MSF) Kingdon developed the multiple streams theory, explaining pre-decision processes including agenda setting and alternative specification. It is considered as a unique comprehensive model of agenda setting (Robinson, 2000)10. Unlike the previous two frameworks, it does not intend to examine the decision making or output of a system.

3.3.1 Premises & Basic Notion

3.3.1.1 Ambiguity Kingdon argues a circumstance can be interpreted by many ways of thinking. These perspectives may be reconcilable, vagueness, confusion and stress are caused. Kingdon cites Cohen, March, and Olsen’s research to explain three general properties, problematic preference, unclear 10 Robinson, 2000

15

technology, and fluid participation in “organized anarchies.” First, people fail to define goals. Nikolaos Zahariadis adds that politicians are forced by time constraints to make decisions without clearly defining their preference.11 Conflict will be raised inside an organization when its members define their goals imprecisely. Cohen names an organization in this condition as “a loose collection of idea” which is unlikely to act on the basis of goal. Second, “technology,” as a process turning inputs into output, is unclear. Organized anarchies’ members do not sufficiently understand processes of their organization. They only realize their own responsibility instead of that of partners or the organization. Their jobs do not fit into the organization’s general picture. So participants tend to operate by trial and error to learn by experience and by pragmatic invention in crises. Third, fluid participant and drifts of staff from one position to the next lead fluid and unclear decisions. Moreover, members in nongovernmental organizations are involved in certain subjects from time to time, and devote their time and effort to decision making in different point of time.12

3.3.1.2 Temporal Sorting Due to ambiguity, definition of problem is vague and probably shifting, hindering to separate relevant and irrelevant information for decision making. As a result, preferences and problems cannot be clearly identified, and alternatives for most benefits are not findable. MSF, therefore, is not based on the assumption of rational behaviors. Instead, it accords to time. Drucker and Mackenzie suggest that as time is a unique and scarce resource, it is the primary concern of decision makers to manage it effectively rather than to manage a task itself. 13 Nikolaos Zahariadis argues, in MSF, individuals are assumed as less capable to choose a issues they hope to solve, but are more concerned about the multitude of problems.

3.3.1.3 Visible and Hidden Participants Kingdon distinguishes visible participants, such as the executive branch, bureaucrats, media and politicians, from hidden participants, such as interest groups, researchers and professionals. He delineates their respective role in policy process that the visible cluster affects the agenda while the invisible cluster affects the alternatives.

3.3.2 Variables

3.3.2.1 Three Streams The problem stream refers to problem recognitions in the MSF, which is crucial in agenda setting. Kingdon explains policymaker pay attention to some problems instead of others, as these conditions are defined as problems. They are “conditions come to be defined as problems, and have a better chance of rising on the agenda, when we come to believe that we should do 11 Nikolaos Zahariadis, Ambiguity, p.75 12 Kingdon,1984, p.89 13 Drucker, 167, p.25; Mackenzie, 1972, p.2

16

something to change them.”14 Attention-catching indicators assessing magnitude of changes, dramatic events or crisis, and feedback from existing programs are possibly to be defined as problem. And problems involve a “perceptual, interpretive element.” (1995, p110)15 People to certain extent subjectively consider a problem with their own values. This element decides which conditions become a problem while others do not. In the policy stream, public policy proposals are formed and developed in the policy community which is a network of bureaucrats, politicians, academics, and researcher in think tanks who are concerned on the same policy area. A wide range of ideas are floating around the “policy primeval soup.” 16 However, only a few of them can receive considerations, after being selected under criteria of technical feasibility and value acceptability. Also, policy proposal conforming policymakers’ value are more likely to be considered. In the political stream, three elements, national mood, pressure group campaign, and turnover in the executive and legislature are powerful agenda-setters. National mood refers to a situation that most citizens of a country tend to think along certain common lines, which changes occasionally. Officials tend to response to it to include agendas people concerned and ignore others. Campaigns of pressure groups provide politicians opportunity to formulate an image of balancing support and opposition, leading to prominence or obscurity of the issue. Turnover of key position in the administration, probably after elections, affects because new presidents and prime ministers raise new priorities, programmes, or problems onto the agenda. Kingdon concludes the combination of national mood and the turnover are crucial to political process on agendas.

3.3.2.2 Policy Entrepreneurs Policy entrepreneurs are individuals in or outside the government willing to invest resources including energy, time and money for anticipated future returns. Anticipated returns include material or purposive benefits, such as proposed policies, participating satisfaction or personal benefit like career promotion.17 They use their time and energy to educate the public keeping concerned issue alive. They “soften up both the policy community, which tend to be inertia-bound and resistant to major change, and the larger public, providing them new ideas and building acceptance for their proposal.”18 Policy entrepreneurs must seize the chance of policy windows to initiate actions, attaching the problem to their proposed solution and seeking politician to accept their idea. The chance to enter the policy agenda will dramatically raise, if the three streams of a problem are coupled by entrepreneurs on time.

14 Kingdon, 1995, p.198 15 1995, p110 16 Kingdon, 2005, p200 17 Kingdon, 1995, p.179 18 Kingdon, 1995, p.128

17

3.3.3 Hypotheses – Coupling & Policy Window None of the three streams are respectively sufficient to push an issue on the decision agenda. In MSF, therefore the crucial argument is coupling, in which the three streams are joined together in time at critical moments. (1995, p.165)19 Kingdon defines these moments, namely “policy windows,” as fleeting opportunities for entrepreneurs to promote attention to their problems or to push their policy solutions. Pressing problems or events in political stream can be chances for policy entrepreneurs to open policy windows. However, policy windows are scarce and usually open for a short time. If any of the three streams is missing, or if policy entrepreneurs fail to couple them in time, window closes and the problem is less like to be addressed. To sum up, MSF is a synthesis theory combining the role of actors, problems and exogenous developments in a single comprehensive model of agenda setting. (Robinson, 2000) 20 Kingdon consider policy decisions as collective output by several factors, and therefore information among the system affects choices. Compared with Easton ignoring the process inside the “black box” in PSF, Kingdon in contrast focuses on transformation from input to output. MSF assumes a considerable amount of residual randomness and views systems as constantly evolving and not necessarily setting into equilibrium.21 It is competent to explain non-incremental policy change. (Mucciaroni, 1992)22

19 1995, p.165 20 Bi de 21 Kingdon, 1994, p.219 22 Mucciaroni, 1992

18

Chapter Four: Original Conservation Policy

Before going to the changes, it is necessary to review the originally existing conservation policy in Hong Kong. This chapter introduces major regulative and institutional frameworks, pressure group activities and funding arrangements for local heritage conservation in the late 1990s. Frameworks will be adopted for analysis.

4.1 Legislation, Regulations & Guidelines

4.1.1 Antiquities and Monument Ordinance (A&MO) A&MO (Cap. 53) provides the legal basis for the Antiquities Authority for executing conservation measures. Antiquities Advocacy Board (AAB), a statutory advisory body for local conservation issue, was set up based on the ordinance. (Sect. 17) After consulting AAB and getting CE’s approval, Antiquities Authority can declare a building, site or structure to be a monument, or a proposed monument. (Sect. 1-4) These statutory statuses protect the monuments and proposed monuments, though for the latter only 12 months, form damage, alternation and demolition. One of the major criticisms to A&MO is its vague definition. Zhao Shao-zan (招紹

瓚), a famous local archaeologist, criticize its power to preserve heritage is insufficient. It does not clearly define a heritage to be legally protected under the Ordinance, and this weakness cause difficulty for preserving local heritage, especially on private lands.23 With the vague definition in A&MO, only those heritages or sites Antiquity Authority regarded as historically or architecturally important would be declared as monument, receiving legal protection. Under this circumstance, many buildings, with known historical or cultural value, were not accepted by the Authority while no measures of participation or appeals are provided to the public and AAB.

4.1.2 Graded Historical Buildings Apart from declaration of monuments, selected old buildings were assessed and graded. After visiting Department of Environment of UK for examining its heritage policy, a similar grading system was introduced to Hong Kong in the 1980s. (AAB’s annual report) The system encompasses three categories:

Grade I : Buildings of Outstanding Merit, every effort should be made to preserve if possible

Grade II : Buildings of Special Merit, efforts should be made to selectively preserve Grade III: Buildings of Some Merits, not yet qualified for consideration as possible

monuments According to Miss Angela Siu, then Curator (Historical Building) of Antiquities and Monument Office (AMO), this three-tier grading system is an administrative measure, providing AMO

23 Committee of CU Student Press, "Interview about Local Archaeology," 2000

19

reference for conservation works. Office classifies the buildings based on their ages, architectural merits, association with local historical events and figures. The list will be distributed to all relevant departments, and AMO will be informed when these buildings are proposed for demolition, helping the Office to act at an early stage to protect the heritage. However, as an internal assessment it provides no legal protection to the graded buildings. 24 No financial assistances were provided to private owners as well. On the other hand, the grading system introduced from then suzerain was a policy transfer. To some extent this lesson-drawing can explain the influence from extra-societal environments in PSF. Successful experience from foreign countries would encourage demands for policy transfer, although there is no evidence of conservator’s related demand found.

4.1.3 Environmental Impact Assessment Ordinance (EIAO) EIAO (Cap. 499) is enacted to avoid and control adverse impacts of designated projects on the environment in 1998, addressing project-specific and site-specific environmental requirements.25 Since then, designated construction and operation projects were required to fulfill environmental impact assessments for applying the environmental permits which is needed for works. Local heritages were under protection of the statutory assessments according to supplementary regulation of EIAO. Under the Ordinance, technical memorandum and guideline with criteria and special requirement for cultural heritage were issued. 26 Under these legislation and regulations regarding construction works, classified heritage potentially threatened are protected through statutory impact assessments. However, only declared monuments, and rarely other built heritages such as graded buildings, are classified as “sites of cultural heritage” in norm practice. Therefore protection from EIAO is mainly limited to declared monuments.

4.1.4 Planning-related Laws and Regulations Town Planning Ordinance (TPO)(Cap. 131) is the legal framework for local town planning, setting up statutory body, Town Planning Board (TPB) and provides legal status for statutory

24 Chui Hau Man, Melody, Tsoi Tan Mei, Anges, Heritage Preservation: Hong Kong & Overseas Experience, Conservancy Association, August 2003, can be accessed via http://www.conservancy.org.hk/heritage/Heritage_Report_eng.pdf 25 Paper for the House Committee meeting on 10 January 1997 Report of the Bill Committee on Enviromental Impact Assesment Bill LegCo Paper No. CB(1) /96-97Ref : CB1/BC/20/95 26“Technical Memorandum on Environmental Impact Assessment Process” is issue under EIAO to provide detailed and technical guidance for assessment. (Sect. 16) Technical criteria and guideline for heritage conservation is in its two annex, “Criteria for Evaluating Visual and Landscape Impact, and Impact on Sites of Cultural Heritage,” “Guidelines for Assessment of Impact on Sites of Cultural Heritage and Other Impacts.” (Annex 10&19) “Guidance Notes of Assessment of Impact on Sites of Cultural Heritage in Environmental Impact Assessment Studies” specifies certain criteria, such as age (pre-1950), qualities of historical, architectural and cultural value for buildings and sites to be protected, and be restricted to undergo an assessment. Relevant procedure and methodology for assessing potential adverse impacts on sites of cultural heritage is written as well.

20

plans. Any building works not in accordance to the plans or without TPB’s permission are prohibited. (Sect. 3&4) Although no designated zoning category for built heritage is outlined in the Ordinance, TPB is supposed to consider declared monuments in drafting or approving revisions of statutory plans. These heritages are shown in explanatory statements of statutory plans, but not in zoning categories. Land owners disagree with the TPB's decision can seek reassessment and appeal in an independent committee, Appeal Board Panel (Town Planning). (Sect. 17) TPO is not drafted to cover heritages conservation, except lacking designated zoning category for heritage; people also criticize for its weakness to conserve an area of heritages. In early 1990s, the administration reviewed the legislation and recognized this problem, which is that “there is no control over the built environment surrounding the monument.” The review suggested to introduce “Special Design Area” (SDA) on a statutory plan to preserve a “area of special architectural or historical interest.” Planning permission should be required for any developments.27 However it has not been introduced till the Millennium. In 2007, a conservation group, Heritage Watch, criticized that SDA was not in Town Planning (Amendment) Ordinance 2004.28 The Hong Kong Planning Standards and Guidelines (HKPSG) is a planning manual published by the Planning Department for planners to determine location, scale and site requirements for land uses and facilities. In 1994, issue of conservation was separated from “development,” and conservation use zone and an extensive definition of heritage conservation started to be included in the Guideline.29 It defines “declared monuments, historic buildings, sites of archaeological interest and other heritage items” as well as “local activities, customs and traditions” as heritages to be conserved. It guides planners to conserve the wider urban and rural setting in order to conserve a heritage in the real sense. Measures including protection, conservation and revitalization to appropriate heritage are suggested. (Sect. 10) 30 HKPSG provides detailed guidelines. However, the sequence of large scale crises for local heritage conservation showed its limitation. Without statutory power and detailed practical measures, its effectiveness was in doubt, although it is pro-conservation and comprehensively defines heritage and conservation principles. Buildings Ordinance (Cap. 123) and its subsidiary legislation controls density of buildings development and restrict the plot ratio of areas in Hong Kong. These restrictions are important to limit the potential of redevelopment in certain old urban area where built heritages were threatened by urban redevelopment. Under the Ordinance, Buildings Department issued their

27 Planning, Environment and Lands Branch, Government Secretriat, Hong Kong, "Comprehensive Review of the Town Planning Ordinance , Executive Summary," July 1991, p.12 28 Heritage Watch, "Built heritage conservation" [CB(2)1666/06-07] (20 April 2007) 29 Successive amendments to the section of conservation are general updates or updates to title of Departments and Bureaus 30 Planning Department, Hong Kong Planning Standards and Guidelines List of Key Amendments in Reverse Chronological Order, http://www.pland.gov.hk/pland_en/tech_doc/hkpsg/full/hkpsg_amend.htm

21

“Conservation of Historic Buildings: Practice Note for Authorized Persons, Registered Structural Engineers and Registered Geo-technical Engineers” for restoration and renovation practice for built heritages.31 But according to Building Ordinance, there is no power to stop demolitions of built heritages. Private owners can apply to Building Department for demolishing their building and the Director for Building cannot reject the application by the reason of conservation. Examples will be shown in cases of Kom Tong Hall and Morrison Building in the next chapter. On the other hand, some of existing Buildings laws hinder conservation to certain built heritages. Buildings (Construction) Regulations (Cap. 123B) requires protective barriers of a building in at least 1.1m (Sect. 8), which is higher than that of some old buildings. Conservation works to "Wo Cheong" pawn shop in Wan Chai and Lui Seng Chun in Sham Shui Po needed to heighten the barriers, affecting the historical values of heritages. While Fire Safety (Buildings) Ordinance (Cap. 572) regulates the fire safety standards of a building, and causes difficulties from keeping outdated architectures and facilities. In URA’s revitalization project, a distinctive wooden staircase was demolished in "Wo Cheong" pawn shop, a pre-war tenement house, according to the modern standard of the Ordinance.32

4.1.5 Land Development Corporation Ordinance (LDCO) and Urban Renewal Authority Ordinance (URAO) LDCO (Cap 15) was enacted in 1987 to set up Land Development Corporation (LDC) and to provide LDC legal base to handle urban redevelopment. LDC can use Lands Resumption Ordinance (Cap. 124) to facilitate resumption of lands. But LDC’s progress of redevelopment is regarded unsatisfied. Except a few successful cases such as Jubilee Street project (currently The Center) and Wing Lok Street Project (currently Grand Millennium Plaza), most redevelopment projects faced obstacles. After URAO (Cap. 563) enacted in 2000, Urban Renewal Authority (URA) was established in the next year, replacing LDC to handle urban renewal issues. URAO laid down the power, responsibility and formation of the management of URA. In addition to the redevelopment affairs of LDC, URA is also responsible for preservation of urban built heritages. URAO lays down that URA are responsible for preserving "buildings, sites and structures of historical, cultural or architectural interest." (Sect. 5) URA was assigned to identify and preserve buildings of historical, cultural or architectural interest, including preservation “as far as practicable of local characteristics”. URAO requires Planning, Environment and Lands Bureau to consult the public for finalizing the Urban Renewal Strategy. (Sect. 20) URA needs to carry out the strategy and follows guidelines on this document to prepare its draft plans. It is supposed to help transparency of URA’s planning and enhance public participation. However its

31 APP-69 "Conservation of Historic Buildings" May 2009, http://www.bd.gov.hk/english/documents/pnap/signed/APP069se.pdf 32 Hong Kong Economic Journal, “New Fire Safety Guidelines Should be Made for Old Buildings” (古老建築宜定

新消防建築指引), P04, 2005-11-15

22

effectiveness to reflect public opinion on affected urban built heritage was limited with the lack of details, although it was revealed later in mid-2000s.

