20110430 finalized dissertation

8/7/2019 20110430 Finalized Dissertation

1/111

How Can Theories of Policy Process Be Used to Understand

Local Heritage Conservation Policy since the Handover?

Dissertation undertaken in partial fulfillment of the requirements

of the M.A. in Public Policy & Management,

City University of Hong Kong

By

LEUNG YU HIN MICHAEL

Department of Public and Social Administration

City University of Hong Kong

April 2011


2/111

2

Contents

ACKNOWLEDGEMENT ............................................................................................................................5

ABSTRACT ..............................................................................................................................................6

LIST OF TABLES.......................................................................................................................................7

LIST OF FIGURES.....................................................................................................................................7

CHAPTER ONE: INTRODUCTION..............................................................................................................8

1.1BACKGROUND................................................................................................................................................81.2STUDY GOAL &RESEARCH QUESTION...............................................................................................................8

1.3METHODOLOGY .............................................................................................................................................91.3.1 Theoretical Frameworks ...................................................................................................................9

1.3.2 Literature Review ..............................................................................................................................91.3.3 Local News, Publication & Internet................................................................................................10

1.3.4 Interview..........................................................................................................................................101.3.5 Survey on Local Media Coverage ...................................................................................................10

1.4STRUCTURE OF THE STUDY.............................................................................................................................11

CHAPTER TWO: DEFINING HERITAGE, CONSERVATION, AND POLICY ...................................................13

2.1HERITAGE....................................................................................................................................................132.2CONSERVATION............................................................................................................................................14

2.3POLICY........................................................................................................................................................16

CHAPTER THREE: ANALYTICAL FRAMEWORKS......................................................................................18

3.1DAVID EASTONS POLITICAL SYSTEMFRAMEWORK (PSF) ..............................................................................183.1.1 Premises & Basic Notions ...............................................................................................................183.1.2 Variables ..........................................................................................................................................19

3.1.2.1 Essential Variable ......................................................................................................................................193.1.2.2 Input ...........................................................................................................................................................193.1.2.3 Output........................................................................................................................................................20

3.1.3 Hypotheses ......................................................................................................................................203.2SABATIERS ADVOCACY COALITION FRAMEWORK(ACF) ................................................................................21

3.2.1 Premises & Basic Notions ...............................................................................................................213.2.2 Variables ..........................................................................................................................................22

3.2.2.1 Belief system..............................................................................................................................................223.2.2.2 Stable Exogenous Variables......................................................................................................................233.2.2.3 Fluid Exogenous Variable..........................................................................................................................233.2.2.4 Constrains and Resource ..........................................................................................................................24

3.2.3 Hypotheses ......................................................................................................................................243.3KINGDONS MULTIPLE STREAMS FRAMEWORK (MSF)......................................................................................25

3.3.1 Premises & Basic Notion.................................................................................................................253.3.1.1 Ambiguity...................................................................................................................................................253.3.1.2 Temporal Sorting .......................................................................................................................................26


3/111

3

3.3.1.3 Visible and Hidden Participants................................................................................................................263.3.2 Variables ..........................................................................................................................................26

3.3.2.1 Three Streams............................................................................................................................................26

3.3.2.2 Policy Entrepreneurs.................................................................................................................................283.3.3 Hypotheses Coupling & Policy Window......................................................................................28

CHAPTER FOUR: ORIGINAL CONSERVATION POLICY.............................................................................30

4.1LEGISLATION,REGULATIONS &GUIDELINES .....................................................................................................304.1.1 Antiquities and Monument Ordinance (A&MO)...........................................................................304.1.2 Graded Historical Buildings ............................................................................................................314.1.3 Environmental Impact Assessment Ordinance (EIAO)..................................................................324.1.4 Planning-related Laws and Regulations........................................................................................324.1.5 Urban Renewal Legislation.............................................................................................................354.1.6 Other Laws and Regulations ..........................................................................................................35

4.2INSTITUTIONS ..............................................................................................................................................374.2.1 Antiquities Authority & Heritage Policy Bureau............................................................................37

4.2.2 Antiquities Advisory Board (AAB) & Antiquities and Monuments Office (AMO) ........................384.2.3 Planning-related Institutions..........................................................................................................39

4.2.4 Urban Renewal Authority (URA) ....................................................................................................404.2.5 Chief Executive (CE) and Executive Council (ExCo)........................................................................414.2.6 Legislative Council (LegCo) and District Council (DC) ...................................................................414.2.7 Other Establishment Bodies ...........................................................................................................43

