The trouble with Hong Kong’s toothless heritage policy

Heritage conservation fosters a strong sense of belonging and ownership, and strengthens people’s sense of responsibility towards their city and fellow residents. People around the world are uniting in honouring collective memories, as is evident from the growing awareness of and demand for heritage conservation (“Are churchyards no longer a haven for trees in Hong Kong?”, January 24).

Lamentably, local heritage conservation is hindered by current government policy. There is clearly a lack of strong commitment to heritage conservation. The government has failed to preserve heritage sites like Ho Tung Gardens, and though it has managed to save sites like King Yin Lei mansion, this has happened only at the last minute and under strong public pressure.

The current heritage policy is not thorough. Only declared monuments are subject to statutory protection, while historic buildings graded in a three-tier system are not. Many of these graded heritage sites happen to be private properties, of which the right of ownership is protected under the Basic Law. No legal restrictions prevent the owners from making any alteration or even demolishing the buildings.

In the case of a historical building in private hands, the owner can object to the government’s plan to preserve the building or site. If the owner refuses to comply, the government can purchase the site or propose a land swap, but the owner might not be willing to cut a deal.

There has been much controversy over the grading system adopted by the Antiquities Advisory Board, and the choice of appointees to the advisory body has sometimes drawn criticism, raising doubts as to whether the board will work according to established rules rather than a hidden government preference concerning heritage issues.

Adrian Lam, Taikoo