Finalized Dissertation

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 MI CHAEL
Department of Public and Social Administration

City University of Hong Kong
April 2011
Contents
ACKNOWLEDGEMENT ............................................................................................................................5
ABSTRACT ..............................................................................................................................................6
LIST OF TABLES.......................................................................................................................................7
LIST OF FIGURES.....................................................................................................................................7
CHAPTER ONE: INTRODUCTION..............................................................................................................8
1.1 BACKGROUND................................................................................................................................................ 8
1.2 STUDY GOAL & RESEARCH QUESTION ............................................................................................................... 8
1.3 METHODOLOGY ............................................................................................................................................. 9
1.3.1 Theoretical Frameworks ................................................................................................................... 9
1.3.2 Literature Review .............................................................................................................................. 9
1.3.3 Local News, Publication & Internet................................................................................................10
1.3.4 Interview..........................................................................................................................................10
1.3.5 Survey on Local Media Coverage ...................................................................................................10
1.4 STRUCTURE OF THE STUDY.............................................................................................................................11
CHAPTER TWO: DEFINING HERITAGE, CONSERVATION, AND POLICY ...................................................13
2.1 HERITAGE....................................................................................................................................................13
2.2 CONSERVATION............................................................................................................................................14
2.3 POLICY ........................................................................................................................................................16
CHAPTER THREE: ANALYTICAL FRAMEWORKS......................................................................................18
3.1 DAVID EASTON ’S “POLITICAL SYSTEM” FRAMEWORK (PSF) ..............................................................................18
3.1.1 Premises & Basic Notions ...............................................................................................................18
3.1.2 Variables..........................................................................................................................................19
3.1.2.1 Essential Variable ......................................................................................................................................19
3.1.2.2 Input ...........................................................................................................................................................19
3.1.2.3 Output ........................................................................................................................................................20
3.1.3 Hypotheses ......................................................................................................................................20
3.2 SABATIER’S “ADVOCACY COALITION FRAMEWORK ” (ACF) ................................................................................21
3.2.1 Premises & Basic Notions ...............................................................................................................21
3.2.2 Variables..........................................................................................................................................22
3.2.2.1 Belief system..............................................................................................................................................22
3.2.2.2 Stable Exogenous Variables ......................................................................................................................23
3.2.2.3 Fluid Exogenous Variable..........................................................................................................................23
3.2.2.4 Constrains and Resource ..........................................................................................................................24
3.2.3 Hypotheses ......................................................................................................................................24
3.3 KINGDON’S MULTIPLE STREAMS F RAMEWORK (MSF)......................................................................................25
3.3.1 Premises & Basic Notion.................................................................................................................25
3.3.1.1 Ambiguity ...................................................................................................................................................25
3.3.1.2 Temporal Sorting .......................................................................................................................................26
2
3.3.1.3 Visible and Hidden Participants................................................................................................................26
3.3.2 Variables..........................................................................................................................................26
3.3.2.1 Three Streams............................................................................................................................................26
3.3.2.2 Policy Entrepreneurs.................................................................................................................................28
3.3.3 Hypotheses – Coupling & Policy Window......................................................................................28
CHAPTER FOUR: ORIGINAL CONSERVATION POLICY.............................................................................30

4.1 LEGISLATION, REGULATIONS & GUIDELINES .....................................................................................................30
4.1.1 Antiquities and Monument Ordinance (A&MO)...........................................................................30
4.1.2 Graded Historical Buildings ............................................................................................................31
4.1.3 Environmental Impact Assessment Ordinance (EIAO)..................................................................32
4.1.4 Planning-related Laws and Regulations ........................................................................................32
4.1.5 Urban Renewal Legislation.............................................................................................................35
4.1.6 Other Laws and Regulations ..........................................................................................................35
4.2 INSTITUTIONS ..............................................................................................................................................37
4.2.1 Antiquities Authority & Heritage Policy Bureau............................................................................37
4.2.2 Antiquities Advisory Board (AAB) & Antiquities and Monuments Office (AMO) ........................38
4.2.3 Planning-related Institutions..........................................................................................................39
4.2.4 Urban Renewal Authority (URA) ....................................................................................................40
4.2.5 Chief Executive (CE) and Executive Council (ExCo)........................................................................41
4.2.6 Legislative Council (LegCo) and District Council (DC) ...................................................................41
4.2.7 Other Establishment Bodies ...........................................................................................................43
4.3 PRESSURE GROUPS, PROFESSIONAL & A CADEMICS ...........................................................................................44
4.4 FUNDING ....................................................................................................................................................46
4.4.1 Government Funds..........................................................................................................................46
4.4.2 The Hong Kong Jockey Club Charities Trust (HKJCCT)...................................................................46
4.4.3 Lord Wilson Heritage Trust.............................................................................................................47
4.5 SUMMERY ...................................................................................................................................................47
CHAPTER FIVE: CHALLENGES & DEMANDS ...........................................................................................51
5.1 THE EXECUTIVE AND LEGISLATURE ..................................................................................................................51
5.2 PUBLIC OPINION ..........................................................................................................................................56
5.3 PRESSURE GROUPS, PROFESSIONAL & A CADEMICS ...........................................................................................61
5.4 WAYS OF ADVOCACY ....................................................................................................................................67
5.5 MAJOR CRISES .............................................................................................................................................69
5.4.1 Kom Tong Hall & Morrison Building .............................................................................................69
5.4.2 Central Police Station Compound (CPSC).......................................................................................73
5.4.3 Queen’s Pier.....................................................................................................................................75
5.5 SUMMERY ...................................................................................................................................................78
CHAPTER SIX: POLICY CHANGE.............................................................................................................79
6.1 FROM REVIEW TO INITIATIVES ........................................................................................................................79
6.2 ORGANIZATIONAL RESTRUCTURE ....................................................................................................................82
6.3 NEW CONSERVATION MEANS ........................................................................................................................83
6.4 RESOURCE A LLOCATION ................................................................................................................................87
6.5 INACTION POLICIES .......................................................................................................................................88
6.6 SUMMERY ...................................................................................................................................................89
3
CHAPTER SEVEN: CONCLUSION ............................................................................................................90
REFERENCE CITED.................................................................................................................................92
APPENDIX .......................................................................................................................................... 101
4
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.
5
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.
6
List of Tables
Table 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 Figures
Figure 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
7
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 emerging
conservation 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
8
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
9
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:
10
Table 1: Combination of Keyword for Media Coverage Search
In English In Chinese
"monument" "古蹟"
"monument" + "conservation" "古蹟" + "保育"
"monument" + "preservation" "古蹟" + "保存"
"monument" + "protection" "古蹟" + "保護"
"monument" + "revitalization or reuse" "古蹟" + "活化 / 再利用"
“declared monument(s)” “法定古蹟”
"historical building(s)" "歷史建築"
"graded historical building(s)" "*級歷史建築"
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.
11
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.
12
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) 6
3
Lichfield, Economics in Urban Conservation, Cambridge: Cambridge Universtiy Press, (1998)
4
Jokilehto, History of Architectural Conservation, (1986) 6-9
13
“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 Monument

Ordinance (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, 8,9
6
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.2
7
Agnew, Neville, Demas, Martha, "Principles for the Conservation of Heritage Sites in China". Getty
Conservation Institute, 60.
14
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 as
little 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) 85
9
Cohen, Urban Conservation, Cambridge, (Mass: MIT Press, 1999) 13
15
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:
16
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 the
paper.
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
17
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)
18
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-societal
environments 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, 18
13
Easton, A System Analysis of Political Life, 21-25
14
Easton, A System Analysis of Political Life, 23,24
19
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
16
20
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-stop
changing.
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
18
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), 117,118
19
Sabatier and Jenkins-Smith, “The Advocacy Coalition Framework,” 118-120
21
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 under
which 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
22
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
21
Sabatier and Jenkins-Smith, “The Advocacy Coalition Framework,” 120
22
Ibid
23
23
3.2.2.4 Constrains and Resource
Most changes in exogenous variables will affect constraints and resources and then as a
result 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
24
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 a
system.
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), 72-74
27
Nikolaos Zahariadis, “Ambiguity, Time and Multiple,” 75
25
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 Participants