4.3PRESSURE GROUPS,PROFESSIONAL &ACADEMICS ...........................................................................................444.4FUNDING ....................................................................................................................................................46

4.4.1 Government Funds ..........................................................................................................................46

4.4.2 The Hong Kong Jockey Club Charities Trust (HKJCCT)...................................................................464.4.3 Lord Wilson Heritage Trust.............................................................................................................47

4.5SUMMERY ...................................................................................................................................................47

CHAPTER FIVE: CHALLENGES & DEMANDS ...........................................................................................51

5.1THE EXECUTIVE AND LEGISLATURE ..................................................................................................................51

5.2PUBLIC OPINION ..........................................................................................................................................565.3PRESSURE GROUPS,PROFESSIONAL &ACADEMICS ...........................................................................................615.4WAYS OF ADVOCACY ....................................................................................................................................675.5MAJOR CRISES .............................................................................................................................................69

5.4.1 Kom Tong Hall & Morrison Building .............................................................................................69

5.4.2 Central Police Station Compound (CPSC).......................................................................................735.4.3 Queens Pier.....................................................................................................................................75

5.5SUMMERY ...................................................................................................................................................78

CHAPTER SIX: POLICY CHANGE.............................................................................................................79

6.1FROM REVIEW TO INITIATIVES........................................................................................................................79

6.2ORGANIZATIONAL RESTRUCTURE....................................................................................................................826.3NEW CONSERVATION MEANS........................................................................................................................836.4RESOURCE ALLOCATION ................................................................................................................................876.5INACTION POLICIES.......................................................................................................................................886.6SUMMERY ...................................................................................................................................................89


4/111

4

CHAPTER SEVEN: CONCLUSION ............................................................................................................90

REFERENCE CITED.................................................................................................................................92

APPENDIX ..........................................................................................................................................101


5/111

5

Acknowledgement

I hope to express my sincere gratitude to my supervisor, Dr. Mark Hayllar, for his kind and

detailed guidance and warm support on my research. I thank Mr. Roy Ng Hei Man, Senior

Campaign Officer of the Conservancy Association, to be my interviewee providing me

much variable information. I would also like to thank Department of Public and Social

Administration as a whole for its support for me to finish this dissertation.

I want to thank my supervisors and colleagues, especially Mr. George Li, Mr. Vincent Lam and

Miss Gigi Chung in Home Affairs Department, and Mr. Hill Cheung, Miss Ida Lee and Mr. Kai

Cheung in Registration and Election Office, for their help, support and tolerance given. These

are essential for me to rush this demanding dissertation. I would also thank for encouragements

from my MAPPM coursemates.

Taking this chance, I would like to express my thanks to my family and friends. Without their

understanding and support, I cannot finish the task at all. I am always grateful to have a

supportive family allowing me to concentrate on my study. And I must thank my girlfriend,

Miss Mandy Ieong who always supports me. Lastly I would also thank Sharpskiers and other

friends who have given me help and encouragement in the period.


6/111

6

Abstract

Heritage conservation in Hong Kong has been a controversial subject of policy since its

handover in 1997. Throughout the 2000s, numerous construction projects and demolitions of

historical buildings were hindered by conservation movements. And the Government has altered

its heritage policy to respond to the new challenges faced. This paper hopes to study related

policy processes of the issue. Three policy theories, namely Easton s Political System Theory,

Sabatier s Advocacy Coalition Framework, and Kingdon s Multi-Stream Theory, would be

adopted as frameworks to analyze originally existing heritage policy, recently emerging

challenges faced by the Administration, and the decision of policy changes. Considering

strengths and limitations of different theories, selected suitable framework would be applied to

different components of the policy area to synthetically and comprehensively understand local

heritage conservation policy. And in this study, Information, statistics, quantitative surveys, an

interview to pressure groups, and cases as examples are used.