4.1.6 Other Laws and Regulations Other laws such as Country Park Ordinance (Cap. 208), 33 regulations and circulars like “Procedures for EIA of Development Projects and Projects,”34 also play a role in conserving built heritage in Hong Kong. Other examples includes “Statutory Gazetting of Public Works Projects in parallel with the Environmental Impact Assessment Process” 35 They play a role on local heritage conservation, though in a smaller scale, probably limited inside certain areas or projects, or within the governmental institutions. In ACF, These legislation and regulation are a kind of stable exogenous variable outside the policy subsystem. According to Sabatier, constitutional and legal framework for policy process is regarded difficult to change, especially in a power-separated political structure as Hong Kong. A&MO, the major legal framework for heritage conservation has not been amended since its enactment. Legislation of URAO is to replace the inefficient LDCO enacted in the mid-1980s. Legal framework for heritage conservation in TPO and Buildings Ordinance were rarely amended. As Sabatier claims, these legislation and subsidiary regulations are stable factors. For non-statutory regulation, guidelines, and internal circulars of the Government, they are subject to amendments more frequently as they were easier to be revised. They should be regarded less stable. Although other stable parameters, such as basic distribution of natural resources and fundamental social-cultural value are not covered here, according to Sabatier, these factors are less changeable and rarely lead to policy change. In fact, distribution of natural resources is definitely unrelated to the change of heritage policy in the last decade, and there was not such kind of changes in the city. For the policy decision and impacts from other subsystems, the enactment of EIAO was basically to fulfill the demand of natural environmental protection, but it includes the requirement of assessing cultural heritage which helps the coalition for heritage conservation in another policy subsystem.

4.2 Institutions

33 Country Park Ordinance (Cap. 208) empower the Country Park Authority to “preserve and maintain buildings and sites of historical and cultural significance within country parks and special areas but without prejudice to the AMO”. (Sect. 4C) One of the examples is the conservation of Tung Lung Fort, which was declared as a special area under the Ordinance and was lied in a Country Park. Antiquities and Monuments Section, Urban Services Department, Report of the Antiquities Advisory Board, Government Printer, Hong Kong, 1979, p.7 34 “Procedures for EIA of Development Projects and Projects” regulates government project especially for those not restricted as a designated project under EIAO. The circular provides guideline and procedure for assessing non-designated government works on or near historical monument. Planning, Environment and Lands Bureau Technical Circular No. 10/98 35 Works Bureau Technical Circular No. 33/2001

23

The role of institutions of heritage conservation is important, because they are privileged in their position to formulate and implement the policy. Most of followings are the organization respectively empowered by related laws with their own unique roles to implement the conservation policy.

4.2.1 Antiquities Authority & Heritage-related Bureau Until 2007, Secretary for Home Affairs (SHA) from Home Affairs Bureau (HAB), was the Antiquities Authority to be responsible for heritage-related issues. According to A&MO, after consultation with AAB, SHA can declare historical building as a monument or a proposed monument by notice in the Gazette. SHA needs to work with AAB and AMO for advices and execution for heritage conservation. HAB as a policy bureau is the policy formulation institution to oversee local heritage conservation policy. This organization that SHA and HAB were principally responsible for local heritage conservation was always criticized by conservators, as the Antiquity Authority did not manage lands, planning or development which are regarded directly related to conservation. For example, in 2007, Hong Kong Institute of Planners (HKIP) wrote to HAB suggesting to move AMO under Housing, Planning and Lands Bureau for introducing heritage conservation zone and increasing efficiency.36 They argued that without necessary coordination, heritages will be exposed and threatened by commerce and development. They also criticize the Authority for ignoring advises from AAB. For example, to sell the land of Murray House to Bank of China in 1982, which was advised by AAB to declare as monument since mid-1970, and to remove the Tsim Sha Tsui Railway Station for building Hong Kong Cultural Centre in 1984 were example that SHA tend to executive the Administration’s plan rather than to conserve local heritages. The Authority was also criticized as he rarely used the power declare a historical building as a monument or a proposed monument if no consensus was got from its owner.

4.2.2 Antiquities Advisory Board (AAB) & Antiquities and Monuments Office (AMO) AAB is a statutory body to advise the Antiquities Authority for matters relating to antiquities and monuments.”37 Historical Buildings and Structure Committee among the three committees under the Board is responsible for built heritage conservation and grading advices.38 As just mentioned, the Antiquities Authority needs to consult AAB before declaring a building as a statutory declared monument. It is also responsible for grading historical buildings. People criticize for the 36 Wen Wei Po, “Antiquities should be preserved in Town Planning and Renewal” (城規重建應保留古物), 1999-12-14 37 The number of committee members is steady increased from nine in 1977 to about twenty in the late 1990s and “un-officialized.” In 1979, four out of nine members are official memebers including the Chairman and Vice Chairman. And until 1990 that official members were no longer appointed to the AAB, representative of Urban Council and Rural Council were members of the Board) (Antiquities and Monument Office Recreation and Culture Branch, Report of AAB 1988 & 1989, p.28 38 In each committee, about ten members, in which a few are co-opted members, focus on own issue and report to the main Board. Antiquities and Monument Office Municipal Service Branch, Report of AAB 1986 & 1987, p.23

24

unclear criteria for CE to appoint members of AAB. It will be discussed in the next chapter in conservation movement for Queens Pier. AMO is a sub-department in Heritage and Museums Division of Leisure and Culture Service Department (LCSD). The Office is the executive arm of Antiquities Authority and the secretarial of AAB. As an executive arm of Antiquities Authority and AAB, AMO is comprised by heritage professionals to identify, assess, and conserve heritage, as well as to promote and educate the public. However, people always criticize that AMO lacks resource and cannot perform its duty on conserving historical buildings. According to a press release from LCSD, in AMO there were 38 staff in 1999 and 50 in 2002.39 In an AAB meeting in 2005, the problem of shortage of manpower and services affected were raised. 40 And for the budget, it was $17 million and $27 million respectively. With this sharp increase, however, for AMO it was “still woefully inadequate.” 41 In fact, conservation to historical buildings was only carried out by one out of the six sections of the Office. The Office even needs to seek funding outside. For example, AMO applied for Lord Wilson Heritage Trust and complete the “Production of the Proceedings of the International Conference on Heritage and Education” project in 2005. This kind of education is core responsibility of AMO, but resource from the charity trust was sought to perform this duty. Moreover, critics argued that AMO is a low-level organization of the Government. With its limited power, AMO fails to perform its duty of built heritage conservation.42

4.2.3 Planning-related Institutions More than one organization were responsible for town planning as in the late 1990s. In the Government, planning related policy bureau,43 set up direction for overall planning in the region, and ensure drafted plans consistent with the direction of the Government. Department of Planning, as an executive level institution, formulates development strategies and plans and guides the use of land. Both of the Bureau and Department work with TPB for handling local town planning issues. According to TPO, Town Planning Board (TPB) is responsible for drafting statutory zoning plans including Outline Zoning Plans (OZPs) and Development Permission Area (DPA) Plans for designated areas in Hong Kong. Statutory plans determine layouts and land uses of areas. Existing declared monuments are listed in accompanying explanatory statement of OZPs. TPB

39 LCSD, “AMO leads way in heritage preservation,” February 24, 2002, www.lcsd.gov.hk/en/ppr_release_det.php?pd=20020224&ps=02) 40 AAB, MINUTES OF THE OPEN SESSION OF THE 121st MEETING, AAB/4/2005-06 41 LCSD, “AMO leads way in heritage preservation,” February 24, 2002, www.lcsd.gov.hk/en/ppr_release_det.php?pd=20020224&ps=02) 42 Cody, "Heritage as Hologram: Hong Kong after a Change in Sovereignty, 1997-2001," 2002 43 Planning and Lands Bureau until 2002, Housing, Planning and Lands Bureau from 2002 to 2007, and Development Bureau since 2007

25

will consult AAB in case that there is any declared monument in the plans, during drafting or approving statutory plans. TPB protects built heritage from the threat of redevelopment by refusing change uses of the land. Notes in every statutory plans regulates land use . First column of the notes states "uses always permitted" while the second column states "uses that my be permitted." With application to the TPB, land owner can apply for changing land use for redevelopment; TPB should reject it after considering adverse impacts on the heritage on or near the site. Furthermore, to speed up approvals, Director of Planning Department is authorized by TPB to handle application for slight amendments on plans and temporary usage of the land of less than six months. Ng Ka Chiu, an academic in planning, also criticized that the existing TPB lacks representativeness on heritage, and urged the Government to appoint more related professionals into the Board. He further suggested adding the owners and local residents as “ad hoc members” for getting comprehensive opinion. 44

4.2.4 Urban Renewal Authority (URA) URA are set up based on URAO to replace the LDC for renewal projects in a wider range of redevelopment, rehabitation, preservation and revitalization in Hong Kong urban areas. Except the requirement to preserve historical buildings in URAO, in the Urban Review Strategy, URA is also required to adopt a "People Centred" approach to enhance sustainable development, preserve heritage, local culture and community network.” Planning, Development and Conservation Committee was set up under the Board of URA to select conservation projects, submit the project to TPB, and prepare proposal for conservation. Compared with the preceding institution, URA is also empowered with more power for land resumption and has been granted more financial resource. The Government has injected HKD10 billion to URA in 2002 helping it to carry out its projects. URA has not participated in conservation projects in Millennium. With its new duty on urban preservation and revitalization, URA was a new institution on the subject. The preservation of Western Market, an Edwardian-architectural-style building built in 1906, is a case. The Market was originally planned to redeveloped by LDC in the late 1980s. Under the preservation advocates that the Western Market was one of the remaining old buildings in the district, LDC suggest to turn the market into a venue with traditional crafts, artist stall and a restaurant.45 It committed that this preservation project was “feasible and financially feasible.” (Kwan, Institution, Policy Networks and Agenda Setting, 2010)46 The Market was declared as a monument in 1990s only after the ExCo agreed to the plan. This case once again showed the “executive-led” nature of policy. It also shows that the government tended to accept financially self-contained preservation, unwilling to bear financial burdens of preservation. 44 Ng Ka Chiu (吳家超), “Town Planning Ordinance Cannot Save Heritage” (城規條例未能挽救古蹟), The Sun, B06, 財經新聞, 2004-08-18 45 “requiem for Central site,” South China Morning Post, 25 April 1981 46 Kwan, Institution, Policy Networks and Agenda Setting, 2010

26

4.2.5 Chief Executive (CE) and Executive Council (ExCo) Replacing the Governor in colonial rule, the CE according to the Basic Law is the head of the Government. In enforcement of A&MO, TPO and URAO, there are roles for CE to approve or direct various actions, such as declaration of monuments, or exempt projects from certain requirement. Furthermore, he appoints members of all advisory and statutory bodies mentioned. As in the colonial period, ExCo remains to be an organ assisting the CE in important policy making. Basically CE has the final power of decision on enforcement and actions for conservation. In A&MO, the CE, replacing Governor, to meet the Executive Council to judge in case that a private owner objects to a declaration of proposed monument on his land. (Sect. 2C) However, most decision related to heritage conservation reach neither the Governor nor the CE. Antiquities Authority and heritage-related institutions play a major role on conservation policy, instead of the upper level. It to certain extent shows the lack of concern from the Administration. Unlike for statutory plans, CE would meet ExCo to approve them.

4.2.6 Legislative Council (LegCo) and District Council (DC) Enactment and amendment of A&MO, TPO, URAO and ordinance relating to conservation are under LegCo’s purview. LegCo Financial Committee also approves the budget of the government which include the part of capital expense may relate to constructions threatening local heritages. Public Work Subcommittee and Panels on works and planning issues also play a role to approve these construction works. On the other hand, LegCo Panel on Home Affair (before 2007) and Panel on Development (since 2007) discuss issues of heritage conservation. Antiquities Authority and his bureau and department need to answer interrogations from Councilors. DCs are district assemblies in the 18 executive districts. Most local heritage issue entered DCs’ agendas. The administration and developers tend to consult related Councils for major works in order to minimize disputes and protests from local residents, although it is not a statutory requirement. LegCo and DCs basically retained it power in colonial period. For the changes in systemic governing coalition, it is to some extent considerable in the late colonial period because of the local political reforms. Although the Governor remains his executive power constitutionally and actually, his control to the legislature and municipal administration was under challenge. For example, in a LegCo panel meeting on Planning, Lands and Works in 1997, some Councilors blamed the Government for the delay of two redevelopment projects of LDC and forced it to speed up.47 After the handover, however it is obvious that the People’s Central Government keep controlling the electoral method of CE and most of seats in LegCo in the foreseeable future. In this sense, the coalition of pro-Beijing parties, with supports from the business sector, in fact maintain the governance after the handover in the late 1990s. While although political and governing structure remain stable since the handover,

47 PLC Paper No. CB(1)189 , Ref: CB1/PL/PLW/1, 1997, http://www.legco.gov.hk/yr96-97/english/panels/plw/minutes/pl110697.htm

27

for the political stream in MSF, however, nominal elections and changes of office in local pseudo-democratic political system also leads to changes in the stream. For example, in various elections, such as the CE and LegCo elections, political programs of parties includes claims for heritage conservation. CE Donald Tsang also emphasized new heritage conservation initiatives in his election platform in 2007. (Official Websites, Policy address) In PSF, there are three subsystem, political community, regime and authorities. As a single policy issue, heritage conservation in Hong Kong is insufficient and less valuable to be used to discuss all inclusive components, such as political community and the authority of a regime which affect the system as a whole and influence single issue less obviously. For instance, political value refers to values and ideology, and the authority is the model of allocation and execution of power, and roles of actors within the system. These researches do not intended to explore far beyond local conservation issue, so the following discussion focuses on components closely related to heritage policy. Regime, as a subsystem in PSF, is an operative mechanism of the system or, as Easton calls, “rules of game.” Most members in the system accept the regime and regard activities in accordance with it are legitimate. In PSF, political value, political norms and the authority constitute a regime. Legislation, regulations, guidelines and other related customs for local conservation policy should be regarded as political norms. Laws such as A&MO, EIAO and TPO, subsidiary laws, regulations and guideline such as HKPSG and governmental circulars for works constitute the existing political norm. With these components, there are generally accepted procedures or arrangements for local heritage conservation. At least most citizens agree with his norm. The authorities refer to the owner of the authority of the regime, being responsible for daily administrative tasks. In the case of this study, institutions including AAB, AMO, TPB, URA and Planning Department, are parts of the authorities of the political system. The CE, being appointed by the Central People’s Government of PRC, is definitely constitutional and actual authorities in the region. AAB, AMO, TPB, URA and Planning Department are either governmental departments or CE appointed boards and committee. Bureaus and departments in the former cluster were definitely parts of authorities. AAB, TPB and URA in the latter cluster are public organizations which also serve administrative functions. To a large extent, according to Easton, they are regarded as authorities. On the other hand, as these organizations execute their power and perform their duties in accordance with the legislation mentioned above, in addition to the be a part of authority of regime, they are also in-dividable with the political norm of the regime.