Kingdon 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), 89
29
Peter Drucker, The Effective Executive (New York: Random House, 1967), 25; R. Alec Mackenzie,
The Time Trap (New York: AMACOM, 1972) 2
30
Nikolaos Zahariadis, “Ambiguity, Time and Multiple,” 75,76
26
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 policy
community 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. 198
32
33
Nikolaos Zahariadis, “Ambiguity, Time and Multiple,” 76-78
27
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
35
36
37
Robinson. The Politics of Agenda Setting:, 2000.
28
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
39
Mucciaroni, G.. The Garbage Can Model and the Study of Policy Making: A Critique, Polity, Vol. 24,
No. 3, (1992 ) 459-482.
29
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
30
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
31
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-
42
specific environmental requirements. 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 on
Enviromental Impact Assesment Bill LegCo Paper No. CB(1) /96-97Ref : CB1/BC/20/95
43
“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.
32
category for built heritage is outlined in the Ordinance, TPB is supposed to consider
declared monuments in drafting or approving revisions of statutory plans. These
heritages are shown in explanatory statements of statutory plans, but not in zoning
categories. Land owners who disagree with the TPB's decision can seek reassessment
and appeal in an independent committee, Appeal Board Panel (Town Planning). (Sect.
17) TPO is not drafted to cover heritage conservation, and lacks a designated zoning
category for heritage; people also criticize this for its weakness to conserve an area of
heritage. In early 1990s, the administration reviewed the legislation and recognized this
problem, which is that “there is no control over the built environment surrounding the
monument.” The review suggested to introduce “Special Design Area” (SDA) on a
statutory plan to preserve a “area of special architectural or historical interest.” Planning
permission should be required for any developments. 44 However it has not been
introduced till the Millennium. In 2007, a conservation group, Heritage Watch,
criticized that SDA was not in Town Planning (Amendment) Ordinance 2004.45
The Hong Kong Planning Standards and Guidelines (HKPSG) is a planning manual
published by the Planning Department for planners to determine location, scale and site
requirements for land uses and facilities. In 1994, issue of conservation was separated
from “development,” and conservation use zone and an extensive definition of heritage
conservation started to be included in the Guideline.46 It defines “declared monuments,
historic buildings, sites of archaeological interest and other heritage items” as well as
“local activities, customs and traditions” as heritage to be conserved. It guides planners
to conserve the wider urban and rural setting in order to conserve a heritage in the real
sense. Measures including protection, conservation and revitalization to appropriate
heritage are suggested. (Sect. 10) 47 HKPSG provides detailed guidelines. However, the
sequence of large scale crises for local heritage conservation showed its limitation.
44
Planning, Environment and Lands Branch, Government Secretariat, Hong Kong, "Comprehensive
Review of the Town Planning Ordinance, Executive Summary," 1991, 12
45
Heritage Watch, "Built heritage conservation," 2007, CB(2)1666/06-07
46
Successive amendments to the section of conservation are general updates or updates to title of
Departments and Bureaus
47
Planning Department, Hong Kong Planning Standards and Guidelines List of Key Amendments in
Reverse Chronological Order, http://www.pland.gov.hk/pland_en/tech_doc/hkpsg/full/hkpsg_amend.htm
33
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 Registered
Geo-technical Engineers” for restoration and renovation practice for built heritage.48 But
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
48
Buildings 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.pdf
49
Hong Kong Economic Journal, “New Fire Safety Guidelines Should be Made for Old Buildings” (古老
建築宜定新消防建築指引), 2005-11-15
34
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
35
conserving built heritage in Hong Kong. Other examples include “Statutory Gazetting of
Public Works Projects in parallel with the Environmental Impact Assessment
Process.”52 They play a role on local heritage conservation, though in a smaller scale,
probably limited inside certain areas or projects, or within the governmental institutions.
In ACF, these legislations and regulations are a kind of stable exogenous variable
outside the policy subsystem. According to Sabatier, constitutional and legal framework
for policy process is regarded as difficult to change, especially in a power-separated
political structure as Hong Kong. A&MO, the major legal framework for heritage
conservation has not been amended since its enactment. Legislation of URAO is to
replace the inefficient LDCO enacted in the mid-1980s. Legal framework for heritage
conservation in TPO and Buildings Ordinance were rarely amended. As Sabatier claims,
these legislation and subsidiary regulations are stable factors. For non-statutory
regulation, guidelines, and internal circulars of the Government, they are subject to
amendments more frequently as they were easier to be revised. They should be regarded
less stable. Although other stable parameters, such as basic distribution of natural
resources and fundamental social-cultural value are not covered here, according to
Sabatier, these factors are less changeable and rarely lead to policy change. In fact,
distribution of natural resources is definitely unrelated to the change of heritage policy
in the last decade, and there was not such kind of changes in the city. For the policy
decision and impacts from other subsystems, the enactment of EIAO was basically to
fulfill the demand of natural environmental protection, but it includes the requirement of
assessing cultural heritage which helps the coalition for heritage conservation in another
policy subsystem.
51
“Procedures for EIA of Development Projects and Projects” regulates government project especially for
those not restricted as a designated project under EIAO. The circular provides guideline and procedure for
assessing non-designated government works on or near historical monument. Planning, Environment and
Lands Bureau Technical Circular No. 10/98
52
Environment, Transportand Works Bureau, Works Bureau Technical Circular No. 33/2001
36
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), was
the 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” (城規重建應保留古
物), 1999-12-14
37
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
57
affected were raised. 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 the
Chairman 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.28
55
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.23
56
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/4/2005-06
58
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)
38
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," 2002
60
Planning and Lands Bureau until 2002, Housing, Planning and Lands Bureau from 2002 to 2007, and
Development Bureau since 2007
39
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” (城規條例未能挽救古蹟), The Sun,
2004-08-18
62
South China Morning Post, “requiem for Central site,” 25 April 1981
63
Kwan Nok Chan, Institutions, “Policy Networks and Agenda Setting: Heritage Conservation in Hong
Kong, 1970-1997,” (Mphil diss, Hong Kong University, 2010)
40
“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 approves
the 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.
41
The administration and developers tend to consult related Councils for major works in
order to minimize disputes and protests from local residents, although it is not a
statutory requirement. LegCo and DCs have basically retained the same power as in the
colonial period.
For the changes in systemic governing coalition, it is to some extent considerable in the
late colonial period because of the local political reforms. Although the Governor
retained his executive power constitutionally and actually, his control over the
legislature and municipal administration was under challenge. For example, in a LegCo
panel meeting on Planning, Lands and Works in 1997, some Councilors blamed the
Government for the delay of two redevelopment projects of LDC and forced it to speed
up.64 After the handover, however it is obvious that the People’s Central Government
keeps controlling the electoral method of CE and most of seats in LegCo in the
foreseeable future. In this sense, the coalition of pro-Beijing parties, with supports from
the business sector, in fact maintain the governance after the handover in the late 1990s.
While although political and governing structure remain stable since the handover, for
the political stream in MSF, however, nominal elections and changes of office in local
pseudo-democratic political system also leads to changes in the stream. For example, in
various elections, such as the CE and LegCo elections, political programs of parties
include claims for heritage conservation. CE Donald Tsang also emphasized new
heritage conservation initiatives in his election platform in 2007.
In PSF, there are three subsystem, political community, regime and authorities. As a
single policy issue, heritage conservation in Hong Kong is insufficient and less valuable
to be used to discuss all inclusive components, such as political community and the
authority of a regime which affect the system as a whole and influence single issue less
obviously. For instance, political value refers to values and ideology, and the authority is
the model of allocation and execution of power, and roles of actors within the system.
The research has not intended to explore far beyond local conservation issue, so the
following discussion focuses on components closely related to heritage policy. Regime,
64
Minutes of Meeting of LegCo Panel on Planning, Lands and Works, PLC Paper No. CB(1) 189, Ref:
CB1/PL/PLW/1PLC Paper No. CB(1)189 , Ref: CB1/PL/PLW/1, 11/6/1997,
42
as a subsystem in PSF, is an operative mechanism of the system or, as Easton calls,
“rules of game.” Most members in the system accept the regime and regard activities in
accordance with it are legitimate. In PSF, political value, political norms and the
authority constitute a regime. Legislation, regulations, guidelines and other related
customs for local conservation policy should be regarded as political norms. Laws such
as A&MO, EIAO and TPO, subsidiary laws, regulations and guideline such as HKPSG
and governmental circulars for works constitute the existing political norm. With these
components, there are generally accepted procedures or arrangements for local heritage
conservation. At least most citizens agree with his norm. The authorities refer to the
owner of the authority of the regime, being responsible for daily administrative tasks. In
the case of this study, institutions including AAB, AMO, TPB, URA and Planning
Department, are parts of the authorities of the political system. The CE, being appointed
by the Central People’s Government of PRC, is definitely the constitutional and actual
authorities in the region. AAB, AMO, TPB, URA and Planning Department are either
governmental departments or CE appointed boards and committee. Bureaus and
departments in the former cluster were definitely parts of authorities. AAB, TPB and
URA in the latter cluster are public organizations which also serve administrative
functions. To a large extent, according to Easton, they are regarded as authorities. On
the other hand, as these organizations execute their power and perform their duties in
accordance with the legislation mentioned above, in addition to the be a part of
authority of regime, they are also in-dividable with the political norm of the regime.
4.2.7 Other Establishment Bodies
Other government departments such as Architectural Services Department and the