7/111

7

List of TablesTable 1: Combination of Keyword for Media Coverage Search .................................................. 11

Table 2: Questions and Answers of Public Survey on Review of Heritage

Conservation Policy, on 2004/05/23 ......................................................................................60

Table 3: Pressure Groups participated in heritage conservation advocacy ..................................61

Table 4: Donations of HKJCCT for Conservation Project since 2003 ......................................... 64

Table 5: Reporting of Major Local Press on 28 July 2007 for the Hunger Strike ....................... 68

Table 6: Policy Innovations announced by the Administration in the late 2007 .........................82

Table 7: Financial Arrangement of Projects in Revitalizing Historic Buildings

through Partnership Scheme ..................................................................................................85

List of FiguresFigure 1: No. of Chinese Articles with Keywords of "Conservation," "Preservation,"

or "Protection"..........................................................................................................................16

Figure 2: No. of English Articles with Keywords of "Conservation," "Preservation," or

"Protection" .............................................................................................................................. 16

Figure 3: No. of Questions or Motions about Heritage Conservation Raised in LegCo ............. 53

Figure 4: No. of Chinese Articles with Designated Keywords (in Linear Scale) ........................57

Figure 5: No. of English Articles with Designated Keywords (in Linear Scale)......................... 57

Figure 6: No. of Chinese Articles with Designated Keywords (in Log Scale) ............................ 58

Figure 7: No. of English Articles with Designated Keywords (in Log Scale)............................. 58


8/111

8

Chapter One: Introduction

1.1 Background

Heritage Conservation in Hong Kong has become a heated and controversial topic in the

last decade. The Government of Hong Kong Special Administrative Region ( the

Government ) and private developers have faced massive opposition in their

development projects. Because of economic development, infrastructure constructions

and urban redevelopments, built heritage has been threatened under demolitions for

decades. However, since the handover, these projects were hindered by emergingconservation movements in which stakeholders including local residents and politicians

started participating in heritage conservation advocacy, anti-demolition demonstrations

and public education. Emerging pressure groups for conservation grew in civil society.

And Hong Kongers have showed increasing awareness and consensus on heritage

conservation. The Government altered its policy in response to these challenges. This

essay is written to examine relevant policy processes for understanding the policy

changes. On other words, this essay will discuss under the emerging challenge from

civil society, how local heritage conservation policies changed since the 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. Statistics, information, survey and interview findings about heritage

conservation will be examined based on suitable policy frameworks. Second, the issue,

as an emerging policy agenda, is crucially related to future development and renewal of

the city, and to some extent to local public administration. The trend is that rising

pressure groups and conservation campaigns fighting for a more comprehensive and

effective conservation policy will probably continue in the foreseeable future, so this

study hopes to help public administrators better understanding and considering heritage

issues for their policy making. On the other hand, it is a pure research instead of a

policy-oriented research. This preliminary study is planned to understand local heritage


9/111

9

conservation policy. For practical or detailed policy advices, further researches for

applied policy recommendations should be conducted.

The core research question of the study is to find out reasons for changes in local

heritage conservation policy since 1997. Theories on policy processes will be applied as

frameworks to analyze those changes. No single framework is expected to analyze the

whole policy or all related policy changes, instead, respective strengths of frameworks

were chosen for analyzing different parts of the issue. As this paper is intended to study

the 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 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.1 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 Antiquities Advisory Board or to certain heritage

issues were accessed through library or internet.

1 Elinor Ostrom, Governing the commons:the evolution of institutions for collective action, Cambridge

University Press, 1990, 39-41


10/111

10

1.3.3 Local News, Publication & Internet

This research to a considerable extent have 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 articles 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 Service Department. In this survey, unsurprisingly only local

newspapers and presses were included. Full list of local presses covered was attached in

Appendix II.

Eight combinations of keywords both in Chinese and English were selected to be input

into the database. The keywords were 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:


11/111

11

Table 1: Combination of Keyword for Media Coverage Search

In English In Chinese

"monument" ""

"monument" + "conservation" "" + ""

"monument" + "preservation" "" + ""

"monument" + "protection" "" + ""

"monument" + "revitalization or reuse" "" + " /"

declared monument(s)

"historical building(s)" ""

"graded historical building(s)" "*"

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 heritage

and conservation, with some peaks in several years during the crisis of Kom Tong Hall

in 2002, redevelopment of Central Police Station Compound in 2004, and demolition of

Queen s Pier in 2007. Although there was no measure to exclude irrelevant news articles,

such as travelling features and translated reporting on foreign heritage, a limited number

of such articles were found, 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. The complete result of the survey is attached in

Appendix III, and further discussion will be in following chapters.

1.4 Structure of the Study

The study will be divided into following six chapters. The second chapter will define

key concepts in the study, such as heritage, conservation and policy. The consistent

definitions will provide basis for effective researches and discussions. It is especially

necessary in this paper, in which certain concepts and terms are abstract and ambiguous.

Examples include heritage, conservation and sustainable development.