4.2.7 Other Establishment Bodies Other government departments such as Architectural Services Department,48and the Government Property Agency also play a role in heritage conservation. As mentioned, the Antiquity Authority, then SHA, does not direct many of these department or coordinate with relevant

48 a group of professionals and technicians in Antiquities Section is assigned to work with AMO on maintenance and restoration projects. It also maintains, restores and repairs historical buildings.

28

boards and committees. In fact, for related advisory and statutory bodies, only AAB, and Board and Council of the Lord Wilson Heritage Trust were under purview of SHA. Various departments under different bureau, taking up heritage conservation duties, to some extent causes difficulties in co-ordination, fragmentation of conservation priorities and duplicated efforts.

4.3 Pressure Groups, Professional & Academics Pressure groups play roles in the policy formulation to certain extent. David B. Truman defines a pressure group as “a shared-attitude group that makes certain upon other groups in society” acting through government institutions.49 Since the late 1970s, some pressure groups such as Conservancy Association (CA) and Hong Kong Heritage Society advocated to preserve cultural heritages which includes built historical heritage. Heritage Society, was active in the 1970s and 80s to keep Murray House on the place where currently occupied by the BOC Tower.50 They also joined to conserve Former Marine Police Headquarters Compound in this period. A 50-sheet-long report, including an academic research on microclimates in the district, jointly from pressure groups was sent to the Government. In the end, no further action was taken by the Administration until Marine Polices moved to their new headquarters in the late 1990s.51 Until the 1990s, local pressure groups advocated their demand for a better conservation policy by moderate ways, such as approaching the Administration and petition. In the above example, a research report was submitted to the Government for consideration. In the demolition of Kowloon Railway Station, Heritage Society made a petition to then Governor with other organizations, such as History Society of Hong Kong, Hong Kong Institute of Architects, Royal Town Planning Institute and Heung Yee Kuk.52 After being rejected, the Society collected 15,000 signatures from citizens and made another petition to London. These strategies of pressure group were moderate and less relied on the media either to promote their arguments or to win public support. Most of these organizations were professional groups of architects and town planners, while other pressure groups were also comprised by professionals in different field. For example, Hung Wing Tat, a professor in Civil and Structural Engineering, and Lai Kwong Tak, a civil engineer, were Directors of CA. In some occasions, institutions such as Heung Yee Kuk, a statutory advisory body representing indigenous inhabitants in New Territories, and Urban Council, a semi-democratically elected municipal assembly, participate in the conservation movement. However, there were limited grassroots, community-based pressure groups. While Heritage Society became inactive in the 1990s, as CA claims in its official website, it “had been a lone voice” in historical heritage conservation for many years.53 49 Truman, 1951, p.37 50 Alano, Rita. (1977) “Heritage Society calls for preservation of barracks”. Hong Kong Standard 20 September 1977, South China Morning Post, 1981 51 Chan, W.K. (2008), "The Making of Hong Kong - 40 years champion for the environment", p. 37-38 52 South China Morning Post, “Strong public support to keep KCR buildings,” 3 August 1977 53 http://www.conservancy.org.hk/heritage/mainE.htm, assessed on 20110228

29

Based on ACF, in the policy subsystem of heritage policy, two advocacy coalitions are formed, one by the conservators including above groups, the other one was from part of bureaucrats and business groups advocate development. They have contesting policy beliefs. The above paragraphs briefed the emergence of the conservation coalition comprised by pure conservation groups, academics and professionals, though the scale and influence of them were still limited. The “development” coalition considered conservation would limited potential of development and were afraid that changes in related policy may restricted economic activity and the room for making profit. According to Sabatier, member of their coalition hold similar policy belief, and as a hypothesis of ACF, they show substantial consensus on issues pertaining to the policy core, although less so on secondary aspects. To a large extent, groups in conservation coalition share the same thought that heritage conservation is more important and beneficial than development. The hypothesis is also valid that most of mentioned group joined in several major conservation movements such as Murray House, Kowloon Railway Station, and former Marine Police Headquarters Compound. To be understood in MSF, pressure groups are policy entrepreneurs outside the government investing resources to promote their agendas and to advocate own policy initiatives.54 While the streams necessary for opening the policy windows were not joined until the 1990s, the existence of policy entrepreneurs with disjointed streams were not sufficient to bring policy changes.

4.4 Funding

4.4.1 Government Funds Except relevant staff cost paid by the recurrent account, funds for restoration and repair of heritages are prepared in the capital account of of the Government. Leisure and Cultural Services Department (Head 95) was responsible for restoring and repairing heritages.55 However, as most of other practices and arrangements on heritages, only declared monuments entitled to be restored or repaired by these funds. No regular assistance is offered to maintain graded historic buildings, except those owned by the Government. One of the examples is the restoration to Tao Fung Shan from a fire hazed in 1999. After a fire burned the regilious building, a Graded II historcial building, the Government claimed did not responsible for the fee of renovation, but just suggested the owner to try to apply for restoring and repairing funds mentioned above.56 Comparatively, Lo Wai, a walled village to be declared as a monument, was funded by

54 Kingdon, 1995, p.179 55 Two subheads, Restoration of Monuments (Subhead 653) and Works (Subhead 600) can be used to restore and repair heritages. The former category is for works under $300,000 and the latter one is for those over $300,000. As it stated in the notes, Subhead 653 Restoration of monuments is a fund of block veto to meet the public demand to restore buildings, sites or structures of historical interest. This fund can be committed for a declared monument under section 3(1) of A&MO or those “deemed to merit declaration as a monument in special circumstances.” 56 “Tao Fung Shan is a Grade II Historical Building,” (道風山屬二級歷史建築), Ming Pao Daily News, A06 | 港聞 1999-01-07

30

the North District Office to repair its walls in 1991. The enclosing walls and entrance tower of the village were declared as a monument in 1997.57 Under the limitation of financial resource, the Government tended to focus on declared monument only. And it showed the funding arrangement is not standardized.

4.4.2 The Hong Kong Jockey Club Charities Trust (HKJCCT) HKJCCT was a major source of funding. From 1990 to 1993, then Royal Hong Kong Jockey Club contributes over $2 millions per year for restoration and repair projects, mainly to Study Halls and Ancestral Hall in the New Territory. In 1990, the $2 millions sponsorship to restore Kun Ting Study Hall in Ping Shan, Yuen Long, was even more than the Government’s funding to all other restoration projects, which was only about $1.3 millions in sum of three projects. (1990 & 1991 Appendix III, 1992 & 1993 Appendix IV) In the late 1990s, AMO employed a consultation company to study about 8000 buildings to get a comprehensive inventory and archive for research and education in a programme named "Surveys on Historical Buildings in Hong Kong” funded $4 million by HKJCCT. 58 AMO planned to start deep investigation on the selected historical building from 2002.59

4.4.3 Lord Wilson Heritage Trust Lord Wilson Heritage Trust formed with the Lord Wilson Heritage Trust Ordinance (Cap 425), aiming to conserve local cultural heritage. The trust replies entirely on donations. The Trust is under the purview of the SHA. From the establishment of the trust in 1992 to 2007, there are only two applications approved for practical preservation of heritage buildings, including two churches.60 Others applications are related to research, scholarship, publication, promotion or setting up archive on heritage, instead of direct preservation of them. Therefore, in a submission from CA for a panel meeting on Home Affairs in LegCo in 2007, CA urge the Government for "making more use of the Lord Wilson’s Trust in heritage preservation projects." 61

4.5 Summery

57 AMO Official Website 58 Ming Pao Daily, “600 Old Buildings may Be Declared as Monument Blocking Development,” 6000 幢舊樓或列

古蹟凍結發展), B05 | 地產要聞, 1999-01-28 59 Administration's paper on "Surveys on Historical Buildings in Hong Kong," [CB(2)2879/02-03(01)] (12 October 1999) 60 First Church of Christ, Scientist, Hong Kong, Repairs to the Roof of the Church Building, completed in 1995, Repairs, Restoration and Decoration of the Church Areas, completed in 1999, and St Andrew's Church, Renovation of the Old Vicarage and Caretaker's House, St Andrew's Church, 09-2001 61 “The Conservancy Association’s Position on Hong Kong’s Built Heritage Conservation Policy” LC Paper No. CB(2)1599/06-07(05)

31

In 1999, then CE Tung Chee-hwa raised in his Policy Address the importance of heritage preservation: “It is important to rehabilitate and preserve unique buildings as this not only accords with our objective of sustainable development but also facilitates the retention of the inherent characteristics of different districts, and helps promote tourism. The concept of preserving heritage should be incorporated into all projects for redeveloping old areas.” Frankly, before 2000s, originally existing conservation policy is to minimize protection to certain heritages, declared monument but not other historical building. No resumption of heritages will be considered, and limited regular funding will be provided. And one of conservation principles was to give way to development, and to prevent financial burden. Weakness of specific laws and institutions are mentioned above. According to a member of AAB, Dr. Ng Cho-nam, the problem of local heritage conservation is the priority. It is needed in Hong Kong to justify the need to protect the heritage from the development, instead of asking justification of development which threatens heritages.62 However, as have mentioned, there is limited consensus among the public to preserve most built heritage. To a large extent, it was a top-down policy. Some professionals or the public were invited into boards such as AAB and TPB. They can however little affect the policy, AAB’s advice to the Antiquities Authority was not necessarily adopted. Murry House was advised for declaration in 1977 since the setup of AAB, and Hong Kong Club was advised as well in 1979. 63 However, comparing to those later assessed, these two strongly recommended built heritage in Central were not declared as statutory monuments for year, and were then demolished when proposals for redevelopment existed there. Other actors outside the government, especially in civil society, played a limited role on the policy. Until 1990s, limited specific pressure groups from the public are formed, in which CA and Heritage Society were famous conservators since the late 1970s. And many advocators for conservation policy were professional groups. Their ways of advocacy are moderate and traditional. For MSF, the three streams in conservation policy were considered to be disjointed in the late 1990s. For the problem stream, unsurprisingly, no matter the colonial or the SAR Government denied the problem of heritage conservation and remained the existing policy. The administration claims that the existing policy is sufficient. And in fact, there were limited movements to protect the heritages in 1990s. The movement collecting signature and submitting petition against the removal of Tsim Sha Tsui Railway Station in the early 1980s is the largest and most organized one. But it was not considered large in scale. About 10,000 signatures were collected, which was only 1/100 of the movement against the construction of Daya Bay nuclear power plant.64 More importantly, no further actions taken when the petition was finally rejected. Until 1990s, it was not regarded as a consensus among the public to preserve local heritage, and this agenda did not enter the Administration’s policy agenda. In the policy stream or a long time, 62 Lam Wing Wah, Agenda Setting of Heritage Conservation Policy in Hong Kong: A Policy Stream Analysis, 2008 63 report of AAB in 1979, Report of AAB, p.5,6 64 Apple Daily, Jun 16 Wed 2010 02:35 大亞灣洩核輻射中電：現場完全隔離，不影響公眾健康

32

policy community encompassed by conservators, academics and professionals suggest a more comprehensive approach with necessary legal and financial support to conserve local heritage. However the Government considered most of these proposals financially unfeasible and unacceptable in value. The colonial government believes that heritage preservation should not hinder economic development, and should not be a financial burden. The removal of Murray House for constructing the BOC Tower in the heart of Central is an example for the former, while the criteria of financially self-sufficiency for LDC to revitalize Western Market illustrate latter. These policy proposals contradict policymakers’ value, so they are not considered. For the political stream, national mood, which should be regarded as a common concern of local citizens to conserve heritage, was limited. There was not important social movements not matter for scales or degrees. although certain petition and social movements such as collection of signatures have existed. And in this period, pressure groups played a limited role and advocacy of heritage conservation was poor in progress. Although handover and turnover of the government may be considered as a favorable factor, then CE Tung has not taken real move except raised the issue in his policy addresses and set up Culture and Heritage Commission (CHC), a advisory body only, in 2000. Nonetheless, situation of Hong Kong is not well applicable to the concept of office turnover. In a liberal democracy, in which the executive and legislature with enough representative and culture of political participation, the major task of policy entrepreneurs is to mollify the policy community as well as to push the public to accept their proposal. The Administration and Councilors need to represent their voters, especially when they to a large extent reach a consensus. In the late colonial Hong Kong, although legislative and municipal institutions started democratizing, power of decision making related to heritage conservation and town planning were in the hand of the executive. So the entrepreneurs in a policy community need to advocate to the undemocratic executive power instead of the public in general.

33

Chapter Five: Challenges & Demands

The circumstance for heritage conservation changed in the last decade. Sympatric public opinion, emerging pressure groups in civil society, changing political atmosphere, creation of new ways of advocacy, and major conservation crises and movement brought policy changes to be explained in the next chapter.

5.1 The Executive and Legislature The establishment was changed in the handover in 1997. The CE appointed by the Central People's Government replaced the Governor sent from London, but there was no change in institutional structure for the heritage conservation policy as the change in source of power. The CE keeps his power of final decision making. ExCo, advisory bodies for antiquities and town planning, departments and agencies retained their duties. The exception was that, in 2001, URA was formed to replace the LDC, and the Principal Officials Accountability System was introduced in 2002 and organizations of planning-related departments were restructured.65 URA plays a larger and more important role on heritage conservation, comparing with its predecessor. In PSF, Easton mention the political system itself will alter its internal organization to be better respond to inputs from the environment. The case of URA to some extend should be regarded as an example which planned to deal with difficulties LDC faced. Then CE Tung Chee Hwa introduced the new Accountability System to tackle the failure to direct the civil service system in his first term. Generally, these institutional changes were not directly relating to and thus less influential on heritage policy . The turnover of office from Chris Patten to Tung in 1997 brought limited changes on conservation. Tung started to raise proposal to “review the existing heritage policy and related legislation for better protection of historic buildings,” until 1999 which was already two years later.66 He promoted tourism heritage in 1998 Policy Address, but in a perspective of economic development but nothing related to conservation. And no operational proposal for both initiatives was laid down, except to set up CHC. In ACF, turnover of the CE should be regarded as a change in systemic governing coalition, which is a dynamic factor affecting the conservation policy subsystem. And it is also a crucial factor in the policy stream of MSF. Kingdon identifies turnover in the Executive as a powerful agenda-setter. According to the Basic Law, the term of the CE is five years and one can serve for not more than two consecutive terms. It is, as Sabatier states, a changeable variable which is probably changed in a decade. And in fact, since the handover, Tung served in the office from 1997 to 2005, and Tsang Yam Kuen succeeds and serves until now. However, as Tung’s inaction on conservation policy in 1997, Tsang’s

65 Combining Planning and Lands Bureau and Housing Bureau as Housing, Planning and Lands Bureau 66 Policy Address, 1999, p133

34

succession made no changes on it as well. To understand this in local context, the reason should be lacking real changes in systemic governing coalition. Under undemocratic elections, the office of CE was elected by an 800-member election committee instead of the public, which made him less responsive to demands about heritage policy. One exception should be the 2007 CE election between the crises of Star Ferry Pier and Queen’s Pier, which was the first contested executive election since the SAR formed. To respond to his rival’s claims on conservation, Tsang also raised placed a new view on heritage conservation in his election platform, and started new conservation policy in his second term.