Government Property Agency also play a role in heritage conservation.65 As mentioned,
the Antiquity Authority, then SHA, does not direct many of these department or
coordinate with relevant boards and committees. In fact, for related advisory and
statutory bodies, only AAB, and Board and Council of the Lord Wilson Heritage Trust
were under purview of SHA. Various departments under different bureau, taking up
65
A group of professionals and technicians in Antiquities Section of Architectural Service Department is
assigned to work with AMO on maintenance and restoration projects. It also maintains, restores and
repairs historical buildings.
43
heritage conservation duties, to some extent causes difficulties in co-ordination,
fragmentation of conservation priorities and duplicated efforts.
4.3 Pressure Groups, Professional & Academics
Pressure groups play roles in the policy formulation to certain extent. David B. Truman
defines a pressure group as “a shared-attitude group that makes certain upon other
groups in society” acting through government institutions.66 Since the late 1970s, some
pressure groups such as Conservancy Association (CA) and Hong Kong Heritage
Society advocated to preserve cultural heritage which includes built historical heritage.
Heritage Society, was active in the 1970s and 80s to keep Murray House on the place
where currently occupied by the BOC Tower.67 They also joined to conserve Former
Marine Police Headquarters Compound in this period. A 50-sheet-long report, including
an academic research on microclimates in the district, jointly from pressure groups was
sent to the Government. In the end, no further action was taken by the Administration
until the Marine Police moved to their new headquarters in the late 1990s.68
Until the 1990s, local pressure groups advocated their demand for a better conservation
policy by moderate ways, such as approaching the Administration and petition. In the
above example of Marine Police Headquarter, a research report was submitted to the
Government for consideration. In the demolition of Kowloon Railway Station, the
Heritage Society made a petition to then Governor with other organizations, such as
History Society of Hong Kong, Hong Kong Institute of Architects, Royal Town
Planning Institute and Heung Yee Kuk.69 After being rejected, the Society collected
15,000 signatures from citizens and made another petition to London. These strategies
of pressure group were moderate and less relied on the media either to promote their
arguments or to win public support. Most of these organizations were professional
groups of architects and town planners, while other pressure groups were also comprised
by professionals in different field. For example, Hung Wing Tat, a professor in Civil and
66
Truman, The Governmental Process (New York, Alfred A. Knopf,1951), 37
67
Alano, Rita. “Heritage Society calls for preservation of barracks,” Hong Kong Standard, 1977
68
Chan, W.K., The Making of Hong Kong - 40 years champion for the environment (2008) 37-38
69
South China Morning Post, “Strong public support to keep KCR buildings,” 3 August 1977
44
Structural Engineering, and Lai Kwong Tak, a civil engineer, were Directors of CA. In
some occasions, institutions such as Heung Yee Kuk, a statutory advisory body
representing indigenous inhabitants in New Territories, and Urban Council, a semi-
democratically elected municipal assembly, participate in the conservation movement.
However, there were limited grassroots, community-based pressure groups. While
Heritage Society became inactive in the 1990s, as CA claims in its official website, it
“had been a lone voice” in historical heritage conservation for many years.70
Based on ACF, in the policy subsystem of heritage policy, two advocacy coalitions are
formed, one by the conservators including above groups, the other one was from part of
bureaucrats and business groups advocate development. They have contesting policy
beliefs. The above paragraphs briefed the emergence of the conservation coalition
comprised by pure conservation groups, academics and professionals, though the scale
and influence of them were still limited. The “development” coalition considered
conservation would limit the potential of development and were afraid that changes in
related policy may restrict economic activity and the room for making profit. According
to Sabatier, members of their coalition hold similar policy beliefs, and as a hypothesis of
ACF, they show substantial consensus on issues pertaining to the policy core, although
less so on secondary aspects. To a large extent, groups in conservation coalition share
the same thought that heritage conservation is more important and beneficial than
development. The hypothesis is also valid that most of mentioned group joined in
several major conservation movements such as Murray House, Kowloon Railway
Station, and former Marine Police Headquarters Compound. To be understood in MSF,
pressure groups are policy entrepreneurs outside the government investing resources to
promote their agendas and to advocate own policy initiatives. 71 While the streams
necessary for opening the policy windows were not joined until the 1990s, the existence
of policy entrepreneurs with disjointed streams were not sufficient to bring policy
changes.
70
Conservancy Association, "Heritage Conservation and Sustainable Development," accessed via
http://www.conservancy.org.hk/heritage/mainE.htm on 2011/02/28
71
Kingdon, Agenda, Alternatives and Public Policies.179
45
4.4 Funding
4.4.1 Government Funds
Except relevant staff cost paid by the recurrent account, funds for restoration and repair
of heritage are prepared in the capital account of the Government. Leisure and Cultural
Services Department (Head 95) was responsible for restoring and repairing heritage.72
However, as most of other practices and arrangements on heritage, only declared
monuments entitled to be restored or repaired by these funds. No regular assistance is
offered to maintain graded historic buildings, except those owned by the Government.
One of the examples is the restoration to Tao Fung Shan from a fire hazed in 1999. After
a fire burned the religious building, a Graded II historical building, the Government
claimed it was not responsible for the fee of renovation, but just suggested the owner to
try to apply for restoring and repairing funds mentioned above. 73 Comparatively, Lo
Wai, a walled village to be declared as a monument, was funded by the North District
Office to repair its walls in 1991. The enclosing walls and entrance tower of the village
were declared as a monument in 1997.74 Under the limitation of financial resource, the
Government tended to focus on declared monument only. And it showed the funding
arrangement is not standardized.
4.4.2 The Hong Kong Jockey Club Charities Trust (HKJCCT)
HKJCCT was a major source of funding. From 1990 to 1993, then Royal Hong Kong
Jockey Club contributes over $2 millions per year for restoration and repair projects,
mainly to Study Halls and Ancestral Hall in the New Territory. In 1990, the $2 millions
sponsorship to restore Kun Ting Study Hall in Ping Shan, Yuen Long, was even more
than the Government’s funding to all other restoration projects, which was only about
72
Two subheads, Restoration of Monuments (Subhead 653) and Works (Subhead 600) can be used to
restore and repair heritage. The former category is for works under $300,000 and the latter one is for
those over $300,000. As it stated in the notes, Subhead 653 Restoration of monuments is a fund of block
veto to meet the public demand to restore buildings, sites or structures of historical interest. This fund can
be committed for a declared monument under section 3(1) of A&MO or those “deemed to merit
declaration as a monument in special circumstances.”
73
Ming Pao Daily News,“Tao Fung Shan is a Grade II Historical Building,” (道風山屬二級歷史建築),
1999-01-07
74
Leisure and Cultural Services Department, HKSARG, AMO Official Website, accessed via
http://www.lcsd.gov.hk/CE/Museum/Monument/en/monuments_64.php
46
$1.3 millions in sum of three projects. 75 In the late 1990s, AMO employed a
consultation company to study about 8000 buildings to get a comprehensive inventory
and archive for research and education in a programme named "Surveys on Historical
Buildings in Hong Kong” funded $4 million by HKJCCT. 76 AMO planned to start deep
investigation on the selected historical building from 2002.77
4.4.3 Lord Wilson Heritage Trust
Lord Wilson Heritage Trust formed with the Lord Wilson Heritage Trust Ordinance
(Cap 425), aiming to conserve local cultural heritage. The trust relies entirely on
donations. The Trust is under the purview of the SHA. From the establishment of the
trust in 1992 to 2007, there are only two applications approved for practical preservation
of heritage buildings, including two churches. 78 Other applications are related to
research, scholarship, publication, promotion or setting up archive on heritage, instead
of direct preservation of them. Therefore, in a submission from CA for a panel meeting
on Home Affairs in LegCo in 2007, CA urged the Government for "making more use of
the Lord Wilson’s Trust in heritage preservation projects." 79
4.5 Summery
In 1999, then CE Tung Chee-hwa raised in his Policy Address the importance of
heritage preservation: “It is important to rehabilitate and preserve unique buildings as
this not only accords with our objective of sustainable development but also facilitates
the retention of the inherent characteristics of different districts, and helps promote
tourism. The concept of preserving heritage should be incorporated into all projects for
75
Antiquities Advisory Board, Annual Report 1990 & 1991, Appendix III, Annual Report 1992 & 1993
Appendix IV
76
Ming Pao Daily, “600 Old Buildings may Be Declared as Monument Blocking Development,” (6000 幢
舊樓或列古蹟凍結發展), 1999
77
Leisure and Cultural Services Department, HKSARG, “Administration's paper on Surveys on Historical
Buildings in Hong Kong," 2003, CB(2)2879/02-03(01)
78
First Church of Christ, Scientist, Hong Kong, Repairs to the Roof of the Church Building, completed in
1995, Repairs, Restoration and Decoration of the Church Areas, completed in 1999, and St Andrew's
Church, Renovation of the Old Vicarage and Caretaker's House, St Andrew's Church, 09-2001
79
The Conservancy Association, “The Conservancy Association’s Position on Hong Kong’s Built
Heritage Conservation Policy,” 2006, CB(2)1599/06-07(05)
47
redeveloping old areas.” Frankly, before 2000s, originally existing conservation policy
is to minimize protection to certain heritage only, declared monument but not other
historical buildings. No resumption of heritage will considered, and limited regular
funding was provided. And one of conservation principles was to give way to
development, and to prevent financial burden. The weaknesses of specific laws and
institutions have been mentioned above. According to a member of AAB, Dr. Ng Cho-
nam, the problem of local heritage conservation is the priority. It is needed in Hong
Kong to justify the need to protect the heritage from the development, instead of asking
justification of development which threatens heritage.80 However, as have mentioned,
there is limited consensus among the public to preserve most built heritage.
To a large extent, heritage was a top-down policy area. Some professionals or the public
were invited into boards such as AAB and TPB. They can however little affect the
policy, as AAB’s advice to the Antiquities Authority was not necessarily adopted.
Murray House was advised for declaration in 1977 since the setup of AAB, and Hong
Kong Club was advised as well in 1979. 81 However, comparing to those later assessed,
these two strongly recommended built heritage in Central were not declared as statutory
monuments for years, and were then demolished when proposals for redevelopment
existed there. Other actors outside the government, especially in civil society, played a
limited role on the policy. Until 1990s, limited specific pressure groups from the public
are formed, in which CA and Heritage Society were famous conservators since the late
1970s. And many advocators for conservation policy were professional groups. Their
ways of advocacy are moderate and traditional.
For MSF, the three streams in conservation policy were considered to be disjointed in
the late 1990s. For the problem stream, unsurprisingly, no matter the colonial or the
SAR Government denied the problem of heritage conservation and remained the
existing policy. The administration claims that the existing policy is sufficient. And in
fact, there were limited movements to protect the heritage in 1990s. The movement
80
Lam Wing Wah, Agenda Setting of Heritage Conservation Policy in Hong Kong: A Policy Stream
Analysis, (MA diss. University of Hong Kong, 2008)
81
Antiquities Advisory Board, Annual Report 1979, 5,6
48
collecting signature and submitting petition against the removal of Tsim Sha Tsui
Railway Station in the early 1980s is the largest and most organized one. But it was not
considered large in scale. About 10,000 signatures were collected, which was only 1/100
of the movement against the construction of Daya Bay nuclear power plant.82 More
importantly, no further actions taken when the petition was finally rejected. Until 1990s,
it was not regarded as a consensus among the public to preserve local heritage, and this
agenda did not enter the Administration’s policy agenda. In the policy stream or a long
time, policy community encompassed by conservators, academics and professionals
suggest a more comprehensive approach with necessary legal and financial support to
conserve local heritage. However the Government considered most of these proposals
financially unfeasible and unacceptable in value. The colonial government believes that
heritage preservation should not hinder economic development, and should not be a
financial burden. The removal of Murray House for constructing the BOC Tower in the
heart of Central is an example for the former, while the criteria of financially self-
sufficiency for LDC to revitalize Western Market illustrate latter. These policy
proposals contradict policymakers’ value, so they are not considered. For the political
stream, national mood, which should be regarded as a common concern of local citizens
to conserve heritage, was limited. There was not important social movements not matter
for scales or degrees, despite certain petition and social movements such as collection of
signatures emerging. And in this period, pressure groups played a limited role and
advocacy of heritage conservation was poor in progress. Although handover and
turnover of the government may be considered as a favorable factor, then CE Tung has
not taken real move except raised the issue in his policy addresses and set up Culture
and Heritage Commission (CHC), a advisory body only, in 2000.
Nonetheless, situation of Hong Kong is not well applicable to the concept of turnover of
office. In a liberal democracy, in which the executive and legislature with enough
representative and culture of political participation, the major task of policy
entrepreneurs is to mollify the policy community as well as to push the public to accept
their proposal. The Administration and Councilors need to represent their voters,
82
Apple Daily, Radiation Leak found in Daya Bay (大亞灣洩核輻射), 16 Jun 2010
49
especially when they to a large extent reach a consensus. In the late colonial Hong Kong,
although legislative and municipal institutions started democratizing, power of decision
making related to heritage conservation and town planning were in the hand of the
executive. So the entrepreneurs in a policy community need to advocate to the
undemocratic executive power instead of the public in general.
50
Chapter Five: Challenges & Demands
The circumstance for heritage conservation changed in the last decade. Sympatric public
opinion, emerging pressure groups in civil society, changing political atmosphere,
creation of new ways of advocacy, and major conservation crises and movement
brought policy changes to be explained in the next chapter.
5.1 The Executive and Legislature
The establishment was changed in the handover in 1997. The CE appointed by the
Central People's Government replaced the Governor sent from London, but there was no
change in institutional structure for the heritage conservation policy as the change in
source of power. The CE keeps his power of final decision making. ExCo, the advisory
bodies for antiquities and town planning, departments and agencies retained their duties.
The exception was that, in 2001, URA was formed to replace the LDC, and the Principal
Officials Accountability System was introduced in 2002 and organizations of planning-
related departments were restructured.83 URA plays a larger and more important role on
heritage conservation, comparing with its predecessor. In PSF, Easton mention the
political system itself will alter its internal organization to better respond to inputs from
the environment. The case of URA to some extent should be regarded as an example
which planned to deal with difficulties LDC faced. Then CE Tung Chee Hwa introduced
the new Accountability System to tackle the failure to direct the civil service system in
his first term. Generally, these institutional changes were not directly relating to and
thus were less influential on heritage policy.
The turnover of office from Chris Patten to Tung in 1997 brought limited changes on
conservation. Tung started to raise proposal to “review the existing heritage policy and
related legislation for better protection of historic buildings,” in 1999 which was already
two years later. 84 He promoted tourism heritage in 1998 Policy Address, but in a
83
Combining Planning and Lands Bureau and Housing Bureau as Housing, Planning and Lands Bureau
84
HKSARG, Policy Address 1999, 133
51
perspective of economic development but nothing related to conservation. And no
operational proposal for both initiatives was laid down, except to set up CHC. In ACF,
turnover of the CE should be regarded as a change in systemic governing coalition,
which is a dynamic factor affecting the conservation policy subsystem. And it is also a
crucial factor in the policy stream of MSF. Kingdon identifies turnover in the Executive
as a powerful agenda-setter. According to the Basic Law, the term of the CE is five
years and one can serve for not more than two consecutive terms. It is, as Sabatier states,
a changeable variable which is probably changed in a decade. And in fact, since the
handover, Tung served in the office from 1997 to 2005, and Tsang Yam Kuen succeeds
and serves until now. However, as Tung’s inaction on conservation policy in 1997,
Tsang’s succession made no changes to it as well. To understand this in the local context,
the reason should be the lack of any real changes in systemic governing coalition. Under
undemocratic elections, the office of CE was elected by an 800-member election
committee instead of by the public, which made the CE less responsive to demands
about heritage policy. One exception should be the 2007 CE election occur between the
crises of the demolitions of the Star Ferry Pier and Queen’s Pier, and which was the first
contested executive election since the SAR formed. To respond to his rival’s claims on
conservation, Tsang also placed a new view on heritage conservation in his election
platform, and started a new conservation policy in his second term.
For LegCo, as in the late colonial period, there are members returned by universal
suffrage. Unsurprisingly, they are more responsive to the demands from the public.
They started to focus on the heritage issues in this decade, largely directed by, in MSF
terms, the national mood.
52
Figure 3: No. of Questions or Motions about Heritage Conservation Raised in LegCo
Figure 3 shows the number of questions and motions raised for heritage conservation in
LegCo meetings in the last decade. This shows legislators were concerned to the issue in
periods of 2002 to 2004 and 2006 to 2007 during certain “heritage crises.” And to
compare with Figure 4 – Figure 7 for media coverage in the same period, it was found
that trends of the two set of data were similar. It demonstrates the close correlation
between politician’s concern and public opinion. Please also refer to Appendix IV for
the full list of questions and motions raised or moved at LegCo meetings. In related
panels, heritage issues were more frequently raised since the mid-2000s. Subcommittee
on Heritage Conservation was set up under LegCo Panel on Home Affair from 2006 to
2008 for preservation projects including the Nga Tsin Wai Village project and the
Dragon Garden project.85 On the other hand, there have not been any important changes
in composition of the legislature since the handover. The ratio of pro-establishment seats
to pro-democratic seat is stable. The production method of LegCo keeps largely
unchanged although the seats returned from the election committee were abolished and
seats of geographical constituencies increased to 30 in 2004. Constantly the pro-
establishment camp holds over 60% of seats and controls the legislature. Moreover,
85
LegCo, "Subcommittee on Heritage Conservation - Terms of Reference," accessed via
www.legco.gov.hk/yr07-08/english/panels/ha/ha_hec/general/ha_hec.htm
53
according to the Basic Law, members of LegCo are restricted and cannot introduce and
bills affecting public expenditures and all private bills needs passages from both
geographical and functional constituencies. These restrictions limit the influence of
LegCo on policy changes. One of the changes in legislature was that, the pro-
establishment camp turned to be less supportive to the Administration since 2003. Pro-
establishment camp, including The Democratic Alliance for the Betterment and Progress
of Hong Kong (DAB), supported the legislation of Article 23 which was objected by
general public. It aroused a massive demonstration on 1 July, and the legislation in the
end was cancelled and DAB met its Waterloo in DC Elections in late 2003. The
Chairman of DAB, Tsang Yok Sing resigned for the defeat and stated that the party
should review its relationship with the Government. The Government has needed to
make more effort on lobbying for its controversial projects since then.
DCs are less important and influential than LegCo, not only because they are district
assemblies, but also because they do not process legislative or municipal administrative
powers. Only limited financial power is provided to DCs which might help renovation
works for local heritage. As a demand to the political system, DCs’ resolutions to certain
projects, such as objections to developments, had little impact on the administration.86
However, as a local cultural and planning issue, heritage conservation has been one of
the district councilors’ concerns. Local residents were always affected by the demolition
of heritage and the redevelopment, so DCs and councilors participated in conservation
movements more frequently and actively. In the incident of Kom Tong Hall, district
councilors of DAB and Democratic Party organized petitions and demonstrations,
instead of raising the issue to LegCo level. Democratic Party members only raised the
issue in the legislature for criticizing the financial arrangement after the movement. 87
Comparatively, most local heritage issue entered the agendas of DCs. The
administration and developers tend to consult “representatives of local residents” for
major works in order to minimize disputes or to show adherence to due procedures,
86
The Government keeped the route plan of Sha Tin – Central Link unchanged, despite Wong Tai Sin
District Council reaching a concert to complain for demolishing local heritages. The Sun, DC discontent
with downgrading to Tai Hom Village heritages, (區會不滿大磡村兩寶降評級), 2009-09-23
87
Ming Pao Daily News, “Councilors discontent for bypassing LegCo” (議員不滿繞過立會), 2004-02-
22
54
though it is not a statutory requirement. In December 2009 and May 2010, Wong Tai
Sin DC was respectively consulted for keeping a few pre-war heritage sites on the
proposed route of the Shatin to Central Link,88 and for preserving remains of Lung Tsun
Stone Bridge, a structure built in 1870s and serviced until Japanese occupation, for the
Kai Tak Development Project.89 In March 2009, AAB consulted the 18 DCs for their
opinions on proposed grading on historical buildings. Yung Chi Ming, an Islands DC
member, criticized the AMO for unreasonable grading to a temple in Cheung Chau.
Vice-Chairman of Central & Western DC, Chan Chit Kwai argued the nontransparent
grading cause difficulties for owners to manage their properties and urged for setting up
an appeal mechanism.90 During the public consultation for reviewing heritage policy,
Democratic Party, DAB and Civic Party met with departments and the Administration in
the review. DCs, especially Central & Western and Sham Shui Po DCs, also approach
the Government and submitted written opinions. It is understandable that councilors in
these two old inner city districts were more concerned on local heritage.91
In PSF, both LegCo and DC members should be considered as gatekeeper to regulate