12/111

12

In Chapter Three, analytical policy frameworks will be introduced. Basic assumptions,

central notion and major components of Sabatier's Advocacy Coalition Theory,

Kingdon's Multi-Stream Theory, and Easton's Political System Theory will be explained.

This chapter also will serve as a literature review of policy process theories.

In Chapter Four, originally existing conservation policy will be study, to provide basic

understanding for further discussions. In this part, related legislation, institutions,

funding arrangements, and interactions among different actors will be examined with the

three analytical frameworks.

In Chapter Five, recent challenges on local heritage conservation will be analyzed.

Emerging challenges and demands since the handover, such as changes in political

atmosphere, public opinion, civil society, will be identified and discussed with

substainal examples.

In Chapter Six, the frameworks will be applied to analyze the government's heritage

policy changes in the last decade. Alternations of conservation policy including

restructure of organization, introduction of new conservation means and resources

allocation will be introduced and discussed based on the frameworks.

In the Conclusion, the result of the study will be summarized. Reason for alternations on

local heritage conservation policy will be synthesized and strengths and weaknesses of

frameworks applied will be compared.


13/111

13

Chapter Two: Defining Heritage, Conservation, and Policy

Several key concepts including heritage, conservation, and "policy" will be clarified

before going into the body of this research. It is especially necessary in this paper, in

which some concepts including heritage and conservation are abstract and

ambiguous.

2.1 Heritage

In general, heritage broadly refers to anything, cultural and natural, and tangible and

intangible, inherited from the past. Howard argues that things need to be recognized as

heritage, so identification is essential.2 This study focuses on physically identifiable

built historical heritage in Hong Kong only, and to limited mainly to historical buildings

under the same legal, institutional, funding and administrative framework. It is more

possible to understand this issue, rather than the more extensive policy concerning

natural and intangible heritage. Lichfield refers to built heritage as "hardware aspect of

heritage," which is physically existing, visible, and easily identified. He suggests three

kinds of built heritage: Monuments, Buildings and Sites.3

In Hong Kong, buildings are

the most common form of built heritage and more frequently exposed to the threats

raised by redevelopment projects or other works.

Jokilehto adopts the idea in the Venice Charter (an international charter for conservation

and restoration) that 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 that the value of a heritage item depends

on its authenticity which is the basic principle and guideline in the Venice Charter.4

Based on the Venice Charter, the Australian International Council on Monuments and

Sites Charter for Places of Cultural Significance 1999, or the Burra Charter, states

2 Howard, Heritage management, interpretation, identity, Continuum International Publishing Group,

(2003) 63 Lichfield, Economics in Urban Conservation, Cambridge: Cambridge Universtiy Press, (1998)4 Jokilehto, History of Architectural Conservation, (1986) 6-9


14/111

14

heritage is an entity with aesthetic, historic, scientific, social or spiritual value for

past, present or future generations. And the value of heritage "is embodied in the place

itself, its fabric, setting, use, associations ..." It supports that a built heritage means more

than the building itself, but includes its surrounding environment, function, and other

related objects. (Art 1.2) Jokilehto also argues to the need to include entire historic areas

instead of single buildings.5 Nonetheless, the Charter accepts that heritage "have a range

of values for different individuals or groups." (Art 1.2) 6 In 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 MonumentOrdinance (A&MO) lacks a detailed definition of heritage, 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 have become influential among the public. In the media coverage survey, it is

shown that the term conservation is replacing preservation and protection.

Regarding the trend, this study adopts the boarder definition of heritage in The Burra

Charter. Namely, 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)7 The Burra Charter embraces

an even wider meaning of conservation to include all processes to take care of a place

5 Jokilehto, History of Architectural Conservation, 8,96 The Australian International Council on Monuments and Sites (ICOMOS), Charter for Places of Cultural

Significance 1999 (Burra Charter), 1999, accessible via http://australia.icomos.org/wp-

content/uploads/BURRA_CHARTER.pdf, p.27 Agnew, Neville, Demas, Martha, "Principles for the Conservation of Heritage Sites in China". Getty

Conservation Institute, 60.


15/111

15

for retaining its historical value and cultural significance. Both documents show

conservation goes beyond preserving physical fabric and appearance of buildings,

instead, it included steps to retain historical and cultural values by all means. It further

urges conservators to keep environmental settings, 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 with

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 more

important than the former one.8 This research also adopts this definition of conservation

which tries to keep all related elements unaltered. A cautious approach to change aslittle 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, and not only

architecture.9 This research reflects this boarder sense of conservation concerning

policy on built heritage, because as mentioned it became more accepted from the public.