Please refer to Appendix for the full list of questions and motions raised/moved at LegCo meetings For LegCo, as in the late colonial period, there are members returned by universal suffrage. Unsurprisingly, they are better responsive to the demand from the public. They started to focus on the heritage issues in this decade, largely directed by, in MSF term, the national mood. Above figure is number of questions and motions rose for heritage conservation in LegCo meeting in the last decade, which shows legislators were concerned to the issue in periods of 2002 to 2004 and 2006 to 2007 during certain “heritage crises.” And to compare with next chart for media coverage in the same period, it was found that trends of the two set of data were similar. It proved the closed correlation between politician’s concern and public opinion. In related panels, heritage issues were more frequently raised since the mid-2000s. Subcommittee on Heritage Conservation was set up under LegCo Panel on Home Affair from 2006 to 2008 for preservation projects including the Nga Tsin Wai Village project and the Dragon Garden project.67 On the 67 (http://www.legco.gov.hk/yr07-08/english/panels/ha/ha_hec/general/ha_hec.htm)

35

other hand, there are not important changes in composition of the legislature since the handover. The ratio of pro-establishment seats to pro-democratic seat is stable. The production method of LegCo keeps unchanged since the seats returned from the election committee abolished and seats of geographical constituencies increased to 30 in 2004. Constantly the pro-establishment camp holds over 60% of seats and controls the legislature. Moreover, according to the Basic Law, members of LegCo are restricted to introduce and bills affecting public expenditures and all private bills needs passages from both geographical and functional constituencies. These limited influence of LegCo on policy changes. One of the changes in legislature was that, pro-establishment camp turned to less support the Administration since 2003. Pro-establishment camp, including The Democratic Alliance for the Betterment and Progress of Hong Kong (DAB), supported the legislation of Article 23 which was objected by general public. It aroused a massive demonstration on 1 July, and the legislation in the end was cancelled and DAB met Waterloo in DC Elections in late 2003. The Chairman of DAB, Tsang Yok Sing resigned for the defeat and stated that the party should review its relationship with the Government. The Government needed to make more effort on lobbying for its controversial projects since then. DCs are less important and influential than LegCo, not only because it is a district assembly, but also because it do not obtain legislative nor municipally administrative powers. Only limited financial power is provide to DCs which might help renovation works for local heritages. As a demand to the political system, DCs’ resolutions to certain projects, such as the objection of, had little impact on the administration.68 However, as a local cultural and planning issue, heritage conservation has been district councilors’ concerns. Local residents were always affected by the demolition of heritage and the redevelopment, so DCs and councilors participated in conservation movements more frequently and actively. In the incident of Kom Tong Hall, district councilors of DAB and Democratic Party organized petitions and demonstrations, instead of raising the issue to LegCo level. Democratic Party members only raised the issue in the legislature for criticizing the financial arrangement after the movement. 69 Comparatively, most local heritage issue entered the agendas of DCs. The administration and developers tend to consult “representatives of local residents” for major works in order to minimize disputes or to show due procedures, though it is not a statutory requirement. In December 2009 and May 2010, Wong Tai Sin DC was respectively consulted for keeping a few pre-war heritages on the proposed route of the Shatin to Central Link,70 and for preserving remains of Lung Tsun Stone Bridge, a structure built in 1870s and serviced until Japanese occupation, for Kai Tak Development Project.71 In March 2009, AAB consults the 18 DCs for their opinions on proposed grading on historical buildings. Yung Chi Ming, an Islands DC member, criticized the AMO for unreasonable grading to a temple in Cheung Chau. Vice-Chairman of Central & Western DC, Chan Chit Kwai argued the nontransparent grading cause difficulties for owners to manage their 68 69 Ming Pao Daily News, (議員不滿繞過立會), A01 | 要聞 2004-02-22 70 Minutes of the 18th Meeting of the HKSAR Third Term of Wong Tai Sin District Council, 21.9.2010 71 (WTSDC paper 26/2010 (11.5.2010) http://www.districtcouncils.gov.hk/wts_d/pdf/2010/C_M16_2010_026.pdf).

36

properties and urged for setting up an appeal mechanism.72 During the public consultation for reviewing heritage policy, Democratic Party, DAB and Civic Party met with departments and the Administration in the review. DCs, especially Central & Western and Sham Shui Po DCs, also approach the Government and submitted written opinion. It is understandable that councilors in these two old inner city districts were more concerned on local heritages.73 In PSF, both LegCo and DC members should be considered as gatekeeper to regulate demands. As Easton argues, politicians and political party are definitely gatekeepers in democratic systems. (1964, p95)74 In Hong Kong, although the legislature is semi-democratic and limited in power, they convert wants to demands pressing the authority to act. Both LegCo and DCs are controlled by pro-establishment camp, but as there were elected councilors who needed to be responsible for their voter, pro-heritage resolutions were possible in some cases, like motion not intended to have legislative effect. For example, Wong Tai Sin DC objected to the demolition of Nga Tsin Wai Village in 2003. In early 2007, the motion for establishing a monuments conservation fund, formulating codes for the evaluation of social benefits and enhancing public participation was carried. 75 Although these resolutions were not legislation or statutory requirements, the Administration faced pressure via the Medias and public opinion, and therefore needed to consider LegCo’s and DCs’ response during policy making. For sensitive motions, like the one to preserve Queen’s Pier in mid-2007, 16 pro-establishment legislators from functional constituency joined to object and only two of them abstained. In Queen’s Pier Crises, the Administration kept alternative opinions in consulting DCs making 14 DCs vote for the demolition. Scholars and legislators blamed the Government tamper DCs to "create public opinion," 76 At the same time, with “strictly political roles” of politicians including both legislators and district councilors, their demands for conservation totally fit into the definition of “withinputs” in PSF. (1965, p55) Though political powers outside the “authority” are limited, both kinds of councilors are regarded as part of local political system playing certain roles in “political community” and “regime.” And their demands were formed through political activities like questions and motions rose in Councils or demonstration organized by parties. These withinputs as demands entered and led stress to the system and the authority.

5.2 Public Opinion In PSF, public opinion, as “a set of attitudes on matters of public importance or concern,” stimulate and shape demands for the system. The strength of public opinion and how it reflects a

72 The Sun, (歷史建築評級被轟不合理), A14, 2009-06-09 73 Minutes of special meeting held on Friday, 20 April 2007, LC Paper No. CB(2)2585/06-07 74 (1964, p95) 75 LegCo, Official Record of Proceedings, 17 January 2007, p96-98, 156-158, via http://www.legco.gov.hk/yr06-07/chinese/counmtg/floor/cm0117-confirm-ec.pdf 76 Olga Wong & Joyce Ng, (24 June 2008). "'Rubber stamp' council lashed over pier vote". South China Morning Post (Hong Kong): pp. Pg A3.

37

readiness to act are important to determine the demands. (1965, 42)77 The changing concern was also in the previously mentioned survey of coverage on local media. Chinese and English articles with keywords about heritage conservation sharply increase since 2002, and reach the peak in 2007. For all combinations of keywords, there was a general trend of increase. In years of 2002, 2004 and 2007, frequencies of coverage soar making peaks on the general trend. Several controversies in order over Kom Tong Hall, Central Police Station Compound (CPSC) and Queen’s Pier led to these soars on number of articles. Respective results on different combinations are shown as in following graphs.

77 1965, 42

38

39

It is understandable that the number of articles relates to incidents such as conservation movements and practical announcement of graded historical buildings or declaration of monuments. Basically, news did not necessarily represent concerns of the general public, but to a considerable extent, the soar on frequency of conservation reporting in commercial presses closely related to audiences’ concerns. And these increasing reporting can facilitate the public to understand the issue. On the other hand, in 2007, Hong Kong Youth Association conducted a survey to 500 18-45-aged citizens. Over 90% of respondent expressed they are concerned with the incident of Queen’s Pier.78 In addition to level of concern, the research also found the turning of public attitude toward conservation. In 2001, Youth Research Centre found that local youth lacking sufficient concern to local cultural heritage. Respondents supporting “heritage preservation” and “development” are respectively 46%. In following meeting of focus groups, interviewee stressed the scarcity of lands in Hong Kong over heritage conservation.79 In 2004, Democratic Party conducted a 78 The question was “Whether you paid attention to the news of demolition of Queen’s Pier?” (你有否留意皇后碼

頭遷拆事件的報道或消息？) Answer: Yes: 92%, No: 4%,Don’t Know: 4%. Wen Wei Po, (港青會訪問 500 市民 59%同意政府規劃 絕食保「皇碼」 半數不認同), 2007-08-13 79 The Centre conducted a territory-wide youth poll between 27 and 30 August 2001 for youngsters opinion to the Government’s "Hong Kong 2030:Planning Vision and Strategy" consultation. 531 youths aged between 15 and 27 were randomly selected and interviewed via telephone; the success rate being 56%. 37 respondents with the same age range took part in four interview sessions between 7 and 11 August 2001. Youth Research Centre, “A Study on Young People's Vision on Hong Kong's Planning and Development Strategy,” in Youth Study Series No. 25, Sept 2001, http://yrc.hkfyg.org.hk/eng/ys25.html)

40

telephone survey to about 700 citizens. More than 60% interviewees prefers non-profit making organizations for managing the CPSC, and more than 70% hope to preserve all buildings in CPSC with no any high-rise buildings to be built.80 In 2007, another survery of the Party for King Yin Lane “crisis” shown over 70% of interviewees supported to take over privately owned heritages by transfer of development right or compensations, and 79% support to set up an independent institution with financial resource for conservation.81 A similar result was found by Hong Kong Programme of University of Southern Queensland. 77.5% of 552 respondent agree to upgrade AMO to be a independent department for conservation. The Programme also found over 50% respondents discontented with conservation works to certain heritages, mainly for the lack of consultation and communication with conservation groups. 82 In the same year, Hong Kong New Pulse found a similar result in their survey.83 HAB carried out a review to existing heritage policy in 2004. The Bureau received 150 written submissions with about 500 views. In the official telephone survey, over 90% out of 3000 respondents agree to conserve local heritages. Other results showed that heritage conservation is highly valued by the interviewees, shown in the table below. Except historical and cultural values, most citizens also believed that heritages can enhance economic development via cultural tourism.84 The positive result helps to conclude for a consensus among the public to conserve local heritages. For funding, over 80% of them agree that the public need to share related costs, and 86% interviewee support to set up funds and use donations for this purpose.

Values of Heritage Conservation: Results:

Facilitate sustainable development of traditional culture 94.40%

Enhance cultural tourism, increasing economic incomes 93.90%

Enrich historical depth and visual layers of the city 92%

Construct public area shared by citizens 89.70%

Establish cultural identity and proud 89.70%

Public Survey on Review of Heritage Conservation Policy, 20040523

80 Hong Kong Daily News, (逾七成市民盼保留古蹟), A06 | Hong Kong News, 2004-11-08 81 Hong Kong Economic Journal, (七成市民贊成政府收回私人古蹟), P12, 2007-10-04 82 Ming Pao Daily, (六成市民贊成公帑收購古蹟), News A12 | Hong Kong News 2007-10-29 83 The youth organization interviewed over 800 citizens aged form 15 to 40 for the overall policy. Over 40% respondents discontented with the existing policy, and over 60% interviewees thought gradings of AAB to buildings were not transparent enough. 84 HKSARG, “Summery of Public Survey on Review of Heritage Conservation Policy” (文物建築保護政策檢討意見調查結果摘要), 20040523

41

In MSF, Kingdon stress the “national mood,” as to the turnover of Office, arguing they are major factors affecting the political stream. “National mood,” as a situation the public tend to agree on common lines, in this case a large portion of local citizens agree to the weakness of the original policy and the need to change it. Officials tend to response to this changing mood. If the public reach a consensus, like in this case, the Government will work to put the issue into agenda. It leads to the change on conservation policy. This turning of public attitude to conservation is also considered to help problem recognition in MSF. Among the three frameworks, PSF and ACF are less suitable for explaining the public concern. In PSF, it is realized as a kind of input, without separation from other inputs. In ACF, it is considered as an exogenous factor which Sabatier does not pay special attention to.

5.3 Pressure Groups, Professional & Academics There are a considerable number of pressure groups emerging in the last decade. Compared with before, pressure groups other than professional groups increased sharply since the early 2000s. Pressure groups joined several conservation movements in 2000s are listed in the following table. Groups participating in conservation might not be included because their group nature that heritage conservation was not their main concern, such as environmental groups and redevelopment concern groups.

Pressure Groups participated in heritage conservation advocacy (professionals, academics, political parties, and groups formed for single issues are excluded)

Eng Name Year of Establishment

The Conservancy Association 1968

Designing Hong Kong Harbour District 2004

SEE Network 2004

Community Cultural Concern 2006

The Dragon Garden Charitable Trust 2006

Local Action 2006

Central & Western Concern Group 2007

Professional Commons 2007

Heritage Hong Kong Foundation Limited 2008

Heritage Watch No Data

42

World City Committee No Data

Wan Chai Heritage Task Force No Data

Community Alliance for Urban Planning No Data

(Source: Official Websites) At the same time, according to Roy Ng Hei Man, Senior Campaign Officer of the Conservancy Association, there is increasing number of local concern groups, in which many members are local residents instead of conservators or professionals, for a specific issue are formed. They are closely related to urban renewal projects. H15 Concern Group was set up in the late 2003 in response to URA’s H15 Project to demolish Lee Tung Street. Similar concern groups were subsequently set up for different redevelopment projects in old districts like Sham Shui Po and South To Kwa Wan. Think tanks, such as Civic Exchange and Community Development Initiative, were set up in this decade. Civic Exchange, a public policy think tank extensively concerning economic, social and political policies, issued a research report “Saving Hong Kong's Cultural Heritage” in 2002 urging to act for conserving local heritage. The latter one focused on social and community development. In some cases, academics and even students also join the conservation campaign. In the movement to conserve Wan Chai Marktet, teachers and students in architecture organized educational campaign to introduce the values and features of the Market to local residents.85 ACF suggest the exogenous variable decide constrains and resource of actors in a policy subsystem. S.E.E Network was an example. An unstable exogenous variable, the Sustainability Development Fund originally under the subsystem of environmental policy, started to operate in 2003 for facilitating local sustainability, affecting the resource for actors in the heritage subsystem. The Fund comprehensively comprised the aspect of cultural sustainability, so S.E.E Network, an actor for promoting the concept of cultural sustainability, can apply since the first round of the Fund application.86 The group applied for publishing four issues of SEE Magazine to promote sustainable development. After that, positive feedback from the community motivates the group to form a limited company publishing the magazine and promoting sustainability. Since then, it starts to engage in researches, writings, media service, events and exhibitions relating to historical buildings, sustainable development and conservations.87 Within the heritage conservation subsystem, policy outputs and then impacts also affect the resources for actors inside. In addition to the cycle of “policy output - impact on environment - feedback to (sub)system,” Sabatier, going farther than Easton, suggests a cycle inside a policy 85 灣仔居民盼保留景賢里 2004-07-10 Ta Kung Pao A10 86 Introduction of Approved Projects - Projects Approved in First Round Call of Applications, http://www.susdev.gov.hk/html/en/sdf/approvprj.htm 87 Official website, "About SEE - Service," http://www.project-see.net/en/about/services/

43

subsystem. Easton focuses on inputs and outputs, and regards the decision process as a “black box.” In contrast, Sabatier explains the operation inside. A policy output and its impact affect policy beliefs and resources of actors in a policy subsystem. For resources, the Lord Wilson Heritage Trust and HKJCCT, in the aspect of finance, play a considerable role. Although limited funds were granted by the former to the actual restoration or preservation of built heritage, it funded many individuals and organizations to promote heritage conservation since it was set up in the 1990s.88 These events, seminars, and other educational programmes helped members in the pro-conservation coalition to promote their policy core belief to the public. By the late 1980s, HKJCCT funded for conserving built heritage, though in a relatively small portion. Since 2004, it sharply increased its funding to conservation programmes, and the details are shown in the following table. It is because the Government decided to introduce more conservation programmes, so HKJCCT, as a NPO, become a partner.89 After the controversy over tendering on CPSC, the Administration assigned HKJCCT for conserving the Compound with its own donation of $1.8 billions to renovate and build new structures.90 Instead of HKJCCT itself which is a organization closed to the Administration, most of the programme funded were carried out by pressure groups, in fact subsidizing and facilitating them to advocate their conservation proposals. According to Ng, HKJCCT’s funding to their heritage education centre, Conservancy Association Centre of Heritage (CACHe), helped their educational and promotional programmes. CA views education as a long lasting means of advocacy which fights for public awareness and support. In this case, HKJCCT’s funding to other groups especially in rival coalition in the subsystem, as a policy output, provided them more resources to advocate their beliefs.