demands. As Easton argues, politicians and political party are definitely gatekeepers in
democratic systems.92 In Hong Kong, although the legislature is semi-democratic and
limited in power, they convert wants to demands pressing the authority to act. Both
LegCo and DCs are controlled by pro-establishment camp, but as there were elected
councilors who needed to be responsible for their voter, pro-heritage resolutions were
possible in some cases, like motion not intended to have legislative effect. For example,
Wong Tai Sin DC objected to the demolition of Nga Tsin Wai Village in 2003. In early
2007, the motion for establishing a monuments conservation fund, formulating codes for
88
Secretariat of Wong Tai Sin District Council, Minutes of the 18th Meeting on 21.9.2010, accessed via
http://www.districtcouncils.gov.hk/wts_d/english/doc%202008-2011/3_DC%5BM18%5D_e.pdf
89
Civil Engineering and Development Department, "Public Participation on conserving Lung Tsun Stone
Bridge, Kai Tak Developmemt Project," 2010, WTSDC paper 26/2010
90
The Sun, “Grading on Historical Buildings are criticized unreasonable” (歷史建築評級被轟不合理),
2009-06-09
91
LegCo, Minutes of special meeting held on Friday, 20 April 2007, LC Paper No. CB(2)2585/06-07
92
Easton, A System Analysis of Political Life, 95
55
the evaluation of social benefits and enhancing public participation was carried. 93
Although these resolutions were not legislation or statutory requirements, the
Administration faced pressure via the Medias and public opinion, and therefore needed
to consider LegCo’s and DCs’ response during policy making. For sensitive motions,
like the one to preserve Queen’s Pier in mid-2007, 16 pro-establishment legislators from
functional constituency joined to object and only two of them abstained. In Queen’s Pier
Crises, the Administration kept alternative opinions in consulting DCs making 14 DCs
vote for the demolition. Scholars and legislators blamed the Government tamper DCs to
"create public opinion,"94 At the same time, with “strictly political roles” of politicians
including both legislators and district councilors, their demands for conservation totally
fit into the definition of “withinputs” in PSF. 95 Though political powers outside the
“authority” are limited, both kinds of councilors are regarded as part of local political
system playing certain roles in “political community” and “regime.” And their demands
were formed through political activities like questions and motions rose in Councils or
demonstration organized by parties. These withinputs as demands entered and led stress
to the system and the authority.
5.2 Public Opinion
In PSF, public opinion, as “a set of attitudes on matters of public importance or

concern,” stimulate and shape demands for the system. The strength of public opinion
and how it reflects a readiness to act are important to determine the demands.96 The
changing concern was also in the previously mentioned survey of coverage on local
media. Chinese and English articles with keywords about heritage conservation sharply
increase since 2002, and reached their peak in 2007. For all combinations of keywords,
there was a general trend of increase. In years of 2002, 2004 and 2007, frequencies of
coverage soared making peaks on the general trend. Several controversies in order over
93
LegCo, Official Record of Proceedings, 17 January 2007, p96-98, 156-158, via
http://www.legco.gov.hk/yr06-07/chinese/counmtg/floor/cm0117-confirm-ec.pdf
94
Olga Wong & Joyce Ng, "'Rubber stamp' council lashed over pier vote". South China Morning Post, 24
June 2008
95
96
56
Kom Tong Hall, Central Police Station Compound (CPSC) and Queen’s Pier led to
these increase in the number of articles. Respective results on different combinations are
shown as in the following graphs.
Figure 4: No. of Chinese Articles with Designated Keywords (in Linear Scale)
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)
Figure 7: No. of English Articles with Designated Keywords (in Log Scale)
To a large extent that, the number of articles related to specific incidents such as actions
taken to conserve Queen’s Pier and official announcement of graded historical buildings
or declaration of monuments. Basically, news did not necessarily represent concerns of
the general public, but to a considerable extent, the soar on frequency of conservation
58
reporting in commercial presses closely related to audiences’ concerns. And these
increasing reporting can facilitate the public to understand the issue. On the other hand,
in 2007, Hong Kong Youth Association conducted a survey to 500 18-45-aged citizens.
Over 90% of respondent expressed they are concerned with the incident of Queen’s
Pier.97
In addition to level of concern, the research also found the turning of public attitude
towards conservation. In 2001, Youth Research Centre found that local youth were
lacking sufficient concern to local cultural heritage. Respondents supporting “heritage
preservation” and “development” are respectively 46%. In following meeting of focus
groups, interviewees stressed the scarcity of lands in Hong Kong over heritage
conservation.98 In 2004, the Democratic Party conducted a telephone survey with about
700 citizens. More than 60% interviewees preferred non-profit making organizations for
managing the CPSC, and more than 70% hoped to preserve all buildings in CPSC with
no any high-rise buildings to be built.99 In 2007, another survery of the Party for King
Yin Lane “crisis” shown over 70% of interviewees supported the Government taking
over privately owned heritage by transfer of development rights or compensations, and
79% supported to set up an independent institution with financial resource for
conservation.100 A similar result was found by Hong Kong Programme of University of
Southern Queensland. 77.5% of 552 respondent agree to upgrade AMO to be a
independent department for conservation. The Programme also found over 50%
respondents discontented with conservation works to certain heritage, mainly for the
97
The question was “Whether you paid attention to the news of demolition of Queen’s Pier?” (你有否留
意皇后碼頭遷拆事件的報道或消息？) Answer: Yes: 92%, No: 4%,Don’t Know: 4%. Wen Wei Po, (港
青會訪問 500 市民 59%同意政府規劃絕食保「皇碼」半數不認同), 2007-08-13
98
The Centre conducted a territory-wide youth poll between 27 and 30 August 2001 for youngsters
opinion to the Government’s "Hong Kong 2030: Planning Vision and Strategy" consultation. 531 youths
aged between 15 and 27 were randomly selected and interviewed via telephone; the success rate being
56%. 37 respondents with the same age range took part in four interview sessions between 7 and 11
August 2001. Youth Research Centre, “A Study on Young People's Vision on Hong Kong's Planning and
Development Strategy,” in Youth Study Series No. 25, Sept 2001, http://yrc.hkfyg.org.hk/eng/ys25.html)
99
Hong Kong Daily News, Over 70% of Citizens Hope to Conserve Heritage (逾七成市民盼保留古蹟),
Hong Kong News, 2004-11-08
100
Hong Kong Economic Journal, 70% of Citizens Support the Government to Take Up Heritage (七成市
民贊成政府收回私人古蹟), 2007-10-04
59
lack of consultation and communication with conservation groups. 101 In the same year,
Hong Kong New Pulse found a similar result in their survey.102
HAB carried out a review to existing heritage policy in 2004. The Bureau received 150
written submissions with about 500 views. In the official telephone survey, over 90%
out of 3000 respondents agree to conserve local heritage. Other results showed that
heritage conservation is highly valued by the interviewees, as shown in the table below.
Except historical and cultural values, most citizens also believed that heritage can
enhance economic development via cultural tourism. 103 The positive result helps to
conclude for a consensus among the public to conserve local heritage. For funding, over
80% of them agree that the public need to share related costs, and 86% interviewee
support to set up funds and use donations for this purpose.
Table 2: Questions and Answers of Public Survey on Review of Heritage Conservation Policy, on
2004/05/23
Values of Heritage Conservation: Results:
Facilitate sustainable development of traditional culture 94.40%
Enhance cultural tourism, increasing economic incomes 93.90%
Enrich historical depth and visual layers of the city 92%
Construct public area shared by citizens 89.70%
Establish cultural identity and proud 89.70%
101
Ming Pao Daily, 60% of Citizens Agree using Public Fund to Take Up Heritage (六成市民贊成公帑
收購古蹟), Hong Kong News, 2007-10-29
102
The youth organization interviewed over 800 citizens aged form 15 to 40 for the overall policy. Over
40% respondents discontented with the existing policy, and over 60% interviewees thought gradings of
AAB to buildings were not transparent enough.
103
HKSARG, “Summery of Public Survey on Review of Heritage Conservation Policy”
(文物建築保護政策檢討意見調查結果摘要), 2004
60
In MSF, Kingdon stress the “national mood,” as well as the turnover of Office, arguing
they are major factors affecting the political stream. “National mood,” as a situation the
public tend to agree on common lines, in this case a large portion of local citizens agree
to the weakness of the original policy and the need to change it. Officials tend to
respond to this changing mood. If the public reach a consensus, like in this case, the
Government will work to put the issue into agenda. It leads to the change on
conservation policy. This turning of public attitude to conservation is also considered to
help problem recognition in MSF. Among the three frameworks, PSF and ACF are less
suitable for explaining the public concern. In PSF, it is realized as a kind of input,
without separation from other inputs. In ACF, it is considered as an exogenous factor
which Sabatier does not pay special attention to.
5.3 Pressure Groups, Professional & Academics
There are a considerable number of pressure groups emerging in the last decade.
Compared with before, pressure groups other than professional groups increased sharply
since the early 2000s. Pressure groups joined several conservation movements in 2000s
are listed in the following table. Groups participating in conservation might not be
included because their group nature that heritage conservation was not their main
concern, such as environmental groups and redevelopment concern groups.
Table 3: Pressure Groups participated in heritage conservation advocacy

(Professionals, academics, political parties, and groups formed for single issues are excluded)
Eng Name Year of Establishment
The Conservancy Association 1968
Designing Hong Kong Harbour District 2004
SEE Network 2004
Community Cultural Concern 2006
The Dragon Garden Charitable Trust 2006
Local Action 2006
Central & Western Concern Group 2007

61
Professional Commons 2007
Heritage Hong Kong Foundation Limited 2008
Heritage Watch No Data
World City Committee No Data
Wan Chai Heritage Task Force No Data
Community Alliance for Urban Planning No Data

