Pressing case for a heritage body to help preserve Hong Kong's past

Heritage has seemingly been a word little heard with the government so focused on housing and economic development. Yet the need for conservation of buildings and places important to Hong Kong's history remains as necessary today as in 2007, when protests over the Star Ferry and Queen's piers in Central prompted officials to promise a rethink of policies. Changes have been made, but they are far from being enough to ensure adequate protection and preservation. That is unlikely to happen without a strong institutional framework, based on legislation and perhaps a properly empowered foundation or trust.

The present approach is piecemeal, largely done on a building-by-building basis by a range of government agencies. No single entity is in charge, making for inconsistencies and uncertainties. The demolition last year of historic Ho Tung mansion on The Peak despite being given last-minute interim monument grading, is telling; so, too, is the inability of the government to find a suitable tenant for the former French Mission Building on Government Hill, also a declared monument. For the former, the issue was the HK$7 billion price tag the owner wanted; in the case of the latter, it is the unknown cost of repairs and renovation that an occupant could face. An independent, well-funded heritage trust designated as a statutory body could resolve such matters.

Whether our city needs such an authority is among questions expected to be included in a planned public consultation on how to preserve private historic buildings. It is an essential element of reviewing our city's heritage policy, but the process has been pushed back to at least the middle of the year by issues seen as more pressing. The matter is not unimportant and must not be further delayed; residents want more from life than simply providing for their families. Being able to enjoy the best of the past gives a sense of belonging, instils civic pride and provides richer living.

That desire has driven the heritage movement and it is why the consultation should not be taken lightly. What is important from our past will remain vulnerable as long as heritage policy remains determined by commercial considerations, cost-saving and raising revenue. Grading buildings, providing grants and subsidies is not enough; an independent entity with financial means and a legislative-backed mandate for all aspects of conservation could well be the solution.