Donations of HKJCCT for Conservation Project since 2003

Year Organization Purpose Amount ($’000)

03 / 04 / / /

04 / 05 / / /

05 / 06 The Hong Kong Jockey Club Charities Trust

To fund the development of a digital repository of Hong Kong’s unique historical and cultural heritage on the Internet

80000

88 Official Website of Lord Wilson Heritage Trust, "Project Approved," http://www.lordwilson-heritagetrust.org.hk/project/index.php 89 SDEV’s speech for CPSC 90 HKJCCT claimed they started to beware the public concern on heritage conservation. HKJCCT starts to began to take notice of the general public's interest and concerns over issues related to heritage conservation in Hong Kong.)(The Hong Kong Jockey Club, Conservation & Revitalisation of the Central Police Station Compound: A Proposal by The Hong Kong Jockey Club, Report on the Public Consultation From 11 October 2007 to 10 April 2008, http://www.centralpolicestation.org.hk/wp-content/uploads/2010/08/Public_Consultation_Report_English.pdf

44

06 / 07 The Conservancy Association

To fund the renovation works at its Centre for Heritage and a three-year community engagement and heritage education programme

7790

07 / 08 St James’ Settlement

To fund a community education programme on heritage preservation and rejuvenation in Wan Chai district for three years

3890

08 / 09 The Hong Kong Jockey Club Charities Trust

To fund the Central Police Station Compound Conservation and Revitalisation Project – Phase I allocation

300000

09 / 10 Hong Kong Jockey Club Charities Trust

To fund the Central Police Station Compound Conservation and Revitalization Project – Second Phase allocation

300000

(The Hong Kong Jockey Club, Annual Reports: p79, 2005/06. p79, 2006/07. p98, 2007/08. p121, 2008/09. p113, 2009/10) In ACF, Sabatier argues new information cause lasting alternations of thought or behavioral intention, i.e. policy-oriented learning. Members in a policy coalition seek to learn more knowledge of the problem parameters and related factors. In the interview, Ng stressed the raise of various pressure groups helped to complete the discourse for conservation. Different groups in the conservation coalition supplement the argument of heritage conservation in various perspectives. He illustrated it by the recent conservation movement for the Government Hill. CA participates on natural conservation and especially trees for decades. It stands for preserving in ecologically valuable trees the Government Hill in a large scale, arguing replanting ornamental trees cannot compensate the harm of removal in ecological value. Similar contribution of CA was also shown in protecting stone wall trees in Central & Western District in 2005.91 On the other hand, a number of new conservation groups formed for new fields, such as impact on public area and identity of the demolition, in addition to traditional perspectives like architecture and town planning. CA’s stand with its supporting knowledge joins together with various arguments from other groups, providing a stronger argument against the redevelopment plan. The emergence of numerous and diversified pressure groups and think tanks provides new knowledge for policy-oriented learning in conservation coalition. ACF stress the time needed for development of policy initiatives in a coalition, because a cycle of “policy formation - implementation - re-formation” needs at least ten years. It is currently not long enough to evaluate the learning, since the considerable policy change just started in 2007.

91 Metropolis Daily P06 | Hong Kong News 2005-07-11 團體護樹籲重訂古蹟定義

45

Furthermore, Sabatier assumes an instrumental learning that members in a coalition learn to know the real world, but perceptually filtering opposing information, to elaborate their policy belief and further policy objective. However, it may not applicable to recent movements such as conservation to Lee Tung Street and Queen’s Pier. In these events, coalition of conservation groups wrote in the media to reject arguments from the URA or the Administration or formulated their own proposals to integrate development and conservation. Lee Tung Street, a famous printing street, is covered by URA’s H15 renewal project in Wan Chai. Local residential, merchants and voluntary professionals dissatisfied with the project, so they formed the H15 Concern Group in 2003. They designed and submitted their own redevelopment plan to TPB. Although it was rejected by TPB, the plan was awarded a silver medal by HKIP. The awards adjudicating panel considered it feasible, “solving development problems by the community.” 92 To preserve the Queens Pier, various groups including professionals have suggested alternative plans for the Pier, but all were rejected by the government since the late 2006.93 These case shown local pressure groups responded to counter arguments, instead of ignoring them as presumed in ACF. On the other hand, Sabatier also hypothesizes that “enough professionals from different coalitions” and dominated professional norms helps policy oriented learning across belief systems. However, though there were considerable professionals participating in pro-conservation coalition, there was little communication between it and pro-development coalition, and little cross-coalition learning was found in this period. These newly established or emerging conservation organizations also contributes in the policy stream of MSF. In the policy community of conservation, activists, professionals, academics specialists in these organizations generate new ideas and policy options. By workshops, research papers and conversations, these groups contributed ideas. For example, CA issued a paper “Achieving Conservation - A Positive Conservation Policy for Hong Kong”in 2000 and a position paper “Heritage for the People” in 2003, and Civic Exchange published its research report “Saving Hong Kong's Cultural Heritage” in 2002, in which policy options for conservation such as government resumption, establishment of charitable trusts, transfer of development right and private sector participation were raised, although not all of them receive serious consideration. For political stream, pressure groups, as policy enterprises, is supposed to approach politicians for pushing their proposals. However, according to Ng, CA was seldom approach local political parties. Ng said, under their limited resource, effectiveness of lobbying to parties was not good enough, and thus not been chosen. For fairness, they would meet major parties, including Democratic Party, DAB and Civic Party in some occasions. The limited influence of parties is understandable in local sense. With no ruling party and undemocratically formed LegCo, local political parties have limited power and influence on policy making. Therefore, the increase of pressure groups did not lead to more political lobbying and responsiveness 92 South China Morning Post, Rejected Wan Chai street renewal scheme wins award, CITY4 | CITY | By FELIX CHAN 2005-11-12 93 The Standard, all of which have been rejected by the government, M02 | Metro | By Una So 2007-06-13

46

5.4 Ways of Advocacy New ways of policy advocacy were adopted, in addition to traditional means of research or position papers, petition and lobbying. One important case was the conservation movement to Star Ferry Pier and Queen’s Pier by local pressure groups, especially the Local Action which was set up to protect Queen’s Pier from a similar demolition, after the Administration’s “strike” to Star Ferry Pier in the late 2006. After the conservation proposals were turned down by the Administration and the Pier was officially closed, tens of activists started to occupy it in the late April. It was rather new and perceptually extreme to the public. Compared with CA’s traditional advocacy ways to organize campaigns such as Mexican Wave Blue Ribbon movement in Star Ferry Pier and to write to AAB for requesting to grade Queen’s Pier, Local Action’s way forced direct action from the Administration and was receive more press coverage and public attention. On 27 July, three localist started a hunger strike without a time limit set to protest against the demolition. This was new and eyes-catching in local conservation movement. Most local newspaper reported it as major local news on the next day with considerable capacities shown in the table below. LegCo and political party members soon went to visit the hunger strikers, showing the channeled demand from the Local Action’s and individual localists’ demand to legislators and politicians.94 SDEV also responded to the strike immediately, and visited the Pier to meet protesters on 29 July, These high profile actions shown the action was more concerned by the government. During the occupation of the Pier, conservator organized various kinds of cultural, music and art activities attracting citizens to understand the values of the building.

Reporting of Major Local Press on 28 July 2007 for the Hunger Strike

Presses Pages & Authors No. of Words

Apple Daily A06, Hong Kong News, 1321

Hong Kong Economic Journal P03, Politics and Policies, 1486

Ta Kung Pao A10, Hong Kong News, 606

Sing Pao A07, Hong Kong News, 684

Oriental Daily News A27, Hong Kong News, 948

Sing Tao Daily A16, Hong Kong News, 930

The Sun A08, Hong Kong News, 921

94 Ming Pao Instant News 2007-07-28 余若薇探望 3 名絕食市民

47

Hong Kong Commercial Daily B02, Hong Kong News, 1141

Wen Wei Po A13, Hong Kong News, 714

Hong Kong Economic Times A14, Social News, 991

Hong Kong Daily News A03, Hong Kong News, 611

South China Morning Post EDT1, EDT, Helen Wu, 315

The Standard A12, Metro, Una So, 480

Source: WiseNew Another important development was in the new media, precisely, the Internet. “They've been sending out weekly Internet missives since December of 2006, long, thoughtful essays about the politics of property, historical preservation, and identity and cultural memory in Hong Kong.”95 The Local Action and other newly formed pressure groups adopt Internet to promote their arguments and initiatives. For example, Local Action and its members published their announcement and criticism on Inmediahk.net, an online media website allowing everyone to publish articles, except those with discrimination, personal attack or commercial advertisement. In contrast, according to Ng, CA was more relied on traditional Medias. Instead, CA relied more on media. They changed their strategies to write features on media coverage to fight for public concern and promote understanding on issues. They would contacted several local medias in advanced and provided them featured reporting, for example, they did a feature on the abolishment of colonial post-boxes which attracted public concern. Ng said, as a advocacy group, CA welcomes any form of communications. Because of constraints of time and resource, and the Government’s willingness to communicate, since the mid-2000s, they turn to more adopt media coverage and education to raise public concern and in turn to press the Administration to act. And as mentioned, more seminars, workshops and education programme for conservation were organized. Conservator regarded them as a lasting measure to fight for public support and in turn to press on the Government.

5.5 Major Crises As shown in the survey on local presses, the public concern paid more attention to heritage conservation during certain “crises.” In addition to the general trend of increasing heritage-related articles, crises of Kom Tong Hall & Morrison Building in 2002, CPSC in 2004 and Queen’s Pier in 2007 further led to sharp surges in those periods. No causal relationship between these controversies and the public concern are intended to be proven, instead, a correlations 95 (http://daisann.com/2007/06/18/local-action.aspx)

48

between them was found in the said survey. With these crises, the public paid more attention to and know more weakness of local heritage conservation. Furthermore, these “crises” are also related to other factors mentioned. Numerous pressure groups were formed in the controversies, and their new perspectives and strategies for conservation heated the events. New and diversified forms and large scales of protest from these pressure groups also attracted much more media coverage.

5.4.1 Kom Tong Hall & Morrison Building Until the late 1990s, most important controversies over heritages are about public owned buildings, such as Murray House, Tsim Sha Tsui Railway Station, and Western Market. Since 2000s, however, private owned buildings, including Kom Tong Hall, Morrison Building and King Yin Lane, have become another kind of major controversies, concerned by the public. In final stage of the "Surveys on Historical Buildings in Hong Kong” funded by HKJCCT, about 70% of shortlisted buildings, and a half of Grade I buildings are privately owned.96 The trend of rising conservation movement to private buildings with more public concern is not unexpected. In the early 2000s, crises of Kom Tong Hall and Morrison Building were examples. Locating in Mid-Levels, Kom Tong Hall was one of the best preserved buildings constructed in the early 20th century, as well as a Grade II historical building. In 2001, its owner, Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-Day Saints, tried to approach the Government for preserving the Hall. It hoped to increase the plot ratio of its land in Wan Chai or exchange another land. But the Government did not offer until the crises started.97 In July 2002, to drop the burden of its increasing maintenance fee, the Church decided to demolish the building and to rebuild it into a religious cum education center. 98 It directly applied for demolishing the Hall, because of the unclear conservation policy and bureaucratic processes. Director of Buildings admitted that according to the Buildings Ordinance, he cannot refuse issuing license to the owner by the reason of historical values of the building.99 The application received massive public objection. Central & Western DC objected the proposal and political parties organized protests outside the Hall. Being informed by the Building Department, AMO showed its objection to the church and started negotiation. In February 2004, after 16 months negotiation, the owner of Kom Tong Hall agreed to sell the building at $53 millions. Meanwhile, CA sent a letter to the headquarters of the Church in the U.S. facilitating to reach this consensus. Later, the Government converted the building into Dr Sun Yat-sen Museum.