(Source: Official Websites of Organizations)
At the same time, according to Roy Ng Hei Man, Senior Campaign Officer of the
Conservancy Association, there is increasing number of local concern groups, in which
many members are local residents instead of conservators or professionals. They are
closely related to urban renewal projects. H15 Concern Group was set up in the late
2003 in response to URA’s H15 Project to demolish Lee Tung Street. Similar concern
groups were subsequently set up for different redevelopment projects in old districts like
Sham Shui Po and South To Kwa Wan. Think tanks, such as Civic Exchange and
Community Development Initiative, were set up in this decade. Civic Exchange, a
public policy think tank extensively concerning economic, social and political policies,
issued a research report “Saving Hong Kong's Cultural Heritage” in 2002 urging to act
for conserving local heritage. The latter one focused on social and community
development. In some cases, academics and even students also join the conservation
campaign. In the movement to conserve Wan Chai Marktet, teachers and students in
architecture organized educational campaign to introduce the values and features of the
Market to local residents.104
ACF suggest the exogenous variable decide constraints and resources of actors in a
policy subsystem. S.E.E Network was an example. An unstable exogenous variable, the
Sustainability Development Fund originally under the subsystem of environmental
policy, started to operate in 2003 for facilitating local sustainability, affecting the
104
Ta Kung Pao, Wan Chai Residents Hope to keep King Yin Lane (灣仔居民盼保留景賢里), 2004-07-
10
62
resource for actors in the heritage subsystem. The Fund comprehensively comprised the
aspect of cultural sustainability, so S.E.E Network, an actor for promoting the concept
of cultural sustainability, can apply since the first round of the Fund application.105 The
group applied for publishing four issues of SEE Magazine to promote sustainable
development. After that, positive feedback from the community motivates the group to
form a limited company publishing the magazine and promoting sustainability. Since
then, it starts to engage in researches, writings, media service, events and exhibitions
relating to historical buildings, sustainable development and conservations.106
Within the heritage conservation subsystem, policy outputs and then impacts also affect
the resources for actors inside. In addition to the cycle of “policy output - impact on
environment - feedback to (sub)system,” Sabatier, going further than Easton, suggests a
cycle inside a policy subsystem. Easton focuses on inputs and outputs, and regards the
decision process as a “black box.” In contrast, Sabatier explains the operation inside. A
policy output and its impact affect policy beliefs and resources of actors in a policy
subsystem. For resources, the Lord Wilson Heritage Trust and HKJCCT, in the aspect of
finance, play a considerable role. Although limited funds were granted by the former to
the actual restoration or preservation of built heritage, it funded many individuals and
organizations to promote heritage conservation since it was set up in the 1990s.107 These
events, seminars, and other educational programmes helped members in the pro-
conservation coalition to promote their policy core belief to the public. By the late 1980s,
HKJCCT funded for conserving built heritage, though in a relatively small portion.
Since 2004, it sharply increased its funding to conservation programmes, and the details
are shown in the following table. It is because the Government decided to introduce
more conservation programmes, so HKJCCT, as a NPO, become a partner.108 After the
controversy over tendering on CPSC, the Administration assigned HKJCCT for
105
Introduction of Approved Projects - Projects Approved in First Round Call of Applications,
http://www.susdev.gov.hk/html/en/sdf/approvprj.htm
106
Official website, "About SEE - Service," accessed via http://www.project-see.net/en/about/services/
107
Official Website of Lord Wilson Heritage Trust, "Project Approved," accessed via
http://www.lordwilson-heritagetrust.org.hk/project/index.php
108
SDEV’s Speech on Amended Plan of CPSC, accessed via
http://www.info.gov.hk/gia/general/201010/11/P201010110199.htm (Chinese Only)
63
conserving the Compound with its own donation of $1.8 billions to renovate and build
new structures. 109 Instead of HKJCCT itself which is a organization closed to the
Administration, most of the programme funded were carried out by pressure groups, in
fact subsidizing and facilitating them to advocate their conservation proposals.
According to Ng, HKJCCT’s funding to their heritage education centre, Conservancy
Association Centre of Heritage (CACHe), helped their educational and promotional
programmes. CA views education as a long lasting means of advocacy which fights for
public awareness and support. In this case, HKJCCT’s funding to other groups
especially in rival coalition in the subsystem, as a policy output, provided them more
resources to advocate their beliefs.
Table 4: Donations of HKJCCT for Conservation Project since 2003
Amount
Year Organization Purpose
($’000)
03 / 04 / / /
04 / 05 / / /
05 / 06 HKJCCT To fund the development of a digital repository of Hong Kong’s 80000

initiative unique historical and cultural heritage on the Internet
06 / 07 The Conservancy To fund the renovation works at its Centre for Heritage and a three- 7790
Association year community engagement and heritage education programme
07 / 08 St James’ To fund a community education programme on heritage 3890

Settlement preservation and rejuvenation in Wan Chai district for three years
08 / 09 HKJCCT To fund the Central Police Station Compound Conservation and 300000
initiative Revitalization Project – Phase I allocation
09 / 10 HKJCCT To fund the Central Police Station Compound Conservation and 300000
initiative Revitalization Project – Second Phase allocation
(The Hong Kong Jockey Club, Annual Reports: p79, 2005/06. p79, 2006/07. p98, 2007/08. p121, 2008/09.
p113, 2009/10)
109
HKJCCT claimed they started to beware the public concern on heritage conservation. HKJCCT starts
to began to take notice of the general public's interest and concerns over issues related to heritage
conservation in Hong Kong.)(The Hong Kong Jockey Club, Conservation & Revitalisation of the Central
Police Station Compound: A Proposal by The Hong Kong Jockey Club, Report on the Public Consultation
From 11 October 2007 to 10 April 2008, http://www.centralpolicestation.org.hk/wp-
content/uploads/2010/08/Public_Consultation_Report_English.pdf
64
In ACF, Sabatier argues new information causes lasting alternations of thought or
behavioral intention, i.e. policy-oriented learning. Members in a policy coalition seek to
learn more knowledge of the problem parameters and related factors. In the interview
conducted for the paper, Mr. Ng stressed the rise of various pressure groups helped to
complete the discourse for conservation. Different groups in the conservation coalition
supplement the argument of heritage conservation in various perspectives. He illustrated
it by the recent conservation movement for the Government Hill. CA participates on
natural conservation and especially the protection of trees for decades. It stands for
preserving ecologically valuable trees the Government Hill in a large scale, arguing
replanting ornamental trees cannot compensate the harm of removal in ecological value.
Similar contribution of CA was also shown in protecting stone wall trees in Central &
Western District in 2005.110 On the other hand, a number of new conservation groups
formed for new fields, such as impact on public area and identity of the demolition, in
addition to traditional perspectives like architecture and town planning. CA’s stand with
its supporting knowledge joins together with various arguments from other groups,
providing a stronger argument against the redevelopment plan. The emergence of
numerous and diversified pressure groups and think tanks provides new knowledge for
policy-oriented learning in conservation coalition. ACF stress the time needed for
development of policy initiatives in a coalition, because a cycle of “policy formation -
implementation - re-formation” needs at least ten years. It is currently not long enough
to evaluate the learning, since the considerable policy change just started in 2007.
Furthermore, Sabatier assumes an instrumental learning that members in a coalition

learn to know the real world, but perceptually filtering opposing information, to
elaborate their policy belief and further policy objective. However, it may not applicable
to recent movements such as conservation to Lee Tung Street and Queen’s Pier. In these
events, coalition of conservation groups wrote in the media to reject arguments from the
URA or the Administration or formulated their own proposals to integrate development
and conservation. Lee Tung Street, a famous printing street, is covered by URA’s H15
renewal project in Wan Chai. Local residential, merchants and voluntary professionals
Metropolis Daily, “Trees-saving Groups Urge Redefining Heritage” (團體護樹籲重訂古蹟定義), P06,

110
Hong Kong News, 2005-07-11

65
dissatisfied with the project, so they formed the H15 Concern Group in 2003. They
designed and submitted their own redevelopment plan to TPB. Although it was rejected
by TPB, the plan was awarded a silver medal by HKIP. The awards adjudicating panel
111
considered it feasible, “solving development problems by the community.” To
preserve the Queens Pier, various groups including professionals have suggested
alternative plans for the Pier, but all were rejected by the government since the late
2006. 112 These cases have shown how local pressure groups responded to counter
arguments, instead of ignoring them as presumed in ACF. On the other hand, Sabatier
also hypothesizes that “enough professionals from different coalitions” and dominated
professional norms helps policy oriented learning across belief systems.113 However,
though there were considerable professionals participating in pro-conservation coalition,
there was little communication between it and pro-development coalition, and little
cross-coalition learning was found in this period.
These newly established or emerging conservation organizations also contribute in the

policy stream of MSF. In the policy community of conservation, activists, professionals,
academics specialists in these organizations generate new ideas and policy options. By
workshops, research papers and conversations, these groups contributed ideas. For
example, CA issued a paper “Achieving Conservation - A Positive Conservation Policy
for Hong Kong”in 2000 and a position paper “Heritage for the People” in 2003, and
Civic Exchange published its research report “Saving Hong Kong's Cultural Heritage”
in 2002, in which policy options for conservation such as government resumption,
establishment of charitable trusts, transfer of development right and private sector
participation were raised, although not all of them receive serious consideration. For
political stream, pressure groups, as policy enterprises, are supposed to approach
politicians for pushing their proposals. However, according to Ng, CA seldom
approaches local political parties. Ng said, under their limited resource, effectiveness of
lobbying to parties was not good enough, and thus had not been chosen. For fairness,
111
Felix Chan, “Rejected Wan Chai street renewal scheme wins award,” South China Morning Post,
2005-11-12
112
Una So, “Protesters pledge to ramp up fight to save pier,” The Standard, 2007-06-13
113
Sabatier and Jenkins-Smith, “The Advocacy Coalition Framework,” p.124
66
they would meet major parties, including Democratic Party, DAB and Civic Party in
some occasions. The limited influence of parties is understandable in local sense. With
no ruling party and an undemocratically formed LegCo, local political parties have
limited power and influence on policy making. Therefore, the increase of pressure
groups did not lead to more political lobbying and responsiveness
5.4 Ways of Advocacy
New ways of policy advocacy were adopted, in addition to traditional means of research
or position papers, petition and lobbying. One important case was the conservation
movement to Star Ferry Pier and Queen’s Pier by local pressure groups, especially the
Local Action which was set up to protect Queen’s Pier from a similar demolition, after
the Administration’s “strike” to Star Ferry Pier in the late 2006. After the conservation
proposals were turned down by the Administration and the Pier was officially closed,
tens of activists started to occupy it in the late April. It was rather new and perceptually
extreme to the public. Compared with CA’s traditional advocacy ways to organize
campaigns such as Mexican Wave Blue Ribbon movement in Star Ferry Pier and to
write to AAB for requesting to grade Queen’s Pier, Local Action’s way forced direct
action from the Administration and was receive more press coverage and public
attention. On 27 July, three localist started a hunger strike without a time limit set to
protest against the demolition. This was new and eyes-catching in local conservation
movement. Most local newspaper reported it as major local news on the next day with
considerable capacities shown in the table below. LegCo and political party members
soon went to visit the hunger strikers, showing the channeled demand from the Local
Action’s and individual localists’ demand to legislators and politicians.114 SDEV also
responded to the strike immediately, and visited the Pier to meet protesters on 29 July,
These high profile actions shown the action was more concerned by the government.
During the occupation of the Pier, conservator organized various kinds of cultural,
music and art activities attracting citizens to understand the values of the building.
114
Ming Pao Instant News, Audrey EU visit the hunger strikers (余若薇探望 3 名絕食市民), 2007-07-
28
67
Table 5: Reporting of Major Local Press on 28 July 2007 for the Hunger Strike
Presses Pages & Authors No. of Words
Apple Daily A06, Hong Kong News, 1321
Hong Kong Economic Journal P03, Politics and Policies, 1486
Ta Kung Pao A10, Hong Kong News, 606
Sing Pao A07, Hong Kong News, 684
Oriental Daily News A27, Hong Kong News, 948
Sing Tao Daily A16, Hong Kong News, 930
The Sun A08, Hong Kong News, 921
Hong Kong Commercial Daily B02, Hong Kong News, 1141
Wen Wei Po A13, Hong Kong News, 714
Hong Kong Economic Times A14, Social News, 991
Hong Kong Daily News A03, Hong Kong News, 611
South China Morning Post EDT1, EDT, Helen Wu, 315
The Standard A12, Metro, Una So, 480

(Source: WiseNews Database, for the full list of sources please refer to Appendix II)
Another important development was in the new media, precisely, the Internet. “They've
been sending out weekly Internet missives since December of 2006, long, thoughtful
essays about the politics of property, historical preservation, and identity and cultural
memory in Hong Kong.”115 The Local Action and other newly formed pressure groups
adopt Internet to promote their arguments and initiatives. For example, Local Action and
its members published their announcement and criticism on Inmediahk.net, an online
media website allowing everyone to publish articles, except those with discrimination,
personal attack or commercial advertisement. In contrast, according to Ng, CA was
more relied on traditional Medias. Instead, CA relied more on media. They changed
their strategies to write features on media coverage to fight for public concern and
promote understanding on issues. They would contact several local medias in advance
and provide them with featured reporting, for example, they did a feature on the
115
http://daisann.com/2007/06/18/local-action.aspx (25 Feb 2011)
68
abolishment of colonial post-boxes which attracted public concern. Ng said, as an
advocacy group, CA welcomes any form of communications. Because of constraints of
time and resources, and the Government’s willingness to communicate, since the mid-
2000s, they have turned to adopt more media coverage and education to raise public
concern and in turn to press the Administration to act.
And as mentioned, more seminars, workshops and education programme for