In the 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. In both

Figure 1 and 2, the term conservation (in blue) was found less used than

preservation (in red) and protection (in yellow) until the mid 2000s. Since then, the

frequency of using conservation soars in a largest degree, and becomes the most

popular one among the three terms. It showed the public turned to more accept

conservation than preservation or protection as in handling heritage.

8 Larkham, Conservation and the City, London: Routledge, (1996) 859 Cohen, Urban Conservation, Cambridge, (Mass: MIT Press, 1999) 13


16/111

16

Figure 1: No. of Chinese Articles with Keywords of "Conservation," "Preservation," or "Protection"

Figure 2: No. of English Articles with Keywords of "Conservation," "Preservation," or "Protection"

2.3 Policy

Policy, in this paper, refers to the public policy of heritage conservation in Hong Kong.

In Jenkins work on public policy in 1978, he defined policy as:


17/111

17

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.10

In local sense, heritage conservation policy is the Government s decision of actions to

conserve or of inaction, with 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 thepaper.

On the other hand, local heritage issue is basically a regulatory policy, with no

connection to distributive or re-distributive issues. Traditionally the public viewed

heritage conservation as a trade-off from development which mainly means

constructions and commerce in the past. Changes on the concept of models of

development, e.g. the sustainable development which requires more balance on

environmental, social and cultural factors, provide local society larger rooms to discuss

and reform heritage conservation policy, which is considered more positive and essential

in the last decade.

10 W.I. Jenkins, Policy Analysis: A Political and Organizational Perspective (New York: St. Martin's Press,

1978) 15


18/111

18

Chapter Three: Analytical frameworks

Three analytical frameworks are applied in this study. They are chosen with reference to

important features of science. 11 Although not all of them fulfill criteria for scientific

theories including clearly defined variables and hypotheses, and falsifiable hypotheses,

as mentioned, they are suppose to act as frameworks, requiring less 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 the three frameworks are internally

consistent. The Premises, basic notions, variables, and hypotheses of the systems of

three chosen analytical frameworks will be introduced as following.

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 help analyze local heritage conservation policy.

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

11 Charles Lave and James March, An introduction to Models in the Social Science (New York: Harper &

Row, 1975)


19/111

19

intensity of people s demands to the authority 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.12

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-societalenvironments 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 political

system. Disturbances cause stress to the system, forcing it to respond, although there are

also neutral and even positive disturbances. To maintain existence itself, Easton

emphasizes that most political systems can respond to stress.13

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

variables," 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 respond to stress keeping essential variables

within a critical range.14

3.1.2.2 Input

12 David Easton, The Political System An Inquiry into the State of Political Science, New York: Alfred A.

Knopf, Inc., 1953, 201-205, 309-316

David Easton, A System Analysis of Political Life, New York:John Wiley & Sons, Inc., 1965, 17, 1813 Easton, A System Analysis of Political Life, 21-2514 Easton, A System Analysis of Political Life, 23,24


20/111

20

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.15

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 respond 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, and less

concerned with empirical and case-specified analysis. Therefore, he directly adopts the

concept outputs of the authority, skipping the 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. 16

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 - feedback - re-output" continues, and

15 Easton, A System Analysis of Political Life, 25-2716 Easton, A System Analysis of Political Life, 27-29


21/111

21

called it a feedback loop. Therefore a political system is not in a status quo, instead, it

is continuously dynamic.17

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-stopchanging.

3.2 Sabatier s Advocacy Coalition Framework (ACF)

Another analytical tool in this study is Paul A. Sabatier and Hank C. Jenkins-Smith s

Advocacy Coalition Framework, which has been widely applied in OECD cases.18

3.2.1 Premises & Basic Notions

Sabatier s ACF based on five basic premises, first, to emphasize the role of technical

information in the process of policy change. Second, in time perspective a decade or

more is needed for understanding policy change. Third, policy subsystem is the most

useful unit to analyze policy change. Forth, journalists, researchers and policy analysts

and active actors at all level of government are added onto traditional notion of iron

triangles, administration, legislature and interest groups. And finally, the belief system

matters.19

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

17 Easton, A System Analysis of Political Life, 27-3318 Paul A. Sabatier and Hank C. Jenkins-Smith, The Advocacy Coalition Framework: Assessment in

Theories of the Public Process, ed. Paul A. Sabatier, (Oxford: Westview, 1999), 117,11819 Sabatier and Jenkins-Smith, The Advocacy Coalition Framework, 118-120


22/111

22

the policy. And advocacy coalitions, in which their members share a set of policy beliefs

and engage in coordinated activity over a period of time, exist 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 to a third group of actors between coalitions, may mediate and find

reasonable compromises to reduce intense conflict. This activity will lead to

governmental programmes, which then affect the environment and may cause coalitions

to revise their beliefs or to alter their strategies. Sabatier also argues for the importance

of interaction among coalitions, and emphasizes belief system of policy elites underwhich 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.