96 Sing Tao Daily, (涉大批私產古諮會籲全民監察防拆建 212 幢建築物隨時列古迹), A02, 2009-03-20, Hong Kong Economic Journal, (212 建築物被評為一級歷史建築), P08, 2009-03-20 97 Sing Tao Daily, (政教再交手寶蓮寺事件「翻版」摩門教「拆」甘棠第逼港府換靚地), A17 | 每日雜誌 2002-11-09 98 Wen Wei Po, (甘棠第保養費年耗千萬 業主不勝負荷清拆重建), A16, 2002-12-14) 99保留甘棠第 教會將提具體要求 2002-10-31 Oriental Daily News A24, Hong Kong News

49

Comparatively, Morrison Building was a different story. As part of Hoh Fuk Tong Centre in Tuen Mun, the Building has been regarded historically valuable for its association with Nineteen Corps against Japanese invasion, and the Dade Institute in which eminent Chinese scholars lectured during the Chinese civil war in the late 1940s. Its owner, the Church of Christ in China, planed to partner Kerry Properties Limited to redevelop the Centre into residential buildings in 1997 and TPB has approved it in 1999. AMO’s grading to the Morrison Building as a historical building in 2001 held back the plan, and Kerry Properties withdrew. The negotiation for conserving the building between the Government and the owner has no progress. According to the General Secretary of the Church, Rev Luk Fai, the Government refused to implement the preliminary agreement between the two parties in 2001 to exchange lands. He claimed the Church has suggested three plans, including one required no extra expense from the treasury. However in the end the Church was informed by Lands Department that there was no law of exchange of lands. He believed that the Government procrastinated to settle the dispute. 100 Then the Church insisted to continuing the demolition in 2003, and the Antiquities Authority declared the Morrison Building as proposed monument on the gazette. After another negotiation broken, for the first time since the A&MO enacted in the 1970s, Morrison Building was declared as a monument without consent from its owner in 2004. There is neither previous case of such a declaration, nor related case of compensation for the declaration. The Church once tried going to the court for claiming compensations.101 Finally it revised its redevelopment plan to preserve and convert Morrison Building to be a museum, while at the same time, continue to build residential building on the rest part of the land.102 The two cases showed the lack of the protection and compensation mechanism to private historical buildings. Before deciding to demolish the building, the two owners tried to approach the Government. Lacking conservative measures such as exchange of lands, and with bureaucratic procedures, the Churches found uncertainty and waste of time in negotiations. Then they decided to demolish the buildings. Two cases showed the division among institutions and the weak inter-departmental collaboration, especially for Morrison Building which Land Department in the end found out land exchange unfeasible. The public realized the lack of certain necessary conservation means such as land swap, although they also learned declaration of proposed monument and monument as last means. Although the notifying mechanism worked between the Building Department and AMO, there is no constant or effective measure for the Office to deal with the incident. The Office adopted

100 Sing Tao DailyA19 | 每日雜誌 2003-04-11Highlight Keywords 申請清拆重建政府態度反覆 中共活動舊址暫

列古迹 拉鋸經年教會損失三億 101 Ta Kung Pao , The Morrison Building was declared a monument (政府與中華基督教會談判破裂 首次動用古

蹟條例保馬禮遜樓), B10 | 文化 2004-03-27 102 Sing Tao DailyC12 | 星島地產 2004-03-23 何福堂重建 教會遞新方案 Oriental Daily News (首引法例 馬禮遜樓列古蹟), A28 | Hong Kong News 2004-03-18

50

unlike approaches to the two building. It acquired Kom Tong Hall by the funding from Lands Department, which is nominally supposed to purchase lands. It was the first time for the Government to use public funds to purchase a heritage from private owners, however with a similar circumstance, it failed to achieve agreement with the Church of Christ in China either for taking over Morrison Building or compensating for that. The public was attracted and educated in these two crises. One of the reasons was the amount of compensation. Morrison Building located in the centre of the land, so as SHA, Patrick Ho, said, it was not possible to take over it as a whole which was different from the case of the Hall. Critics urged for a mechanism of resumption including financial incentives and compensations. 103 Although LegCo and DCs councilors agreed with the decision to conserve Kom Tong Hall, they doubted that whether the appropriation was procedurally due or suitable for heritage conservation.104 They demanded for a designated source of fund for AMO. On the other hand, Lau Ping Cheung, a then LegCo member, worried that this case would pull private owners to compel the Government to purchase their historical buildings by selling or demolishing them. He urged to set up a regular compensation mechanism, including transfer of plot ratio, to enhance the Government’s bargaining power and save public funds. 105 This was a typical case in both in PSF and ACF that, the previous policy output affects the environment outside, and in turn affects back the (sub)system. The Government adopted a new financial arrangement for conservation, and this decision in turn raise a new demand, a regular compensation mechanism no matter as a designated fund for heritage or transfer of development right, to the policy (sub)system.

5.4.2 Central Police Station Compound (CPSC) In 1998 Policy Address, then CE Tung announced the establishment of a Heritage Tourism Task Force to promote heritages for tourism development. It was an initiative for tourism instead of heritage conservation. However, while replacement of heritages as Murray House was less accepted, irrelevant revitalizations such as Stanley Police Office (a supermarket branch) and former Marine Police Headquarters Compound (1881 Heritage, a high-end hotel cum shopping mall) were also becoming less suitable for heritage conservation in this decade. CPSC, comprised by former Central Police Station, former Victoria Prison and former Central Magistracy, is one of the oldest Victorian, Edwardian and Oriental heritages in colonial period and was declared as monument in 1995. In April 2003, the Administration announced to reuse it for tourism, and to tender in mid-2004. The Government planned to develop the Compound into hotels, restaurant and entertainment facilities, and applied to TPB for changing the site from community use to commerce use. Unsurprisingly local residents and Central & Western DC objected to the plan and the Administration yielded and gave up building entertainment facilities,

103 Ng Ka Chiu, (吳家超), 保護古迹政府須有勇氣承擔 2004-03-04 The Sun B06, 財金評彈, 財金評彈, 文： 香港城市大學社會科學學部講師 104 http://www.districtcouncils.gov.hk/central_d/pdf/2004/CW_2004_031_TC.pdf 105 Sing Tao Daily, (改裝國父博物館議員憂開壞先例 港府 5300 萬收購甘棠第), A02 | 要聞 2004-02-22

51

although TPB approved the application.106 It shows the TPB’s insufficiently considered the heritages in approving land use changes. But at the same time, it showed current procedure ensured the transparency on town planning to the public. It helped to deal with conflict in an early stage. The public however was concerned to the weight of land premium in the tender (40%). Conservation groups criticized for the proposed tender would “privatize” the declared monument in which non-profit organizations (NPO) and non-profit-making management to the Compound would be excluded, and only private developers can win the contract. They urged the Government to put the tender on hold. CA, HKIA and other pressure groups joined to form Central Police Station Heritage Taskforce. It conducted survey and seminars to find out public opinion and preferred conservation proposal to CPSC, and collect signatures from local residents to halt the tendering procedures. It also joined with Tourism Commission, Central & Western DC jointly held an Open Days in CPSC in early 2005 to promote public awareness and understanding. Individuals in the public also joined into the conservation movement. In 2004, the Ho Tung family, with other local famous families, counter proposed to donate $500 million to develop the heritage into a non-profit cultural project with a visual arts academy and arts facilities. A architecture participating in the Ho Family Project said, following the tender model of former Marie Police Headquarter, which became a high-end hotel representing nothing of its history, must commercialize the heritage and exclude participation from NPO. Although the project was rejected by the government two months later with the reason of fair competition, it has raised public awareness for non-profit mode of management for the Compound.107 In late 2007, HKJCCT, as a NPO, was selected to manage and conserve CPSC. By spending $1.8 billion, Jockey Club planed to preserve the buildings, and 2/3 of them would be for commercial purposes. The most controversial point was a 160-metre-tall transparent tower with a 500-seat theater, auditorium and two art cinemas inside. 108 Conservators criticized that it would be incompatible with 19th century building and harm its historic context and value. This proposal faced protests from conservation groups and residents in mid-level. Jockey Club decided to revise the plan in the next year, and ExCo passed a resolution demanding to lower the height of the new structure. In 2010, TPB revised the OZP of the Sai Ying Pun and Sheung Wan limiting the redevelopment of CPSC in 80 meters.109 In the new design released by DEVB and HKJCCT, the new building was trimmed down to that height.

106 Sing Tao Daily, (五大家族方案被拒作公開招標 中區古迹擬變蘭桂坊二號), A17 | 每日雜誌 2004-09-21 107 Ming Pao Daily News (何東後人基金保中區警署 特首公平競爭為由否決) ,A24 | 港聞 2004-09-21 108 The Standard, ($1.8b Jockey Club plan for old police site unveiled), P10 | Local | By Una So 2007-10-12 109 Information Service Department, HKSARG, Press Release "Sai Ying Pun and Sheung Wan Outline Zoning Plan amended," accessed via www.info.gov.hk/gia/general/201005/07/P201005070184.htm on 3/4/2011

52

It was a typical example both showing the public opinion against commercial revitalization and the Government’s concession. The public opinion was strong and a consensus was achieved among society against “privatization” or “commercialization” of the Compound. To analysis this in PSF, the demand was clearly entered the system, while on the other hand little, if any, support to the authority was input. Unsurprising, as a obvious “beneficiary” from existing commercial tenders, developer and avoid counter media campaign which may bring aspersion. To keep people's acceptance to binding decisions of the system and their acceptance to the authority, the Government responded to the demand by the output of non-profit operation and lowering and trimming down new structures.

5.4.3 Queen’s Pier In 2007, shortly after the demolition of Star Ferry Pier, the government planed to replace the Queen’s Pier for constructing the Central-Wan Chai Bypass. The conservation groups closely monitored the public procedures about Central Reclamation Project Phase III and related works to prevent sudden demolition as to the Star Ferry Pier. At the end of January, the Administration claim to postpone the demolition until a consensus was reached. Conservation groups applied to TPB for adding extra condition to the Central waterfront’s OZP and proposed alternatives with academics and professionals for Central Reclamation Phase III to preserve the Pier in-situ. The Administration rejected these plans with the technical reasons to leave space for further railway construction, which from conservator’s point of view was pro-development. Meanwhile, the Administration raised four proposals, and consulted and reached consensus with certain conservation groups such as Hong Kong Institute of Architects, the Hong Kong Institute of Engineers, and CA to remove the Pier for the reclamation project and to replace it back after the construction. In March, CA wrote to AAB urging to grade the Pier. The Government tried to apply for funding in LegCo for the demolition before the grading meeting, which was seriously criticized as “act first and report afterwards.” The Administration then withdrew the application, but finally the Antiquities Authority, Pricket Ho, refused to declare the Pier as a monument after it was graded as Grade I Historical Building by AAB in May. LegCo Public Works Sub-committee endorsed the $50 million funding for the governmental project in the same month. The Pier was officially closed in 26 April, and tens of activists started to occupy it. Conservators applied for a Judicial Review (JR) to High Court against the Antiquities Authority’s decision. Activists started hunger strikers in July and SDEV visited the Pier and debated with conservators which won praise for the Government. In early August, seven protesters were vacated form the roof of the Pier and the Government started to demolish it. The Court later judged the JR failed.

53

The case showed the weakness in A&MO and division of duties among the Authority, AAB and AMO. In early 2007, CE appointed new members to AAB and AMO held hearings for grading Queen’s Pier, responding to the Star Ferry Pier Crisis. Then, it was the first time to hold a grading meeting public, and AAB graded the Pier as a Grade I historical building.110 The Antiquities Authority’s refusal of declaration angered the conservators. They blamed that it was a ruling for executive convenience to build the Central-Wan Chai Bypass, but not based on the historical value of the Pier, as required by A&MO. In the JR, they challenged whether it is legal for the Authority to ignore AAB’s advice not to declare a building as a monument. They also questioned the Authority’s reasons against the declaration, such as the prewar buildings as a additional criterion, and the consideration of advises of AMO over that of AAB. The Court ruled the A&MO empower the Antiquity Authority, but not AAB, to declare buildings as monument, so the said decision was legal. According to A&MO, the Authority need not consider the advise of AAB, if he do not declare a building as monument. And the Grade I status of Queen’s Peir is only an internal reference for AMO, not necessarily leading the Authority to declare it as a monument. To conservators and the public, this case showed the Antiquity Authority’s extreme power in heritage conservation which may be unreasonable, although his decision in this incident was procedurally legal and due. On the other hand, AAB, a component in heritage conservation policy out of the Government, lacked of real power. And representative and or professional of the Board was questioned, even considerable new member were appointed. Localist doubted that the members are actually town planning experts instead of heritage-related professionals who will stand for heritage conservation and object to developments. Except the appointment criteria, in a public forum in 2007 for reviewing heritage policy, participants also criticize the limited power of AAB and the lack of public participation. In fact, in public forums in 2007 reviewing local conservation policy, some people suggest amending AM&O to provide clear guidelines and definitions on assessing built heritage. Conservation groups and professionals criticize the Government for assessments without open standards. Participants also expressed that non-governmental organizations such as CA, H15 Concern Group, and S.E.E. Network urged to amend AM&O to include public participation for assessing heritages. They compared the A&MO with TPO which requires two weeks public consultation for town planning issues, and demand for a higher level of public participation to be written into A&MO. For the composition of AAB, in a focus group meeting in 2007, a participant suggested the model of Our Harbour Front, in which stakeholders are invited to discuss and the public are consulted for every conservation project. The influence from Star Ferry Pier and Queen’s Pier to local heritage conservation was great. One example was the save of Yau Ma Tei Police Station, a colonial building erected in 1922. It was under threat from the construction of Central Kowloon Route, while a parliamentary study

110

54

to further broaden it was rejected by LegCo Public Works Subcommittee after the unpopular removal of the Star Ferry old clock tower in 2006.111 More importantly, the revealed problems and raised public concern to some extent lead to CE Tsang’s policy initiatives for conservation in the second-half of 2007. In last decade, there were more events and controversies related, though less important, to local heritage conservation. For example, Lee Tung Street and Wan Chai Market were demolished under local residents’ conservation campaigns, while Former Police Married Quarters, North Kowloon Court, Dragon Garden and Lai Chi Kok Hospital have been controversial for conservation. Some of them were later put into the heritage revitalization programme introduced in 2008. Please refer to the Appendix X for the full list.

5.5 Wrap Up In the last decade, emerging pressure groups and other organizations, and individuals in civil society are more dynamic and interactive to influence local conservation policy. Pressure groups, professionals, mass media, political parties and are more involved in conservation policy than before the 2000s, and the public also paid more attention on the issue starting to recognize that as a problem.

111 South China Morning PostEDT4 | EDT | By Helen Wu 2007-11-11 Historic police station may be preserved

55

Chapter Six: Policy Change

Some people regard introduction of various policy initiatives in this decade as milestones on local heritage conservation. In the PSF, Easton argues that an alternation in policy, as an output, is a response to the input, mainly demands. And these demands are generated from the societal environment. In ACF, policy-oriented learning, changes in the real world environment, and turnover in personnel are regarded as major forces leading to policy change. In MSF, policy changes is considered to be likely when the problem, policy and political streams join together and policy entrepreneurs get the opportunity to initiate and promote their proposed solution to the public and politicians. The three frameworks are different in attributing the policy changes.

6.1 From Review to Initiatives In February 2004, HAB launched the first stage of public consultation on review of built heritage conservation policy asking conceptually abstract questions such as what or how to conserve and how much and who should pay. 112There was no proposals came up. In the three months of consultation period, it was criticized for the lack of practical policy options. Not only conservation groups, but also the legislators blame the lack of concrete details. The policy community also criticizes for the slow progress. CA blame that it “is badly conducted and shows a lack of sincerity.”113 After of years of inaction, in 2007, the Bureau started the other stage of consultation shortly after the demolition of Star Ferry Pier. In later 2007, after CE and ExCo announced new policy statement and initiatives, the Development Bureau promised to set up the Commissioner for Heritage’s Office and Heritage Conservation Trust, and to adaptively reuse government owned historical buildings. For privately owned heritages, the Administration also clearly commited to introduce land exchange, transfer of development rights and financial incentives to prevent them from demolition for redevelopment and the lack of maintenance. 114 In PSF, Easton argues the Government as the authority must obtain information about the current situation, therefore, they can react “as they desire or are compelled to do so.” (Easton, 1965, 33)115 Regardless of the sincerity which was hard to examine, the public consultation should be regarded as a means to obtain information, especially the public opinion, which in PSF is a potential political demand. After the Administration obtained data it needed, the reasonable explanation for its inaction between 2004 and 2007 is that they desired to react so, and they were 112 Paper provided by the Administration on "Review of Built Heritage Conservation Policy" [CB(2)1734/03-04(03)] (22 March 2004) 113 Legislative Council Secretariat, “Subcommittee on Heritage Conservation Background brief prepared by Legislative Council Secretariat Review of Built Heritage Conservation Policy”, LC Paper No. CB(2)2178/06-07(02) CA, The Conservancy Association’s Position on Hong Kong’s Built Heritage Conservation Policy, LC Paper No. CB(2)1599/06-07(05) 114 The Development Bureau, "LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL BRIEF: HERITAGE CONSERVATION POLICY," October 2007, http://www.legco.gov.hk/yr07-08/english/panels/ha/papers/ha-devbcrw1556801-e.pdf) 115 Easton, 1965,33

56

not yet compelled to take action, until 2007. The late action, a relatively radical policy change, should be explained in MSF that the three streams joined in 2007 providing the “policy windows” for these initiatives. In the problem stream, more local people found weaknesses of the existing policy, and agreed to related changes. As found in surveys from 2004 to 2007, a considerable amount of local people agree with the deficiency of the policy and support new conservation measures like to transfer development rights for compensation and to grade AMO. The radicalized actions, such as activist’s defense in Queen’s Pier, and massive media coverage to certain heat movements also magnified the seriousness perceived by the general public. In the policy stream, many pressure groups and think tanks were form and many professionals joined as hidden participants to keep the issue alive since the early 2000s. As the champion of conservation, CA in its paper in 2003 suggested new zoning mechanism, government's resumption, and public-private partnership and non in situ exchange as new tools to conserve heritages. For resource, it suggested the “development tax” to provide new source of funding as well as to promot conservation during development. 116 Only some of them in the end are shortlisted for real consideration. For example, compared with the option of heritage trust, the development tax faded out since the mid-2000s. In the political stream, the rising public concern and awareness for heritage conservation found in press coverage survey is an evidence for the national mood. CE Election in 2007 is another factor in the stream, in which CE Tsang Yam Kuen faced challenge of Alan Leong Kah-kit from the pan-democratic camp. It was the first contested election for the Executive in Hong Kong. Both of the candidates raised to better conserve heritages in their election platforms.Leong suggested concrete radical measures including to upgrade AAB into a statutory Cultural Heritage Conservation Board with a two-tiered structure promoting district level engagement, and to establish a Conservation Trust to facilitate tripartite partnership with business and NGOs for conservation. 117 Tsang in his election manifesto also advocated a “progressive view of development,” to consider cultural impact and conservation during development. 118 None of their policy initiatives were raised in previous CE elections.119 Under the national mood after a sequence of conservation movements, even Tsang was very likely to be re-elected, he cannot ignore demand of better heritage conservation. After he returned to the office as expected, he raise new policy initiatives in his first policy address of this term.