conservation were organized. Conservator regarded them as a lasting measure to fight
for public support and in turn to press on the Government.
5.5 Major Crises
As shown in the survey on local presses, the public have paid more attention to heritage
conservation during certain “crises.” In addition to the general trend of increasing
heritage-related articles, the crises of Kom Tong Hall & Morrison Building in 2002,
CPSC in 2004 and Queen’s Pier in 2007 further led to sharp surges in those periods. No
causal relationship between these controversies and the public concern are intended to
be proven, instead, a correlations between them was found in the said media survey.
With these crises, the public paid more attention to and have known more weakness of
local heritage conservation. Furthermore, these “crises” are also related to other factors
mentioned. Numerous pressure groups were formed in the controversies, and their new
perspectives and strategies for conservation heated the events. New and diversified
forms and large scales of protest from these pressure groups also attracted much more
media coverage.
5.4.1 Kom Tong Hall & Morrison Building
Until the late 1990s, most important controversies over heritage are about public owned
buildings, such as Murray House, Tsim Sha Tsui Railway Station, and Western Market.
Since 2000s, however, private owned buildings, including Kom Tong Hall, Morrison
Building and King Yin Lane, have become another kind of major controversies, causing
public concern. In final stage of the "Surveys on Historical Buildings in Hong Kong”
funded by HKJCCT, about 70% of shortlisted buildings, and a half of Grade I buildings
69
are privately owned.116 The trend of rising conservation movement to private buildings
with more public concern is not unexpected. In the early 2000s, crises of Kom Tong
Hall and Morrison Building were examples.
Locating in Mid-Levels, Kom Tong Hall was one of the best preserved buildings
constructed in the early 20th century, as well as a Grade II historical building. In 2001,
its owner, Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-Day Saints, tried to approach the
Government for preserving the Hall. It hoped to increase the plot ratio of its land in Wan
Chai or exchange another land. But the Government did not offer until the crises
started.117 In July 2002, to drop the burden of its increasing maintenance fee, the Church
decided to demolish the building and to rebuild it into a religious cum education center.
118
It directly applied for demolishing the Hall, because of the unclear conservation
policy and bureaucratic processes. Director of Buildings admitted that according to the
Buildings Ordinance, he cannot refuse issuing license to the owner by the reason of
historical values of the building.119 The application received massive public objection.
Central & Western DC objected the proposal and political parties organized protests
outside the Hall. Being informed by the Building Department, AMO showed its
objection to the church and started negotiation. In February 2004, after 16 months
negotiation, the owner of Kom Tong Hall agreed to sell the building at $53 millions.
Meanwhile, CA sent a letter to the headquarters of the Church in the U.S. facilitating to
reach this consensus. Later, the Government converted the building into Dr Sun Yat-sen
Museum.
116
Sing Tao Daily, “Privately Own Buildings may be Turned Graded Historical Buildings, AAB Urge
Citizens to Monitor “ (涉大批私產古諮會籲全民監察防拆建 212 幢建築物隨時列古迹), A02, 2009-
03-20, Hong Kong Economic Journal, “212 Buildings are Graded Grade 1 Historical Building” (212 建築
物被評為一級歷史建築), 2009-03-20
117
Sing Tao Daily, “The Church negotiated with the Government Again for Land Exchange” (政教再交
手寶蓮寺事件「翻版」摩門教「拆」甘棠第逼港府換靚地), 2002-11-09
118
Wen Wei Po, “10 million annual maintenance fee , made the seller to demolish and redevelop” (甘棠
第保養費年耗千萬業主不勝負荷清拆重建), 2002-12-14
119
Oriental Daily News, “The Church raise Actual Demand to Keep Kom Tong Hall” (保留甘棠第教會
將提具體要求), 2002-10-31
70
Comparatively, Morrison Building was a different story. As part of Hoh Fuk Tong
Centre in Tuen Mun, the Building has been regarded historically valuable for its
association with Nineteen Corps against Japanese invasion, and the Dade Institute in
which eminent Chinese scholars lectured during the Chinese civil war in the late 1940s.
Its owner, the Church of Christ in China, planed to partner Kerry Properties Limited to
redevelop the Centre into residential buildings in 1997 and TPB has approved it in 1999.
AMO’s grading to the Morrison Building as a historical building in 2001 held back the
plan, and Kerry Properties withdrew. The negotiation for conserving the building
between the Government and the owner has no progress. According to the General
Secretary of the Church, Rev Luk Fai, the Government refused to implement the
preliminary agreement between the two parties in 2001 to exchange lands. He claimed
the Church has suggested three plans, including one required no extra expense from the
treasury. However in the end the Church was informed by Lands Department that there
was no law of exchange of lands. He believed that the Government procrastinated to
settle the dispute. 120 Then the Church insisted to continuing the demolition in 2003, and
the Antiquities Authority declared the Morrison Building as proposed monument on the
gazette. After another negotiation broken, for the first time since the A&MO enacted in
the 1970s, Morrison Building was declared as a monument without consent from its
owner in 2004. There is neither a previous case of such a declaration, nor a related case
of compensation for the declaration. The Church once tried going to the court for
claiming compensations. 121 Finally it revised its redevelopment plan to preserve and
convert Morrison Building to be a museum, while at the same time, continue to build
residential building on the remaining part of the land.122
120
Sing Tao Daily, “The Government was fickle for redevelopment application, the Church has lost 300
millions” (申請清拆重建政府態度反覆中共活動舊址暫列古迹拉鋸經年教會損失三億), 2003-04-11
121
Ta Kung Pao , “The Morrison Building was declared a monument” (政府與中華基督教會談判破裂
首次動用古蹟條例保馬禮遜樓), 2004-03-27
122
Sing Tao Daily, “The Church Raise a New Plan for Ho Fuk Tong Redevelopment” (何福堂重建教會
遞新方案), 2004-03-23
Oriental Daily News, Executing Heritage Law for the First Time, Morrison Building was declared a
monument (首引法例馬禮遜樓列古蹟), 2004-03-18
71
The two cases showed the lack of the protection and compensation mechanism to
private historical buildings. Before deciding to demolish the building, the two owners
tried to approach the Government. Lacking conservative measures such as exchange of
lands, and with bureaucratic procedures, the Churches found uncertainty and waste of
time in negotiations. Then they decided to demolish the buildings. Two cases showed
the division among institutions and the weak inter-departmental collaboration, especially
for Morrison Building which Land Department in the end found out land exchange
unfeasible. The public realized the lack of certain necessary conservation means such as
land swap, although they also learned declaration of proposed monument and monument
as last means.
Although the notifying mechanism worked between the Building Department and AMO,
there is no constant or effective measure for the Office to deal with the incident. The
Office adopted unlike approaches to the two building. It acquired Kom Tong Hall by the
funding from Lands Department, which is nominally supposed to purchase lands. It was
the first time for the Government to use public funds to purchase a heritage from private
owners, however with a similar circumstance, it failed to achieve agreement with the
Church of Christ in China either for taking over Morrison Building or compensating for
that. The public was attracted and educated in these two crises. One of the reasons was
the amount of compensation. Morrison Building located in the centre of the land, so as
SHA, Patrick Ho, said, it was not possible to take over it as a whole which was different
from the case of the Hall. Critics urged for a mechanism of resumption including
financial incentives and compensations.123 Although LegCo and DCs councilors agreed
with the decision to conserve Kom Tong Hall, they doubted that whether the
appropriation was procedurally due or suitable for heritage conservation. 124 They
demanded for a designated source of fund for AMO. On the other hand, Lau Ping
Cheung, a then LegCo member, worried that this case would pull private owners to
compel the Government to purchase their historical buildings by selling or demolishing
123
Ng Ka Chiu, “The Government need to Take up the Duty of Heritage Conservation ” (保護古迹政府
須有勇氣承擔), The Sun, 2004-03-04
124
Secretariat of Central & Western District Council, "Concerning Kom Tong Hall's usage after
conservation," accessed via
http://www.districtcouncils.gov.hk/central_d/pdf/2004/CW_2004_031_TC.pdf, CWDC Paper 31/2004
72
them. He urged to set up a regular compensation mechanism, including transfer of plot
ratio, to enhance the Government’s bargaining power and save public funds. 125 This
was a typical case in both in PSF and ACF that, the previous policy output affects the
environment outside, and in turn affects back the (sub)system. The Government adopted
a new financial arrangement for conservation, and this decision in turn raised a new
demand, a regular compensation mechanism no matter as a designated fund for heritage
or transfer of development right, to the policy (sub)system.
5.4.2 Central Police Station Compound (CPSC)
In 1998 Policy Address, then CE Tung announced the establishment of a Heritage

