Time is running out for historical treasures
The glossy consultation paper on Hong Kong's cultural heritage asks three basic questions: What do we wish to preserve? How do we want to go about it? Are we prepared to pay what it costs? The response should be obvious: we need to do whatever it takes to protect our rapidly disappearing heritage.
Concern about our collective failure to preserve Hong Kong's physical heritage has existed for decades - and it has grown with every year that has passed. The subject has been debated, studied and featured in numerous reports. Since the 1980s, we have been hearing promises of new government initiatives. But the weak system that patently fails to protect our historical treasures has, nonetheless, remained untouched and unreformed. While the talking continues, so does the destruction. We are running out of time.
Any attempt to introduce new, tougher measures is to be welcomed. But the consultation the government launched yesterday focuses on broad principles upon which consensus is sought. This will take three months. Only then will work begin on the specific measures to be taken. The issues highlighted in the brochure have existed all along. And the emphasis placed on striking a balance between preservation, public expenditure and the interests of property owners, suggests the strong action needed is still a long way off.
It is easy to see how ineffective the current system of supposed protection, now almost 30 years old, has been: just look around. Evidence of our rich cultural and historical past is very hard to find. There are a few notable examples, such as the Legislative Council building and the Court of Final Appeal. Yet, compared with other cities, little effort has been made to conserve and protect. The voracious appetite for development has wiped out much of the historic beauty of our built environment, leaving only a few gems.
According to government figures, 78 buildings, rock carvings, forts and archaeological sites have been declared monuments and therefore have some legal protection. But this is not the case with other vulnerable sites, including more than 400 buildings dating back to before the second world war. Whether they survive is, in practice, up to their owners. The Antiquities and Monuments Office usually only gets involved when it emerges that a particular site is in imminent danger of destruction - and even then just to enter into talks with the owner.
The fate of Kom Tong Hall, for example, remains undecided. This 90-year-old colonial mansion escaped demolition last October, but the scaffolding remains in place while negotiations continue.
A more wide-ranging legal power is required to enable the government to step in and prevent the demolition of historical sites. New measures are needed to encourage owners to comply, perhaps through the introduction of land-swapping schemes or a more extensive means of transferring development rights. There is no reason why commercial interests cannot be reconciled with preservation.
A sensitive approach to development has been used in many other cities - from Sydney to Singapore - enabling old buildings to be protected while also providing public services such as restaurants, hotels, shops and museums. Such protective developments, dating back to the 1970s in some cities, enhance a sense of cultural identity. They are big attractions for sight-seeing, shopping and dining, for local residents and tourists alike.
But most important of all is the need for a determination on the part of the government to step in and protect vulnerable sites. A strong statement of intent was sadly lacking in the document released yesterday. Principles are all very well, but action is needed. The consultation process must pave the way for the swift introduction of practical safeguards.