116 Conservancy Association, “Heritage for the People,” 2003, p11-13, 15) In the “policy primeval soap”of conservation, these alternatives “float(ed) around, bumping into one another.” (Kingdon, 1995, 200 117 (Policy Platform, http://www.competitionforce.hk/urban_eng.php) 118 曾蔭權競選政綱：進步宣言Ta Kung Pao, “Tsang Yam Kien’s Election Platform: Manifesto of Progress.” ( ), A06, 2007-02-03 119 http://www.hkcss.org.hk/cb4/Policybulletin/development.html

57

Carrie Lam announced the new conservation policy initiatives and administrative measures after she became SDEV. Followings were detailed in the Legislative Council (LegCo) brief issued on 11 October 2007.

1 Creation of the Commissioner for Heritage (C for H) Post

2 Conducting of Heritage Impact Assessments (HIA)

3 Revitalizing Historic Buildings Through Partnership Scheme

4 Economic Incentives for Conservation of Privately-owned Historic Buildings

5 Extending Financial Assistance on Maintenance to Privately-owned Graded Historic Buildings

6 Conducting Public Engagement and Publicity

7 Research Into Heritage Trust and Other Overseas Practices Legislative Council Brief “Heritage Conservation Policy” on 11 October 2007,

http://www.legco.gov.hk/yr07-08/english/panels/ha/papers/ha-devbcrw1556801-e.pdf A chronology of governmental actions and major events relating to heritage conservation is at Appendix 1. And the followings will be detailed analyses to these initiatives respectively.

6.2 Organizational Restructure Tsang re-organized policy bureaus on 1 July 2007, the beginning of his second term. The Development Bureau (DEVB) was set up to oversee planning, renewal, works, and “development-related heritage conservation.” And the Secretary for Development (SDEV) replaced SHA to be the Antiquities Authority to execute A&MO and be responsible for conserving local heritages. Under the Work Branch of the Bureau, Commissioner for Heritage’s Office (CHO) was soon established to support SDEV to implement conservation policy and taking forward Tsang’s new initiatives announced in Policy Address 2007. Unsurprisingly, AMO was turned under SDEV’s purview too. According to Carrie Lam, SDEV, this structure would help coordination work between AMO and CHO, while AMO kept its role for providing professional advice. 120 These restructurings were regarded in PSF as a response of the political system to challenges faced. Easton argues political systems can alter its structure to respond stresses caused by demands from the environment. (1965, p25-27) This reorganization of the bureaus and department put most duties for heritage conservation under the purview of SDEV of DEVB. It, as claimed by SDEV Carrie Lam, helps coordination and efficiency for preventing stresses from 120 Panel on Home Affairs Minutes of special meeting held on Wednesday, 2 January 2008, LC Paper No. CB(2)1692/07-08, http://www.legco.gov.hk/yr07-08/english/panels/ha/minutes/ha080102.pdf

58

output failure in which input overload due to the diversified structure and thus inefficiency in the original heritage conservation system. The new organization also enhanced the ability to put new initiative forward.

6.3 New Conservation Means Throughout the 2000s, conservation means taken by the Government to conserve heritages were in change. Introduction of new measures were incremental. Although Policy Address and DEVB laid down a package of initiatives as late as 2007, some of measures were tried before and feedback was received. In fact, the sequence of policy change should be understood under PSF, especially in the concept of “feedback loop.” Kom Tong Hall was the first private heritage taken over by the Government for conservation, leading to new questions about modes of compensation, source of funding and financial arrangement. Both LegCo and DCs criticize the Administration for adopting Lands Department’s funding to resume the heritage. They and professional urged to establish formal compensation mechanism, such as transfer of development right (e.g. transfer of plot ratio) and land exchange, or financial arrangement like setting up a Heritage Trust for resumption expenses. (CA, Heritage Watch) These advocacies were later brought into the package of initiatives in 2007. In DEVB’s document to LegCo, the Bureau stated the initiative to introduce the said means and related difficulties and details including determination of land value and land premium payment for both in-situ and non-in-situ land exchanges. New options, such as to allow a site to excess its original maximum total gross floor area in the OZP and building regulations, were also raised.121 On the other hand, the Antiquities Authority for decades were criticized for failing to execute his power from AM&O to protect heritage, such as to declare a building to be a monument or a proposed monument. As mentioned, Morrison Building of Hoh Fuk Tong Centre became the first local building to be declared as a monument without the consent of its owner in 2004, after it was declared as the second proposed monument without owners’ consent. 122 The declarations aroused criticism from its owner, and owners of other historical buildings. Conservation group also urged the Government to disclose the criteria for declaring building as monuments. As it succeed to preserve these buildings, since then the Administration turned to more adopt this means. Since the declaration of Morrison Building in 2004, 128 Pok Fu Lam Road (known as “Jessville”) in 2006, King Yin Lei in 2007, and Ho Tung Gardens in 2011 were declared as proposed monuments. Although it is not officially included in Tsang’s package of initiatives, but in wording of “effective administrative means,” it was a policy alternation for private historical 121 Legislative Council Brief “Heritage Conservation Policy” on 11 October 2007, http://www.legco.gov.hk/yr07-08/english/panels/ha/ha_hec/reports/ha_heccb2-2217-e.pdf 122 HAB, "Legislative Council Panel on Home Affair: Declarartion pf the Morrison Building as a Moniment," 13, November 2003, CB(2)1794/03-04(01), http://www.legco.gov.hk/yr03-04/english/panels/ha/papers/ha1128cb2-351-e-1.pdf

59

building in danger.123 In 2007, the owner of King Yin Lei insisted to demolish the building, and suddenly started the work, leading SDEV failed to declare it as proposed monument before considerable damage made. So in 2011, AMO and AAB started to work for proposed declaration shortly after the owner of Ho Tung Garden showed his intention to sell the building.124 The Antiquities Authority would immediately execute his power to declare buildings as proposed monument if owners may seel or demolish the building.125 Two batches of “Revitalizing Historic Buildings through Partnership Scheme” were introduced since 2008 to adaptively re-use government-owned historical buildings. Only non-profit making organizations with charitable status under Section 88 of the Inland Revenue Ordinance (Cap 112) are eligible to apply for using declared monuments and graded historical buildings listed in the Scheme. Organizations are required to submit their proposals to preserve the building, bring out its historical significance, and benefit local community, as well as how their operation are financially viable. The vetting committee, comprising official and non-official experts, considers and approves the proposals. It was changed from commercial tenders in Heritage 1881 and the original CPSC proposal in 2004 that private developers can apply to revitalize heritages for tourism purpose to make profits. In the Scheme, heritages were approved to be museums, galleries, education centres, training institutes and hostels, in addition to profitable usages such as hotels and high-class restaurants. In the two batches of the new revitalizing scheme, tourism and commercial usage were minimized while a considerable number of educational, community and environmental projects were approved. Shown in the table of approved projects followed, there were only two out of nine non-profit making organizations not to be subsidized. For example, Lai Chi Kok Hospital, Grade III Historical Building was grant to Hong Kong Institution for operating a regional cultural city, "The Hong Kong Cultural Heritage" to promote heritage conservation and Chinese culture. The project was not profit oriented, except the capital cost to renovate the heritage, the Government further need to subsidize about $2 million for operation of the social enterprises in the first three years until breakeven. 126 Estimated subsidies for other NGOs were from $1.84 million to $4.4 million.

Historic Building Project Selected Capital cost for Renovation

Subsidy to NPO

123 http://www.legco.gov.hk/yr07-08/english/panels/ha/minutes/ha080102.pdf 124 Grading of Ho Tung Gardens at 75 Peak Road and the proposal to declare it as a Proposed Monument under the Antiquities and Monuments Ordinance(Board Paper AAB/2/2011-12), 25 January 2011, 125 . Ohel Leah Synagogue at Robinson Road was the first building declared as proposed monument in 1987, but then it arrivaled a agreement with the Government not to demolish the building. Therefore it was a different case. Grading of Ho Tung Gardens at 75 Peak Road and the proposal to declare it as a Proposed Monument under the Antiquities and Monuments Ordinance(Board Paper AAB/2/2011-12), 25 January 2011, http://www.amo.gov.hk/form/special_meetings/AAB%202%202011-12%20Main%20Paper.pdf 126 (http://www.heritage.gov.hk/en/rhbtp/ProgressResult_Lai_Chi_Kok_Hospital.htm)

60

Old Tai O Police Station

Tai O Heritage Hotel $64.9 million Nil

Fong Yuen Study Hall

Fong Yuen Study Hall – Tourism and Chinese Cultural Centre cum Ma Wan Residents Museum

$7.9 million $1.9 million

Lai Chi Kok Hospital

Hong Kong Cultural Heritage $193.9 million $2 million

Lui Seng Chun Hong Kong Baptist University Chinese Medicine and Healthcare Centre

$ 24.8 million $2.6 million

North Kowloon Magistracy

SCAD Hong Kong Campus Not required Nil

Mei Ho House Mei Ho House as City Hostel $192.3 million $4.4 million

Old Tai Po Police Station

The Green Hub for sustainable living $39.11 million $1.84 million

The Blue House Cluster

Viva Blue House $56.91 million $4.17 million

Stone Houses Stone Houses Revitalization Scheme $30.8 million $2.33 million

Conserve and Revitalize Hong Kong Heritage Official Website, http://www.heritage.gov.hk/en/about/welcome.htm, Until 24 September 2010 Considering the conservation policy in a longer period, it was not static, and alternations on conservation measures have been introduced from time to time, although the alternation in 2007 was the most considerable. PSF can be used to explain these sequences of policy alternations. Kom Tong Hall was the Government’s first resumption of privately owned heritage. And Morrison Building was the second proposed monument and the first monument declared without consent from its owner. These means were more frequently used since then, and the arrangement evolved. These two policy outputs re-entered the system as demands including requests for clear compensation mechanism and for declaring historical building in danger as proposed monument and monument. After that, as policy output generated by the feedbacks, the Government started to take over private heritage from cash to land swap, and act more responsively and aggressively in declaring historical building in danger as proposed monuments. They were example of feedback loop.

61

For revitalization, in the 1990s, there was a change from the replacement policy of heritages for redevelopment, say Murray House, to revitalization, although it was limited to “privatization,” tourism and profit-making proposes. In examples of Western Market and 1881 Heritage, both heritages were reused for commercial usage to prevent financial burden to the Government. Therefore, in 2007, the Partnership Scheme was not totally a new policy; instead it was a further alternation from the original commercial revitalization. Based on PSF, a demand which is the request to better conservation after the replacement of heritages like Murray House, input into the political system led to the policy output to keep heritage to stay put by revitalization. This output affects and leads change to the environment which in this case the public turn to discontent with the commercial revitalization shown in the incident of CPSC. This feedback, as a new demand, in turn input into the political system and led to another policy change on conservation policy. Educational, community and environmental projects were introduced under governmental subsidies, which was a contrast with the previous policy to prevent financial burden in conservation.

6.4 Resource Allocation Since 2007, the Administration earmarked $1 billion under the Capital Works Reserve Fund for supporting the Revitalization Scheme. SDEV also ensured for sufficient resources support to the work of CHO and there is a room for further allocation.127 In fact, in 2009 Budget, the Government allocated another $500 million to refill the Reserve Fund.128 The Government also allocated more resources to provide economic incentives for conservation of privately-owned historic buildings and to facilitate maintenance of privately-owned graded historic buildings. In response to the criticism, the eligibility of funds covered graded historical building for their repair and restoration works. On the other hand, more resources were allocated for recurrent expense of CHO and AMO to support their increasing workload. CHO was set up with new senior positions in civil service. Although legislators questioned the necessity of the directorate position, while there was already six D2 position in DEVB, the funding was approved finally.129 AMO was also provided more resource. According to an AAB member in 2004, Patrick LAU Sau-shing, AMO needs a year to finish grading a historical building under the existing procedure and the most difficult process is to convince the owner. AMO did not have sufficient resource to assess over 10 buildings per

127 http://www.legco.gov.hk/yr07-08/english/panels/ha/minutes/ha080102.pdf 128 Ta Kung Pao 10 億元支持活化歷史建築 A09 2009-02-26 129 D2: Point 2 on the Directorate Pay Scale of the Government, monthly salary: $117,950 to $129,000 on 1.4.2010) Panel on Home Affairs Minutes of special meeting held on Wednesday, 2 January 2008, LC Paper No. CB(2)1692/07-08, http://www.legco.gov.hk/yr07-08/english/panels/ha/minutes/ha080102.pdf

62

year, so the Office has studied to simplify the procedures.130 More resources were allocated to AMO for doubling the staffing to speed up assessment and grading thousands of historical buildings found. Compared with the establishment of 38 staff in 1999 and 50 in 2002, not less than 100 staff is deployed in AMO in 2010. 131 And as mentioned, HKJCCT donated more and funded both conservation and educational programmes for heritages. Lord Wilson Heritage Fund, turned to fund more heritages restoration projects from supporting educational programmes.132

6.5 Inaction Policies No amendment to A&MO, as demanded by the conservator, instead, a limited regulation change to monitor impact on historical buildings form governmental construction works was introduced. Under the new Heritage Impact Assessment, responsible person of capital works projects including which were not covered by EIAO, need to consider whether their projects will affect historical buildings. But as an internal regulation, it was not a statutory requirement for private developers. The demand for clear criteria for defining heritage or monument to be declared was responded by the Administration to adopt of a new set of criteria in assessing historical buildings. The expert panel set up under AAB adopting diversified factors including a building’s integrity, collective memory and values to ethnic groups, in addition to historical and architectural values previously to assess the 1440 old buildings selected. AAB, based on these results, considers to grade the buildings into the three grades, or to declare them to be monuments.133 With the demand for more public participation, and that for establishing “area of conservation,” all required legislative changes were rejected.134 Sabatier cited Moe's (1990) argument to explain the stability of legislation outside a policy subsystem in ACF. (1999, p120)135 However it is not suitable to analyze local situation as under a semi-democratic and executive-led political system. To explain this inaction, Ng’s comment to Government attitude may be useful. He criticize the Government’s insincerity and thus the lack of progress on public engagement till now, although he admit that it has put considerable

130 Sing Tao Daily A04 | 要聞 2004-09-26 古迹辦詳列千幢文物待評級 景賢里或列古述免清拆 131 Official website of AMO & government directory, http://www.amo.gov.hk/en/about3.php, http://tel.directory.gov.hk/0243000387_ENG.html, http://tel.directory.gov.hk/0243007193_ENG.html, http://tel.directory.gov.hk/0243005825_ENG.html 132 4 project in 2008 & 2009, compared to 2 project from 1993 to 2007, Official Website 133 LCSD, Presentation at the 22nd Tuen Mun District Council Meeting, "Historical Building Conservation in Hong Kong," assess via http://www.districtcouncils.gov.hk/tm_d/chinese/doc/min_DC%2007/8.5.07%20P1.pdf Indeed, although alternation of assessment criteria is in 2005, shortly after the 2004 consultation, the Administration was criticized for ignoring diversified values such as emerging sense of collective memory. It is because the expert panel’s assessment did not necessarily considered by AAB to act to protect the buildings. Queen’s Pier in 2007 was a good example. 134 http://www.legco.gov.hk/yr07-08/english/panels/ha/papers/ha-devbcrw1556801-e.pdf 135 1999, p120

63

conservation policy forward better protecting heritages. All current changes were administrative which the Government can control their impacts and select their scale. Certain above demands such as definition on monuments, public engagement and establishment of conservation area can seriously affected economic activities on constructions and redevelopments which was not accepted by the pro-development coalition.