Tourism Task Force to promote heritage for tourism development. It was an initiative
for tourism instead of heritage conservation. However, while replacement of heritage as
Murray House was less accepted, irrelevant revitalizations such as Stanley Police Office
(a supermarket branch) and former Marine Police Headquarters Compound (1881
Heritage, a high-end hotel cum shopping mall) were also becoming less suitable for
heritage conservation in this decade. CPSC, comprised by former Central Police Station,
former Victoria Prison and former Central Magistracy, is one of the oldest Victorian,
Edwardian and Oriental heritage in colonial period and was declared as monument in
1995. In April 2003, the Administration announced to reuse it for tourism, and to tender
in mid-2004. The Government planned to develop the Compound into hotels, restaurant
and entertainment facilities, and applied to TPB for changing the site from community
use to commerce use. Unsurprisingly local residents and Central & Western DC
objected to the plan and the Administration yielded and gave up building entertainment
facilities, although TPB approved the application.126 It shows the TPB’s insufficiently
considered the heritage in approving land use changes. But at the same time, it showed
current procedure ensured the transparency on town planning to the public. It helped to
deal with conflict in an early stage.
125
Sing Tao Daily, “$53 Million Buy Kom Tong Hall, Councilors Worry for a Wrong Case” (改裝國父博
物館議員憂開壞先例港府 5300 萬收購甘棠第), A02, 2004-02-22
126
Sing Tao Daily, “Five Family’s Plan was rejected, CPSC may become Land Kwan Fong II” (五大家族
方案被拒作公開招標中區古迹擬變蘭桂坊二號), 2004-09-21
73
The public however was concerned to the weight of land premium in the tender (40%).
Conservation groups criticized for the proposed tender would “privatize” the declared
monument in which non-profit organizations (NPO) and non-profit-making management
to the Compound would be excluded, and only private developers can win the contract.
They urged the Government to put the tender on hold. CA, HKIA and other pressure
groups joined to form Central Police Station Heritage Taskforce. It conducted survey
and seminars to find out public opinion and preferred conservation proposal to CPSC,
and collect signatures from local residents to halt the tendering procedures. It also joined
with Tourism Commission, Central & Western DC jointly held an Open Days in CPSC
in early 2005 to promote public awareness and understanding. Individuals in the public
also joined into the conservation movement. In 2004, the Ho Tung family, with other
local famous families, counter proposed to donate $500 million to develop the heritage
into a non-profit cultural project with a visual arts academy and arts facilities. An
architect participating in the Ho Family Project criticized the Government adopting the
tender model same as the former Marine Police Headquarter, which in the end became a
high-end hotel representing nothing of its history. He believed such a tender would
exclude participation from NPO and also commercialize the heritage. Although Ho
Family Project was rejected by the government two months later with the reason of fair
competition, it has raised public awareness for non-profit mode of management for the
Compound.127
In late 2007, HKJCCT, as a NPO, was selected to manage and conserve CPSC. By
spending $1.8 billion, Jockey Club planed to preserve the buildings, and 2/3 of them
would be for commercial purposes. The most controversial point was a 160-metre-tall
transparent tower with a 500-seat theater, auditorium and two art cinemas inside. 128
Conservators criticized that it would be incompatible with 19th century building and
harm its historic context and value. This proposal faced protests from conservation
groups and residents in mid-level. Jockey Club decided to revise the plan in the next
127
Ming Pao Daily News, “CE reject Ho Family’s Plan with the Reason of Fair Competition “ (何東後人
基金保中區警署特首公平競爭為由否決) , 2004-09-21
128
Una So, “$1.8b Jockey Club plan for old police site unveiled,” The Standard, 2007-10-12
74
year, and ExCo passed a resolution demanding to lower the height of the new structure.
In 2010, TPB revised the OZP of the Sai Ying Pun and Sheung Wan limiting the
redevelopment of CPSC in 80 meters. 129 In the new design released by DEVB and
HKJCCT, the new building was trimmed down to that height.
It was a typical example both showing the public opinion against commercial
revitalization and the Government’s concession. The public opinion was strong and a
consensus was achieved among society against “privatization” or “commercialization”
of the Compound. To analysis this in PSF, the demand was clearly entered the system,
while on the other hand little, if any, support to the authority was input. Developers and
other commercial organizations, as potential operators, have not started a counter
promotion campaign for commercial tendering for heritage. To keep people's acceptance
to binding decisions of the system and their acceptance to the authority, the Government
responded to the demand by the output of non-profit operation and lowering and
trimming down new structures.
5.4.3 Queen’s Pier
In 2007, shortly after the demolition of Star Ferry Pier, the government planed to replace
the Queen’s Pier for constructing the Central-Wan Chai Bypass. The conservation
groups closely monitored the public procedures about Central Reclamation Project
Phase III and related works to prevent sudden demolition as to the Star Ferry Pier. At
the end of January, the Administration claimed to postpone the demolition until a
consensus was reached. Conservation groups applied to TPB for adding extra condition
to the Central waterfront’s OZP and proposed alternatives with academics and
professionals for Central Reclamation Phase III to preserve the Pier in-situ. The
Administration rejected these plans with the technical reasons to leave space for further
railway construction, which from conservator’s point of view was pro-development.
Meanwhile, the Administration raised four proposals, and consulted and reached
129
Information Service Department, HKSARG, Press Release "Sai Ying Pun and Sheung Wan Outline
Zoning Plan amended," accessed via www.info.gov.hk/gia/general/201005/07/P201005070184.htm on
3/4/2011
75
consensus with certain conservation groups such as Hong Kong Institute of Architects,
the Hong Kong Institute of Engineers, and CA to remove the Pier for the reclamation
project and to replace it back after the construction.
In March, CA wrote to AAB urging to grade the Pier. The Government tried to apply for
funding in LegCo for the demolition before the grading meeting, which was seriously
criticized as “act first and report afterwards.” The Administration then withdrew the
application, but finally the Antiquities Authority, Patrick Ho, refused to declare the Pier
as a monument after it was graded as Grade I Historical Building by AAB in May.
LegCo Public Works Sub-committee endorsed the $50 million funding for the
governmental project in the same month. The Pier was officially closed in 26 April, and
tens of activists started to occupy it. Conservators applied for a Judicial Review (JR) to
High Court against the Antiquities Authority’s decision. Activists started hunger strikers
in July and SDEV visited the Pier and debated with conservators which won praise for
the Government. In early August, seven protesters were vacated form the roof of the
Pier and the Government started to demolish it. The Court later judged the JR failed.
The case showed the weakness in A&MO and division of duties among the Authority,
AAB and AMO. In early 2007, CE appointed new members to AAB and AMO held
hearings for grading Queen’s Pier, responding to the Star Ferry Pier Crisis. Then, it was
the first time to hold a public grading meeting, and AAB graded the Pier as a Grade I
historical building. 130 The Antiquities Authority’s refusal of declaration angered the
conservators. They blamed that it was a ruling for executive convenience to build the
Central-Wan Chai Bypass, but not based on the historical value of the Pier, as required
by A&MO. In the JR, they challenged whether it is legal for the Authority to ignore
AAB’s advice not to declare a building as a monument. They also questioned the
Authority’s reasons against the declaration, such as the prewar buildings as a additional
criterion, and the consideration of advice of AMO over that of AAB. The Court ruled
the A&MO empower the Antiquity Authority, but not AAB, to declare buildings as
130
Antiquities Advisory Board, Minutes Of The 129th Meeting (Open Meeting), accessed via
http://www.lcsd.gov.hk/CE/Museum/Monument/en/antiquities_meetings_minutes129.php, Ref: LCS AM
22/3
76
monument, so the said decision was legal. According to A&MO, the Authority need not
consider the advice of AAB, if he do not declare a building as monument. And the
Grade I status of Queen’s Peir is only an internal reference for AMO, not necessarily
leading the Authority to declare it as a monument.
To conservators and the public, this case showed the Antiquity Authority’s extreme
power in heritage conservation which may be unreasonable, although his decision in this
incident was procedurally legal and due. On the other hand, AAB, a component in
heritage conservation policy out of the Government, lacked any real power. And the
membership of representatives and professionals on the Board was questioned, even
though considerable new members were appointed. Localist condemned that the
members are actually town planning experts instead of heritage-related professionals
who will stand for heritage conservation and object to developments. Except for the
appointment criteria, in a public forum in 2007 for reviewing heritage policy,
participants also criticized the limited power of AAB and the lack of public participation.
In fact, in public forums in 2007 reviewing local conservation policy, some people
suggested amending AM&O to provide clear guidelines and definitions on assessing
built heritage. Conservation groups and professionals criticized the Government for
assessments without open standards. Participants also expressed that non-governmental
organizations such as CA, H15 Concern Group, and S.E.E. Network urged to amend
AM&O to include public participation for assessing heritage. They compared the
A&MO with TPO which requires two weeks public consultation for town planning
issues, and demanded for a higher level of public participation to be written into A&MO.
For the composition of AAB, in a focus group meeting in 2007, a participant suggested
the model of Our Harbour Front, in which stakeholders are invited to discuss and the
public are consulted for every conservation project.
The influence from Star Ferry Pier and Queen’s Pier to local heritage conservation was
great. One example was the save of Yau Ma Tei Police Station, a colonial building
erected in 1922. It was under threat from the construction of Central Kowloon Route,
while a parliamentary study to further broaden it was rejected by LegCo Public Works
77
Subcommittee after the unpopular removal of the Star Ferry old clock tower in 2006.131
More importantly, the revealed problems and raised public concerns to some extent led
to CE Tsang’s policy initiatives for conservation in the second-half of 2007.
In last decade, there were more events and controversies related, though less important,
to local heritage conservation. For example, Lee Tung Street and Wan Chai Market
were demolished under local residents’ conservation campaigns, while Former Police
Married Quarters, North Kowloon Court, Dragon Garden and Lai Chi Kok Hospital
have been controversial for conservation. Some of them were later put into the heritage
revitalization programme introduced in 2008. Table 6 shows the full list of different
revitalization projects.
5.5 Summery
In the last decade, emerging pressure groups and other organizations, and individuals in
civil society are more dynamic and interactive in influencing local conservation policy.
Pressure groups, professionals, mass media, political parties and are more involved in
conservation policy than before the 2000s, and the public also paid more attention to the
issue starting to recognize that local heritage conservation has become a real problem.
131
Helen Wu , “Historic police station may be preserved,” South China Morning Post, 2007-11-11
78
Chapter Six: Policy Change
Some people regard introduction of various policy initiatives in the last decade as
milestones on local heritage conservation. In the PSF, Easton argues that an alternation
in policy, as an output, is a response to the input, mainly demands. And these demands
are generated from the societal environment. In ACF, policy-oriented learning, changes
in the real world environment, and turnover in personnel are regarded as major forces
leading to policy change. In MSF, policy changes is considered to be likely when the
problem, policy and political streams join together and policy entrepreneurs get the
opportunity to initiate and promote their proposed solution to the public and politicians.
The three frameworks are different in attributing the policy changes.
6.1 From Review to Initiatives
In February 2004, HAB launched the first stage of public consultation on review of built
heritage conservation policy asking conceptually abstract questions such as what or how
to conserve and how much and who should pay. 132There was no proposals came up. In
the three months of consultation period, it was criticized for the lack of practical policy
options. Not only conservation groups, but also the legislators criticized the lack of
concrete details. The policy community also criticized for the slow progress. CA blame
that it “is badly conducted and shows a lack of sincerity.”133 After of years of inaction,
in 2007, the Bureau started another stage of consultation shortly after the demolition of
Star Ferry Pier. In later 2007, after CE and ExCo announced new policy statement and
initiatives, the Development Bureau promised to set up the Commissioner for Heritage’s
Office and Heritage Conservation Trust, and to adaptively reuse government owned
historical buildings. For privately owned heritage, the Administration also clearly
committed to introduce land exchange, transfer of development rights and financial
132
Home Affairs Bureau, Paper provided by the Administration on "Review of Built Heritage
Conservation Policy," 2004, CB(2)1734/03-04(03)
133
Legislative Council Secretariat, “Subcommittee on Heritage Conservation Background brief prepared
by Legislative Council Secretariat Review of Built Heritage Conservation Policy”, CB(2)2178/06-07(02)
The Conservancy Association, “The Conservancy Association’s Position on Hong Kong’s Built
Heritage Conservation Policy,” 2007. CB(2)1599/06-07(05).
79
incentives to prevent them from demolition for redevelopment and the lack of
maintenance. 134
In PSF, Easton argues the Government as the authority must obtain information about
the current situation, therefore, they can react “as they desire or are compelled to do
so.”135 Regardless of the sincerity which was hard to examine, the public consultation
should be regarded as a means to obtain information, especially the public opinion,
which in PSF is a potential political demand. After the Administration obtained data it
needed, the reasonable explanation for its inaction between 2004 and 2007 is that they
desired to react so, and they were not yet compelled to take action, until 2007. The late
action, a relatively radical policy change, should be explained in MSF that the three
streams joined in 2007 providing the “policy windows” for these initiatives.
In the problem stream, more local people found weaknesses of the existing policy, and
agreed to related changes. As found in surveys from 2004 to 2007, a considerable
amount of local people agree with the deficiency of the policy and support new
conservation measures like to transfer development rights for compensation and to grade
AMO. The radicalized actions, such as activist’s defense in Queen’s Pier, and massive
media coverage to certain heated movements also magnified the seriousness as
perceived by the general public.
In the policy stream, many pressure groups and think tanks were formed and many
professionals joined as hidden participants to keep the issue alive since the early 2000s.
As the champion of conservation, CA in its paper in 2003 suggested new zoning
mechanism, government's resumption, and public-private partnership and non in situ
exchange as new tools to conserve heritage. For resource, it suggested the “development
tax” to provide new source of funding as well as to promote conservation during
development.136 In the “policy primeval soap” of conservation, these alternatives “float(ed)
around, bumping into one another,” only some of them in the end are shortlisted for real
134
The Development Bureau, "Legislative Council Brief: Heritage Conservation Policy," 2007
135
136
Conservancy Association, “Heritage for the People,” (2003) 11-13, 15
80
consideration. 137 For example, compared with the option of heritage trust, the
development tax faded out since the mid-2000s.
In the political stream, the rising public concern and awareness for heritage conservation
found in the press coverage survey is an evidence for the national mood. CE Election in
2007 is another factor in the stream, in which CE Tsang Yam Kuen faced the challenge
of Alan Leong Kah-kit from the pan-democratic camp. It was the first contested election
for the Executive in Hong Kong. Both of the candidates raised the need to better
conserve heritage in their election platforms. Leong suggested concrete radical measures
including to upgrade AAB into a statutory Cultural Heritage Conservation Board with a
two-tiered structure promoting district level engagement, and to establish a
Conservation Trust to facilitate tripartite partnership with business and NGOs for
conservation.138 Tsang in his election manifesto also advocated a “progressive view of
139
development,” to consider cultural impact and conservation during development.
None of their policy initiatives were raised in previous CE elections. 140 Under the
national mood after a sequence of conservation movements, even Tsang was very likely
to be re-elected, he cannot ignore demand of better heritage conservation. After he
returned to the office as expected, he raised new policy initiatives in his first policy
address of this term.
Carrie Lam announced the new conservation policy initiatives and administrative
measures after she became SDEV. Table 6 shows the detailed innovations issued by the
Administration to LegCo in the late 2007.
137
Kingdon, Agendas, Alternatives and Policy Process, 200
138
Leong’s Policy Platform (http://www.competitionforce.hk/urban_eng.php)
139
Ta Kung Pao, “Tsang Yam Kien’s Election Platform: Manifesto of Progress.”
(曾蔭權競選政綱：進步宣言), A06, 2007-02-03
140
http://www.hkcss.org.hk/cb4/Policybulletin/development.html (29 March 2011)
81
Table 6: Policy Innovations announced by the Administration in the late 2007
1 Creation of the Commissioner for Heritage (C for H) Post
2 Conducting of Heritage Impact Assessments (HIA)
3 Revitalizing Historic Buildings Through Partnership Scheme
4 Economic Incentives for Conservation of Privately-owned Historic Buildings
5 Extending Financial Assistance on Maintenance to Privately-owned Graded Historic Buildings
6 Conducting Public Engagement and Publicity
7 Research Into Heritage Trust and Other Overseas Practices
(Legislative Council Brief “Heritage Conservation Policy” on 11 October 2007)
6.2 Organizational Restructure
Tsang re-organized policy bureaus on 1 July 2007, the beginning of his second term.
The Development Bureau (DEVB) was set up to oversee planning, renewal, works, and
“development-related heritage conservation.” And the Secretary for Development
(SDEV) replaced SHA to be the Antiquities Authority to execute A&MO and be
responsible for conserving local heritage. Under the Work Branch of the Bureau,
Commissioner for Heritage’s Office (CHO) was soon established to support SDEV to
implement conservation policy and taking forward Tsang’s new initiatives announced in
Policy Address 2007. Unsurprisingly, AMO was turned under SDEV’s purview too.
According to Carrie Lam, SDEV, this structure would help coordination work between
AMO and CHO, while AMO kept its role for providing professional advice. 141
These restructurings were regarded in PSF as a response of the political system to