3.2.2 Variables

Variables in ACF are grouped into three categories, policy subsystem, exogenous

variables, and constraints 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 abilities. 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 a belief

system is a crucial element inside a coalition. The belief systems of a coalition are in a

hierarchical tripartite order. Deep core beliefs are basic normative and ontological

beliefs influencing all policy subsystems, which are difficult to change. Secondly,

policy core belief refers to normative commitments and causal perceptions across an

entire policy subsystem. Sabatier regards policy core beliefs as the 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


23/111

23

a period of time, but it will change over time following the changes in external

environment and after obtaining more evidence. Thirdly, is the secondary aspect the

comprises a set of subsystem-wide beliefs regarding seriousness of a problem, relative

importance of causal factors in a specific case, and policy preferences concerning

desirable regulations or budgetary allocations.20

3.2.2.2 Stable Exogenous Variables

Exogenous variables in an 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.21

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.22

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 coalitions, policy decisions and impacts from

other subsystems. Sabatier argues these variables are a critical prerequisite to major

policy change. 23

20 Sabatier and Jenkins-Smith, The Advocacy Coalition Framework, 130-13521 Sabatier and Jenkins-Smith, The Advocacy Coalition Framework, 12022 Ibid23 Sabatier and Jenkins-Smith, The Advocacy Coalition Framework, 120-121


24/111

24

3.2.2.4 Constrains and Resource

Most changes in exogenous variables will affect constraints and resources and then as aresult affect subsystems. Resources of coalitions and their actors in a policy subsystem

are influenced by constraints and resources in the environment.24

3.2.3 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 and Jenkins-Smith, The Advocacy Coalition Framework, p.124)

Sabatier s ACF is also a general theory possibly to be applied to 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

24 Ibid


25/111

25

common belief system, among coalition members and external perturbation. And

hypotheses are clearly set, so falsifiability and applicability as an analytical framework

in this study, can be easier tested.

3.3 Kingdon s Multiple Streams Framework (MSF)

The final framework is provided by Kingdon s multiple streams theory, explaining pre-

decision processes including agenda setting and alternative specification. It is

considered as a unique comprehensive model of agenda setting.25 Unlike the previous

two frameworks, it does not intend to examine the decision making or output of asystem.

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. Cohen,March, and Olsen s explains three general properties: problematic preference, unclear

technology, and fluid participation in organized anarchies.26

First, people fail to define

goals. Nikolaos Zahariadis adds that politicians are forced by time constraints to make

decisions without clearly defining their preferences.27 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 ideas 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

25 Robinson, N. The Politics of Agenda Setting: The Car and the Shaping of Public Policy, UK: Ashgate

Publishing Limited, 2000.26 Nikolaos Zahariadis, Ambiguity, Time and Multiple in Theories of the Public Process, ed. Paul A.

Sabatier, (Oxford: Westview, 1999), 72-7427 Nikolaos Zahariadis, Ambiguity, Time and Multiple, 75


26/111

26

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.28

3.3.1.2 Temporal Sorting

Due to ambiguity, definition of problem is vague and probably shifting, hindering the

separation of 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.29

Nikolaos Zahariadis argues, in MSF, individuals

are assumed as less capable to choose an issue they hope to solve, but are more

concerned about the multitude of problems.30

3.3.1.3 Visible and Hidden ParticipantsKingdon 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 that policymakers pay attention to some problems

28 Kingdon, J.W, Agenda, Alternatives and Public Policies. 2nd ed. (New York: HarperCollins College,

1984), 8929 Peter Drucker, The Effective Executive (New York: Random House, 1967), 25; R. Alec Mackenzie,

The Time Trap (New York: AMACOM, 1972) 230 Nikolaos Zahariadis, Ambiguity, Time and Multiple, 75,76


27/111

27

instead of others, as these conditions are defined as problems. He writes 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 something to change them. 31 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. 32 People to certain extent subjectively consider a

problem with their own values. This element decides which conditions become seen as a

problem while others do not.