64

Chapter Seven: Conclusion

Generally speaking, the three policy framework can well explain some component or phenomena of local heritage conservation policy. PSF and ACF are better in analyzing different component of the system including concepts of institution, environment, inputs and outputs, and the cycle of policy making, some kind of “feedback loop” named in PSF. While, MSF is better to explain non- incremental changes joined by problem, policy and political stream with the best example in 2007. ACF is also unique to bring the concept of advocacy coalition, and belief system and policy learning, which are to large extent suitable to apply on local context. With various changes in political atmosphere, civil society, public attitudes toward heritage conservation, there is numerous controversies on heritage issues in the decade. And the Administration responded to them with some policy alternations which do help better conserve local built heritages. With a considerable policy change in 2007, however, local conservation policy remains in a top-down level, while measures for public participation were not introduced into the system.

65

List of Abbreviation A&MO Antiquities and Monument Ordinance (Cap. 53) AAB Antiquities Advisory Board ACF Advocary Coalition Framework AMO Antiquities and Monuments Office CA Conservancy Association CE Chief Executive CHC Culture and Heritage Commission CHO Commissioner for Heritage’s Office CPSC Central Police Station Compound DC(s) District Organization DEVB Development Bureau DPA Development Permission Area EIAO Environmental Impact Assessment Ordinance (Cap. 499) ExCo Executive Council Government, The The Government of Hong Kong Special Administrative Region HAB Home Affairs Bureau HKIA Hong Kong Institute of Architects HKIP Hong Kong Institute of Planners HKJCCT The Hong Kong Jockey Club Charities Trust HKPSG Hong Kong Planning Standards and Guidelines ICOMOS International Council on Monuments and Sites LDC Land Development Cooperation LegCo Legislative Council MSF Multi-Streams NGO Non-governmental organization NPO Non-profit Organization OECD Organization for Economic Co-operation and Development OZP Outline Zoning Plans PSF Political System Theory / Framework SDEV Secretary for Development SHA Secretary for Home Affair TPB Town Planning Board TPO Town Planning Ordinance () URA Urban Renewal Authority URAO Urban Renewal Authority Ordinance ()

66

Full List of Local Presses Covered By the Survey Categories Source

Hospital Authority -- 醫院管理局 The Equal Opportunities Commission -- 平等機會委員會

Government

Information IS Department, Hong Kong SAR Government(Chinese) -- 香港特別行政

區政府新聞處(中文版)

IS Department, Hong Kong SAR Government(English) -- 香港特別行

政區政府新聞處(英文版)

AV Bi-Weekly -- AV 雙周 Electronic Technology -- 無綫電技術 AV Free Electronics and Automotive -- 電子及

汽車 AV Magazine Elle Luxe Advanced e-Process & Manufacturing -- 新電子工藝

Elle Shopping

All About Wedding Elle Wedding Asian Investor FACE -- FACE 週刊 Automobile -- 車主 Fashion & Beauty -- 流行新姿 Baccarat Hong Kong Finance Asia Bauhinia Magazine -- 紫荊雜誌 Game Weekly -- 遊戲周刊 Beats HK Magazine Benchmark -- 指標 Hao Zhai -- 豪宅 C for Culture -- 文化現場 Health Action Magazine -- 健康動力

雜誌 CEI Asia Hi-Tech Weekly -- 數碼誌尚 CUP Magazine -- 茶杯雜誌 Home Journal Campaign Asia Pacific Hong Kong Business Car And Driver -- 人車誌 Hong Kong Economic Journal

Monthly -- 信報財經月刊 Caz Buyer -- 車買家 Hong Kong Property -- 香港地產 China Automotive Journal -- 現代汽車 Hong Kong Tatler China Plastic and Rubber Journal -- 中國塑料橡膠

Hong Kong Tatler SPARKLE

China Textile and Apparel -- 中國紡織

及成衣 Hong Kong Walker

Chinamac Journal -- 機械與製造 International Watch Journal -- 國際手

表雜誌 CityLife -- 東方之珠 International Wrist Watch -- 城邦國際

名表 Clip JET Computerworld Hong Kong Jiu Jik -- 招職 DiGi Bi-Weekly -- DiGi 數碼雙周 LIME -- 智尚

Magazine

ELLE Accessories Me! -- Me!週刊

67

ELLE Decoration -- 家居廊 Media ELLE Hong Kong Metals Bulletin -- 金屬工業 ELLE Men Metro Box Earth Kids -- 地球少年 Milk East Touch -- 東 Touch Milk B Eastweek -- 東周刊 Milk X Easy Finder -- 壹本便利 Mina Eat & Travel Weekly -- 飲食男女 Ming Pao Weekly -- 明報周刊 Economic Digest -- 經濟一週 Mo Kung -- 無窮 Electronic Bulletin -- 電子工業 Monday -- 新 Monday

My Money -- 自我創富雜誌 Tea Magazine Net Mazta 上網大師 -- 上網大師 Textile & Clothing Bulletin -- 紡織及

製衣 Next Magazine -- 壹週刊 Textile and Apparel(Asian Version) --

紡織及成衣亞洲版 O.N.E. (Chinese Version) -- 一樂也 (中文版)

The IT magazine -- 資訊科技

O.N.E. (English) -- 一樂也 (英文版) The Mirror Monthly (Hong Kong) -- 鏡報月刊

Open Magazine -- 開放雜誌 The list Oriental Sunday -- 東方新地 Today's Living -- 今日家居 PC Game 2000 U magazine PC Market -- 電腦廣場 Ultra PC Station -- 電腦一週 Vivi PC Tech -- 電腦技術 Wealthy Bi-Weekly -- 富周刊 PC Weekly -- 電腦週刊 Weekend Weekly -- 新假期 Packaging Pro -- 包裝縱橫 Where Hong Kong Phone Magazine -- Phone 雜誌 With Plastics Bulletin -- 塑膠工業 Yazhou Zhoukan -- 亞洲週刊 Plastics and Metals -- 塑膠及金屬 Zip Magazine Prime Magazine -- 盛世雜誌 Zip homme Prime Times -- 盛世時代 e-Campus Today -- 今日校園 Professional Adviser -- 專業理財 e-zone Radio Experimenter -- 無線電製作 iMoney -- 智富雜誌 Reader's Digest Chinese -- 讀者文摘 - 中文版

metro Life

Reader's Digest English -- 讀者文摘 - 英文版

metropop -- 都市流行

Magazine

Recruit News Agency

68

SMEWorld -- 中小企資訊世界 AFX -- AFX 法新社財經 SP Luxos PR Newswire Asia -- 美通社(亞洲) Silk Road -- 絲路 Wise Press Release Strait Bridge -- 台商月刊 Xinhua Finance -- 新華財經 Sudden Weekly -- 忽然一周

A Daily -- A 報 Hong Kong Globe -- 公正報 Apple Daily -- 蘋果日報 Hong Kong Health Journal -- 香港健

康報 China Daily Hong Kong Edition -- 中國

日報香港版 Hong Kong Standard(Before 2000.5) -- 英文虎報(2000.5 前)

Express Post -- 快線周報 I.T. times -- 資訊科技周刊 HK iMail -- 香港郵報 Kung Kao Po -- 公教報 Headline Daily -- 頭條日報 Metropolis Daily -- 都市日報 Hong Kong Commercial Daily -- 香港

商報 Ming Pao Daily News -- 明報

Hong Kong Daily News -- 新報 Ming Pao Education -- 明報 - 教得樂 Hong Kong Economic Journal -- 信報

財經新聞 Ming Teens -- 明 teens

Newspaper

Hong Kong Economic Times -- 香港經

濟日報 Money Times -- 投資理財周刊

Oriental Daily News -- 東方日報 Take me Home (Hong Kong

Economic Times) - Kowloon East & Tseung Kwan O & Sai Kung -- 生活

區報 (香港經濟日報) - 東九龍 將軍

澳 西貢 Property Times -- 置業家居 Take me Home (Hong Kong

Economic Times) - Kowloon West -- 生活區報 (香港經濟日報) - 西九龍

SCMP-Young Post -- SCMP-young post Take me Home (Hong Kong Economic Times) - New Territories East & Shatin & Ma On Shan -- 生活

區報 (香港經濟日報) - 新界東 沙田 馬鞍山

Sing Pao -- 成報 Take me Home (Hong Kong Economic Times) - New Territories West -- 生活區報 (香港經濟日報) - 新界西

Sing Tao Daily -- 星島日報 The Standard -- 英文虎報 Smarties -- 明報 Smarties The Sun -- 太陽報

Newspaper

South China Morning Post -- 南華早報 Tin Tin Daily News -- 天天日報

69

Ta Kung Pao -- 大公報 Wen Wei Po -- 文匯報 Take me Home (Hong Kong Economic Times) - Hong Kong CWS -- 生活區報 (香港經濟日報) - 港島中西南

am730

Take me Home (Hong Kong Economic Times) - Hong Kong East -- 生活區報 (香港經濟日報) - 港島東

Amy Magazine -- Amy 雜誌 Ming Pao Instant News -- 明報即時新

聞 Asiawise -- 亞洲資訊 Solicitor Online -- 法周刊 CarAndDriver.com.hk -- 人車誌 (網站) TodayIR -- Associate with Investors

(Chinese Version) -- 今日投資傳訊 (中文版)

ET Net -- 經濟通 TodayIR -- Assoicate with Investors (English Version) -- 今日投資傳訊 (英文版)

ET Net English Section -- 經濟通 (英文)

Vitality -- 生命力

Finet Newswires - China -- 財華中國 Web site (URL link) Finet Newswires - Hong Kong -- 財華

香港 TodayIR -- Associate with Investors (Chinese Version for Videos) -- 今日

投資傳訊 (中文版影片)

Web site

Irasia.com -- 亞洲投資專訊 TodayIR -- Associate with Investors (English Version for videos) -- 今日投

資傳訊 (英文版影片)

70

List of Questions & Motions Raised in LegCo since 2000

Date of Council Meeting

Proposed Member Question / Motion

23.2.2000 Hon Howard YOUNG Conversion of historical buildings for cultural use

09.01.2002 Hon Fred LI how the Urban Renewal Authority could achieve the aims of heritage conservation in implementing redevelopment projects

18.12.2002 Hon MA Fung-kwok Culture and Heritage Commission Consultation Paper 2002

12.2.2003 Hon LAU Ping-cheung Policy on heritage preservation

19.3.2003 Hon WONG Sing-chi Preservation of privately owned buildings with conservation value

24.3.2004 Hon CHAN Kwok-keung

Conservation of monuments and heritage

10.11.2004 Hon CHOY So-yuk Conserving the Central Police Station Compound and formulating a comprehensive policy on antiquities and monuments

2.3.2005 Dr Hon KWOK Ka-ki Development plans for historical buildings

26.4.06 Prof Hon Partick LAU Built heritage conservation policy

28.6.06 Prof Hon Patrick LAU Facilitating urban development

5.7.06 Hon Fred LI Fully conserving the 'Government Hill

15.11.06 Hon LAU Kong-wah Striving for valuable cultural or natural heritage in Hong Kong to be inscribed on the World Heritage List"

6.12.06 Hon Albert HO Management of monuments and historical buildings

6.12.2006 Hon CHOY So-yuk Classifying historical buildings

13.12.06 Hon Bernard CHAN Display of train compartment

17.1.2007 Hon Audrey EU Motion on "Policy on conservation of monuments"

18.4.07 Hon Timothy FOK Yau Ma Tei Theatre

2.5.2007 Hon Alan LEONG Conserving the Queen's Pier

16.5.07 Prof Hon Patrick LAU Lee Tat Bridge in Shui Tsan Tin Tsuen, Pat Heung 16.5.2007 Hon LAU Wong-fat Grading assessment of antiquities and monuments

30.5.07 Hon CHEUNG Hok-ming

Cultural heritage tourism

4.10.2007 Dr Hon YEUNG Sum Preservation of buildings of historic value

7.11.2007 Audrey EU Inventory of Hong Kong's intangible cultural heritage and a "Hong Kong Memory" central database

7.11.2007 Bernard CHAN Revitalising Historic Buildings Through Partnership Scheme

12.3.2008 CHEUNG Hok-ming Cultural heritage of New Territories villages

23.4.2008 Fred LI Transparency of and public participation in heritage assessment

71

Results of Survey on Local Media Coverage about Heritage-related Keywords (1998-2010) 關鍵

字組

合 年份 "古蹟"

"古蹟" + "保育"

"古蹟" + "保存"

"古蹟" + "保護"

"古蹟" + "活化 / 再利用"

"法定古

蹟" "歷史建

築" "*級歷

史建築" 1998 154 0 13 29 0 9 7 0 1999 706 2 87 142 2 50 60 2 2000 728 6 124 175 2 49 84 3 2001 1857 40 337 468 7 167 163 2 2002 1908 15 319 469 8 167 206 16 2003 1728 37 307 436 13 148 180 6 2004 2354 148 522 685 40 264 279 12 2005 2006 126 352 469 24 176 336 26 2006 2411 316 414 693 57 264 454 41 2007 4270 1359 958 1318 407 924 1349 121 2008 2369 582 400 490 432 386 1193 79 2009 2431 689 329 433 556 431 1652 131 2010 2456 629 338 413 421 398 1233 151

In Chinese

Combination

of Keyw

ords Year

"monum

ent"

"monum

ent" + "conservation"

"monum

ent" + "preservation"

"monum

ent" + "protect-ion"

"monum

ent" + "revitalization or

reuse"

"declared m

onument(s)"

"historical building(s)"

"graded historical building(s)"

1998 93 2 4 3 0 3 12 1 1999 175 1 4 9 0 2 19 3 2000 102 1 6 5 0 5 20 0 2001 99 3 4 5 0 12 27 5 2002 88 4 4 6 0 6 32 7 2003 101 5 8 8 0 3 17 5 2004 145 23 23 17 0 17 47 3 2005 186 12 4 9 0 2 28 4 2006 215 22 21 21 0 27 71 14 2007 374 91 77 51 6 42 120 36 2008 311 48 35 30 9 22 128 12 2009 205 39 23 18 4 35 53 7 2010 222 30 21 20 2 33 34 8

In English