2019 paper 2 Q2

2(a) The increasing popularity of conservation of historic buildings in Hong Kong will be
controversial in the following respects. First of all, the preservation of historic buildings is a
priority. It was reported that conservation was not given priority by the government. Historic
sites are at the mercy of property developers keen to undertake large, high-priced
developments. Under urban development, some people think economic and livelihood
development is the most important, while others think conservation development is the
most important. The former advocates that economic and people's livelihood development
can improve people's living standards, but also enable Hong Kong's economy to flourish.
Therefore, economic and livelihood development should be more important than the
preservation of historic buildings. For example, in the reconstruction of old areas, such
people would argue that demolishing historic buildings would make it easier to build high-
value houses on the site. On the contrary, the latter believes that the preservation of Hong
Kong's historical and cultural sites is still very important to the city's history and culture, so it
should take precedence over economic development. In the case of the demolition of the
queen's pier, such people would insist that the site be retained, and would rather not
redevelop. Some people believe that the conservation of historic buildings is less important
than the development of the economy and people's livelihood. Others believe that the
conservation of historic buildings is the prerequisite and primary consideration for any
development.

Secondly, the amount of resources to be allocated for the conservation of historic

buildings in Hong Kong is controversial. It was reported that Hong Kong also lagged behind
other places such as Singapore and Guangzhou in terms of conservation, and the
government did not give conservation consideration. Some people believe that the Hong
Kong government should invest more resources in the conservation of historic buildings. If
the government is willing to put more buildings under conservation, acquire private but
historic buildings, such as ho tung garden, or prevent developers from demolishing or
acquiring historic buildings, it is hoped that the Hong Kong government will enhance the
conservation of historic buildings in comparison with the current situation. But some argue
that the resources that the government should invest in preserving historic buildings are
already sufficient. According to information, the revitalization scheme of the old Tai Po
police station was awarded the Asia Pacific award by the United Nations Educational,
scientific and cultural organization in 2016. This shows that Hong Kong's conservation of
historic buildings has gained international recognition and no additional resources need to
be devoted to it. One side thinks the resources are not enough, the other thinks the
resources are enough. The two sides disagree on how much resources should be spent on
conservation.

In addition, there is a debate between the government and the public on the scope
of historical preservation. It was reported that the government should broaden the
definition of heritage to protect historical sites and important cultural sites, including
neighborhood communities such as sham Shui Po. At present, the government is focusing on
the conservation of buildings of unique historical and cultural value, such as lei xinchun,
which is considered to be effective in protecting Hong Kong's historical and cultural
development. However, there is a feeling among the community that the scale of
conservation is insufficient and that it should be extended to some important cultural sites,
such as the sham Shui Po area, which should be preserved even if they have no historical
buildings but a unique cultural atmosphere. The two sides argued over the scope of
historical preservation.

Therefore, the preservation of historic buildings in Hong Kong has aroused

controversy in the above four aspects

2(b) I do not agree that cultural conservation should be given priority in urban
development projects.

As far as tackling the pressing needs of most Hong Kong people is concerned, the
construction of housing should prevail over cultural conservation. At present, Hong Kong
people are very difficult to own a residential property, with public housing waiting times
averaging more than five years, and private property price is at or close to the top of the
world, making it unaffordable for a large group of people to have their own home. This has
made the construction of housing a priority for many people. Therefore, the Government
should build more public housing estates in order to reduce the waiting time, and increase
the supply of private buildings to lower the property price. On the contrary, there is little
public concern on cultural conservation, except sporadic groups or NGO which think that the
Government should strengthen conservation. If the Government gives priority to cultural
conservation over the construction of housing, such as refusing urban renewal in order to
preserve historic buildings, it will not be able to respond to the strong demand of the public
for having their own property and may even make them complain about the Government.
The Government should therefore give priority to construction of housing, such as
constructing a large number of public and private buildings in the old districts. If so, it will be
able to respond to the needs of the public and solve the problem that a large number of
people in the community do not have suitable housing. Therefore, cultural conservation
should not be considered first in urban development, and the public will very likely support
the Government's decision to give priority to construction of housing.

Secondly, in times of bad economic environment of Hong Kong which needs an urgent
change, economic development should take precedence over cultural conservation. Hong
Kong's economic growth has continued to slow down in recent years. Average GDP growth
has not exceeded 5%, and competitiveness continues to lag behind the rapid economic
growth of surrounding cities like Singapore. On the contrary, there is lack of urgency in
cultural conservation. Even if the Government is passive and slow to carry out conservation
work in the next 10 years, there will not be a significant impact on the livelihood and
economic development of Hong Kong. Therefore, if the Government puts economic
development ahead of cultural conservation, such as the demolition of Queen's Wharf,
reclamation and the expansion of the Central Business District, it will create a large number
of job opportunities and enable Hong Kong's business to continue to develop, so that its
economy can continue to grow and avoid falling behind others. On the contrary, the choice
of cultural conservation rather than economic development and the abandonment of
reclamation to conserve Queen's Wharf will lead to a decline in employment and a
slowdown in economic development, which will continue to lag behind other cities in
competitiveness. Cultural conservation should therefore not be a priority in terms of
urgency.
Thirdly, in terms of practical results, economic development should be given priority over
cultural conservation. If the Hong Kong Government puts economic development first, it will
continue to improve the standard of living of our people. For example, the construction of
railway tracks, roads, and other infrastructure can create a large number of employment
opportunities for Hong Kong people. At the same time, investors will have more confidence
to invest in Hong Kong, such as the establishment of branches of banks, and increase the
opportunity for more tasks. The investment will also stimulate Hong Kong's economic
growth, so that the level of GDP and income per capita can be raised, and hence the
standard of living of the public can be increased significantly. On the contrary, the economic
benefits of cultural conservation is small. If Hong Kong puts cultural conservation first, it may
attract more foreign tourists to visit, so that the cultural industry, retail trade, and tourism
business can be benefited. However, such economic benefits will not be effective in
stimulating Hong Kong's economy and the general public as a whole may not be benefited.

So, in terms of practical results, the economic benefits of cultural conservation is not as good
as economic development, and for the purpose of helping the public and the community, no
priority should be given to cultural conservation.