In the policy stream, public policy proposals are formed and developed in the policycommunity 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. 33 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 values 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 are concerned and prefer to ignore others. Campaigns of pressure groups provide

politicians with opportunities to formulate an image of balancing support and opposition,

leading to the prominence or obscurity of the issue. Turnover of key positions in the

administration, probably after elections, has an effect 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.

31 Kingdon. Agenda, Alternatives and Public Policies. 19832 Kingdon. Agenda, Alternatives and Public Policies. 11033 Nikolaos Zahariadis, Ambiguity, Time and Multiple, 76-78


28/111

28

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.34 They use their time and energy

to educate the public thus keeping the 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.35

Policy entrepreneurs must seize the chance of policy windows to initiate actions,

attaching the problem to their proposed solution and seeking politicians to accept their

idea. The chance to enter the policy agenda will dramatically rise, if the three streams of

a problem are coupled by entrepreneurs on time.

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. 36 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, the

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.37 Kingdon

consider policy decisions as collective output by several factors, and therefore

information among the system affects choices. Compared with Easton s ignoring the

34 Kingdon. Agenda, Alternatives and Public Policies. 17935Kingdon. Agenda, Alternatives and Public Policies. 12836 Kingdon. Agenda, Alternatives and Public Policies. 16537 Robinson. The Politics of Agenda Setting:, 2000.


29/111

29

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.38 It is

competent to explain non-incremental policy change.39

38 Kingdon. Agenda, Alternatives and Public Policies. 21939 Mucciaroni, G.. The Garbage Can Model and the Study of Policy Making: A Critique, Polity, Vol. 24,

No. 3, (1992 ) 459-482.


30/111

30

Chapter Four: Original Conservation Policy

Before going on to examine the policy changes, it is necessary to review the originally

existing conservation policy. 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 Advisory 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 case it is

only for 12 months, from damage, alternation and demolition. One of the major

criticisms to A&MO is its vague definition. Zhao Shao-zan, a famous local

archaeologist, criticized that its power to preserve heritage is insufficient. It does not

clearly define a heritage to be legally protected under the Ordinance, and this weakness

causes difficulty for preserving local heritage, especially on private lands.40 With the

vague definition in A&MO, only those heritage or sites the Antiquity Authority

regarded as historically or architecturally important would be declared as a monument,

receiving legal protection. Under this circumstance, many buildings, with known

historical or cultural value, were not accepted by the Authority while no measures for

enabling participation or appeals are provided to the public and AAB.

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


31/111

31

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 reference for conservation works. The 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.41 No financial assistances were provided to

private owners as well. On the other hand, the grading system introduced from the 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.

41 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


32/111

32

4.1.3 Environmental Impact Assessment Ordinance (EIAO)

In 1998, EIAO (Cap. 499) was enacted to avoid and control adverse impacts of

designated projects on the environment, and it addressed project-specific and site-

specific environmental requirements. 42 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 heritage 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. 43 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 heritage such as graded buildings, are classified as sites of

cultural heritage in normal 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 a statutory body, the Town Planning Board (TPB) and provides

legal status for statutory plans. Any building works not in accordance to the plans or

without TPB s permission are prohibited. (Sect. 3&4) Although no designated zoning

42 LegCo, Paper for the House Committee meeting on 10 January 1997 Report of the Bill Committee onEnviromental Impact Assesment Bill LegCo Paper No. CB(1) /96-97Ref : CB1/BC/20/9543

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.


33/111


34/111

34

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 control the 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

areas where built heritage were threatened by urban redevelopment. Under the

Ordinance, Buildings Department issued their Conservation of Historic Buildings:

Practice Note for Authorized Persons, Registered Structural Engineers and RegisteredGeo-technical Engineers for restoration and renovation practice for built heritage.

48But

according to Building Ordinance, there is no power to stop demolitions of built heritage.

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 Building laws hinder conservation to certain built

heritage. The 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

heritage. 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 of "Wo Cheong" pawn shop, a pre-war

tenement house, a distinctive wooden staircase was demolished in according to the

modern standard of the Ordinance.49

48Buildings Department, Conservation of Historic Buildings: Practice Note for Authorized Persons,

Registered Structural Engineers and Registered Geo-technical Engineers, 2009, accessed via

http://www.bd.gov.hk/english/documents/pnap/signed/APP069se.pdf49 Hong Kong Economic Journal, New Fire Safety Guidelines Should be Made for Old Buildings (

), 2005-11-15


35/111

35

4.1.5 Urban Renewal Legislation

Land Development Corporation Ordinance (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 as

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 Urban Renewal Authority Ordinance

(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

heritage. 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 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),50 regulations and circulars like

Procedures for EIA of Development Projects and Projects, 51 also play a role in

50 Country Park Ordinance (Cap. 208) empowers 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 laid in a Country Park. Antiquities and

Monuments Section, Urban Services Department, Report of the Antiquities Advisory Board, Government

Printer, Hong Kong, 1979, p.7


36/111


37/111

37

4.2 Institutions

The role of institutions of heritage conservation is important, because they are privileged

in their position to formulate and implement the policy. Most of following are

organizations respectively empowered by related laws with their own unique roles to

implement the conservation policy.

4.2.1 Antiquities Authority & Heritage Policy Bureau

Until 2007, Secretary for Home Affairs (SHA) from Home Affairs Bureau (HAB), wasthe 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 overseeing 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 suggest moving AMO under Housing, Planning and Lands Bureau for introducing

heritage conservation zone and increasing efficiency. 53 They argued that without

necessary coordination, heritage will be exposed and threatened by commerce and

development. They also criticized the Authority for ignoring advices from AAB. For

example, the government sold the land of Murray House to Bank of China in 1982,

despite being advised by AAB to declare it as a monument since mid-1970. The removal

of the Tsim Sha Tsui Railway Station for building Hong Kong Cultural Centre in 1984

was another example that SHA tends to execute the Administration s plan rather than

serve to conserve local heritage. The Authority was also criticized as he rarely used the

power declare a historical building as a monument or a proposed monument if no

agreement was given from its owner.

53 Wen Wei Po, Antiquities should be preserved in Town Planning and Renewal (

), 1999-12-14


38/111

38

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.54

Historical Buildings and Structure Committee among the

three committees under the Board is responsible for built heritage conservation and

grading advices.55 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 unclear criteria for CE to appoint

members of AAB. This will be discussed in the conservation movement for Queen s

Pier in the next chapter.

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

2002.56 In an AAB meeting in 2005, the problem of shortage of manpower and services

affected were raised. 57 And for the budget, it was $17 million and $27 million

respectively. With this sharp increase, however, for AMO it was still woefully

inadequate. 58 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

54 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 members including theChairman 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.2855 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.2356 Leisure and Cultural Services Department, AMO leads way in heritage preservation, February 24,

2002, www.lcsd.gov.hk/en/ppr_release_det.php?pd=20020224&ps=02)57 Antiquities Advisory Board, , Minutes Of The Open Session Of The 121st Meeting, AAB/4/2005-0658 Leisure and Cultural Services Department, AMO leads way in heritage preservation, February 24,

2002, www.lcsd.gov.hk/en/ppr_release_det.php?pd=20020224&ps=02)


39/111

39

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.59

4.2.3 Planning-related Institutions

More than one organization were responsible for town planning in the late 1990s. In the

Government, planning related policy bureau,60 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 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 plan regulate land use. First column of the notes states "uses always permitted"

while the second column states "uses that may 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

59 Cody, "Heritage as Hologram: Hong Kong after a Change in Sovereignty, 1997-2001," 200260 Planning and Lands Bureau until 2002, Housing, Planning and Lands Bureau from 2002 to 2007, and

Development Bureau since 2007


40/111

40

six months. Ng Ka Chiu, an academic in planning, also criticized that the existing TPB

lacks representativeness on heritage issues, 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.61

4.2.4 Urban Renewal Authority (URA)

The URA was 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

resources. 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 2000. 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 be 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.62 It committed that this preservation project

was feasible and financially feasible. 63 The Market was declared as a monument in

1990s only after the ExCo agreed to the plan. This case once again showed the

61 Ng Ka Chiu, Town Planning Ordinance Cannot Save Heritage (), The Sun,2004-08-1862 South China Morning Post, requiem for Central site, 25 April 198163 Kwan Nok Chan, Institutions, Policy Networks and Agenda Setting: Heritage Conservation in Hong

Kong, 1970-1997, (Mphil diss, Hong Kong University, 2010)


41/111

41

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.

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 the

Governor, meets with 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

decisions related to heritage conservation reach neither the Governor nor the CE. The

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. This is unlike for statutory plans where the CE would with 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. The LegCo Finance Committee also approvesthe budget of the government which includes the part of capital expense that may relate

to constructions threatening local heritage. 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.

20110430 finalized dissertation

Documents