challenges faced. Easton argues political systems can alter its structure to respond
stresses caused by demands from the environment.142 This reorganization of the bureaus
and department put most duties for heritage conservation under the purview of SDEV of
DEVB. It, as claimed by SDEV Carrie Lam, helps coordination and efficiency for
preventing stresses from output failure in which input overload due to the diversified
structure and thus inefficiency in the original heritage conservation system. The new
organization also enhanced the ability to put new initiative forward.
141
Panel on Home Affairs, Minutes of special meeting held on 2 January 2008, CB(2)1692/07-08
142
David Easton, A System Analysis of Political Life, (New York:John Wiley & Sons, Inc., 1965)
25-27
82
6.3 New Conservation Means
Throughout the 2000s, conservation means taken by the Government to conserve

heritage were in a state of change. Introduction of new measures were incremental.
Although Policy Address and DEVB laid down a package of initiatives as late as 2007,
some of measures were tried before and feedback was received. In fact, the sequence of
policy change should be understood under PSF, especially in the concept of “feedback
loop.”
Kom Tong Hall was the first private heritage taken over by the Government for
conservation, leading to new questions about modes of compensation, source of funding
and financial arrangement. Both LegCo and DCs criticized the Administration for
adopting Lands Department’s funding to resume the heritage. They and professionals
urged the establishment of a formal compensation mechanism, such as transfer of
development right (e.g. transfer of plot ratio) and land exchange, or financial
arrangement like setting up a Heritage Trust for resumption expenses. These advocacies
were later brought into the package of initiatives in 2007. In DEVB’s document to
LegCo, the Bureau stated the initiative to introduce the said means and related
difficulties and details including determination of land value and land premium payment
for both in-situ and non-in-situ land exchanges. New options, such as to allow a site to
excess its original maximum total gross floor area in the OZP and building regulations,
were also raised.143
On the other hand, the Antiquities Authority for decades were criticized for failing to
execute his power from AM&O to protect heritage, such as to declare a building to be a
monument or a proposed monument. As mentioned, Morrison Building of Hoh Fuk
Tong Centre became the first local building to be declared as a monument without the
consent of its owner in 2004, after it was declared as the second proposed monument
without owners’ consent. 144 The declarations aroused criticism from its owner, and
143
The Development Bureau, Legislative Council Brief “Heritage Conservation Policy,” 11 October 2007,
144
Home Affairs Bureau, "Legislative Council Panel on Home Affair: Declaration of the Morrison
Building as a Monument," 13, November 2003, CB(2)1794/03-04(01),
83
owners of other historical buildings. Conservation group also urged the Government to
disclose the criteria for declaring building as monuments. As it succeed to preserve these
buildings, since then the Administration turned to more adopt this means. Since the
declaration of Morrison Building in 2004, 128 Pok Fu Lam Road (known as “Jessville”)
in 2006, King Yin Lei in 2007, and Ho Tung Gardens in 2011 were declared as
proposed monuments. Although it is not officially included in Tsang’s package of
initiatives, in wording of “effective administrative means,” it was a policy alternative for
private historical building in danger.145 In 2007, the owner of King Yin Lei insisted to
demolish the building, and suddenly started the work, leading SDEV to declare it as
proposed monument before further damage made. Shortly after the owner of Ho Tung
Garden showed his intention to sell the building, suddenly in 2011, AMO and AAB
started to work for proposed declaration.146 The Antiquities Authority would
immediately execute his power to declare buildings as proposed monument if owners
may sell or demolish the building.147
Two batches of “Revitalizing Historic Buildings through Partnership Scheme” were

introduced since 2008 to adaptively re-use government-owned historical buildings. Only
non-profit making organizations with charitable status under Section 88 of the Inland
Revenue Ordinance (Cap 112) are eligible to apply for using declared monuments and
graded historical buildings listed in the Scheme. Organizations are required to submit
their proposals to preserve the building, bring out its historical significance, and benefit
local community, as well as how their operation are financially viable. The vetting
committee, comprising official and non-official experts, considers and approves the
proposals. This is a change from the commercial tenders only for the Heritage 1881 and
the original CPSC proposal in 2004 that private developers can apply to revitalize
145
146
Grading of Ho Tung Gardens at 75 Peak Road and the proposal to declare it as a Proposed Monument
under the Antiquities and Monuments Ordinance(Board Paper AAB/2/2011-12), 25 January 2011,
147
. Ohel Leah Synagogue at Robinson Road was the first building declared as proposed monument in
1987, but then it arrivaled a agreement with the Government not to demolish the building. Therefore it
was a different case. Grading of Ho Tung Gardens at 75 Peak Road and the proposal to declare it as a
Proposed Monument under the Antiquities and Monuments Ordinance (Board Paper AAB/2/2011-12), 25
January 2011, accessed via http://www.amo.gov.hk/form/special_meetings/AAB%202%202011-
12%20Main%20Paper.pdf
84
heritage for tourism purpose to make profits. In the new scheme, heritage were approved
to be museums, galleries, education centres, training institutes and hostels, in addition to
profitable usages such as hotels and high-class restaurants. In the two batches of the new
revitalizing scheme, tourism and commercial usage were minimized while a
considerable number of educational, community and environmental projects were
approved. Shown in the table of approved projects followed, there were only two out of
nine non-profit making organizations not to be subsidized. For example, Lai Chi Kok
Hospital, Grade III Historical Building was grant to Hong Kong Institution for operating
a regional cultural city, "The Hong Kong Cultural Heritage" to promote heritage
conservation and Chinese culture. The project was not profit oriented, except the capital
cost to renovate the heritage, the Government further need to subsidize about $2 million
148
for operation of the social enterprises in the first three years until breakeven.
Estimated subsidies for other NGOs were from $1.84 million to $4.4 million.
Table 7: Financial Arrangement in “Revitalizing Historic Buildings through Partnership Scheme”
Historic Building Project Selected Capital cost for Subsidy to NPO

Renovation
Old Tai O Police Station Tai O Heritage Hotel $64.9 million Nil
Fong Yuen Study Hall Fong Yuen Study Hall – Tourism and $7.9 million $1.9 million
Chinese Cultural Centre cum Ma Wan
Residents Museum
Lai Chi Kok Hospital Hong Kong Cultural Heritage $193.9 million $2 million
Lui Seng Chun Hong Kong Baptist University Chinese $ 24.8 million $2.6 million
Medicine and Healthcare Centre
North Kowloon SCAD Hong Kong Campus Not required Nil

Magistracy
Mei Ho House Mei Ho House as City Hostel $192.3 million $4.4 million
Old Tai Po Police Station The Green Hub for sustainable living $39.11 million $1.84 million
The Blue House Cluster Viva Blue House $56.91 million $4.17 million
Stone Houses Stone Houses Revitalization Scheme $30.8 million $2.33 million
(Sources: Conserve and Revitalize Hong Kong Heritage Official Website)
148
http://www.heritage.gov.hk/en/rhbtp/ProgressResult_Lai_Chi_Kok_Hospital.htm (28 March 2011)
85
Considering the conservation policy in a longer period, it was not static, and alternations
on conservation measures have been introduced from time to time, although the
alternation in 2007 was the most considerable. PSF can be used to explain these
sequences of policy alternations. Kom Tong Hall was the Government’s first resumption
of privately owned heritage. And Morrison Building was the second proposed
monument and the first monument declared without consent from its owner. These
means were more frequently used since then, and the arrangement evolved. These two
policy outputs re-entered the system as demands including requests for clear
compensation mechanism and for declaring historical building in danger as proposed
monument and monument. After that, as policy output generated by the feedbacks, the
Government started to take over private heritage from cash to land swap, and act more
responsively and aggressively in declaring historical buildings in danger as proposed
monuments. They were examples of the feedback loop in action.
For revitalization, in the 1990s, there was a change from the replacement policy of
heritage for redevelopment, say Murray House, to revitalization, although it was limited
to “privatization,” tourism and profit-making proposes. In examples of Western Market
and 1881 Heritage, both heritages were reused for commercial usage to prevent financial
burden to the Government. Therefore, in 2007, the Partnership Scheme was not totally a
new policy; instead it was a further alternation from the original commercial
revitalization. Based on PSF, a demand which is the request to have better conservation
after the replacement of heritage like Murray House, input into the political system and
led to the policy output to keep heritage to stay put by revitalization. This output affects
and leads to change in the environment which in this case the public turn to discontent
with the commercial revitalization shown in the incident of CPSC. This feedback, as a
new demand, in turn input into the political system and led to another policy change on
conservation policy. Educational, community and environmental projects were
introduced under governmental subsidies, which was a contrast with the previous policy
to prevent financial burden in conservation.
86
6.4 Resource Allocation
Since 2007, the Administration earmarked $1 billion under the Capital Works Reserve
Fund for supporting the Revitalization Scheme. SDEV also ensured for sufficient
resources support to the work of CHO and there is a room for further allocation.149 In
fact, in 2009 Budget, the Government allocated another $500 million to refill the
Reserve Fund.150 The Government also allocated more resources to provide economic
incentives for conservation of privately-owned historic buildings and to facilitate
maintenance of privately-owned graded historic buildings. In response to the criticism,
the eligibility of funds covered graded historical building for their repair and restoration
works.
On the other hand, more resources were allocated for recurrent expense of CHO and
AMO to support their increasing workload. CHO was set up with new senior positions
in civil service. Although legislators questioned the necessity of the directorate position,
while there was already six D2 position in DEVB, the funding was approved finally.151
AMO was also provided more resource. According to an AAB member in 2004, Patrick
LAU Sau-shing, AMO needs a year to finish grading a historical building under the
existing procedure and the most difficult process is to convince the owner. AMO did not
have sufficient resource to assess over 10 buildings per year, so the Office has studied to
simplify the procedures.152 More resources were allocated to AMO for doubling the
staffing to speed up assessment and grading thousands of historical buildings found.
Compared with the establishment of 38 staff in 1999 and 50 in 2002, not less than 100
staff is deployed in AMO in 2010. 153
149
150
Ta Kung Pao, $1 Billion support Historical Building Revitalization (10 億元支持活化歷史建築 ),
2009-02-26
151
D2: Point 2 on the Directorate Pay Scale of the Government, monthly salary: $117,950 to $129,000 on
1.4.2010)
Panel on Home Affairs Minutes of special meeting held on Wednesday, 2 January 2008, LC Paper No.
CB(2)1692/07-08, http://www.legco.gov.hk/yr07-08/english/panels/ha/minutes/ha080102.pdf
152
Sing Tao Daily, AMO listing thousands of buildings, King Yin Lane may be declared as monument
preventing demolition (古迹辦詳列千幢文物待評級景賢里或列古述免清拆), A04, 2004-09-26
153
Official website of AMO (http://www.amo.gov.hk/en/about3.php) & Government Directory,
(http://tel.directory.gov.hk/0243000387_ENG.html, http://tel.directory.gov.hk/0243007193_ENG.html,
http://tel.directory.gov.hk/0243005825_ENG.html)
87
And as mentioned, HKJCCT donated more and funded both conservation and
educational programmes for heritage. Lord Wilson Heritage Fund turned to fund more
heritage restoration projects from supporting educational programmes.154
6.5 Inaction Policies
There was no amendment to A&MO, as demanded by the conservators; instead, a

limited regulation change to monitor impact on historical buildings form governmental
construction works was introduced. Under the new Heritage Impact Assessment,
responsible person of capital works projects including which were not covered by EIAO,
need to consider whether their projects will affect historical buildings. But as an internal
regulation, it was not a statutory requirement for private developers. The demand for
clear criteria for defining heritage or monument to be declared was responded to by the
Administration by adopting a new set of criteria in assessing historical buildings. The
expert panel set up under AAB adopting diversified factors including a building’s
integrity, collective memory and values to ethnic groups, in addition to historical and
architectural values previously to assess the 1440 old buildings selected. AAB, based on
these results, considers to grade the buildings into the three grades, or to declare them to
be monuments. 155 With the demand for more public participation, and that for
establishing “area of conservation,” all required legislative changes were rejected.156
Sabatier cited Moe's argument to explain the stability of legislation outside a policy
subsystem in ACF.157 However it is not suitable to analyze local situation as under a
154
Four projects in 2008 & 2009, compared to only two project from 1993 to 2007, Official Website
155
LCSD, Presentation at the 22nd Tuen Mun District Council Meeting, "Historical Building
Conservation in Hong Kong," assess via
http://www.districtcouncils.gov.hk/tm_d/chinese/doc/min_DC%2007/8.5.07%20P1.pdf
Indeed, although alternation of assessment criteria is in 2005, shortly after the 2004 consultation, the
Administration was criticized for ignoring diversified values such as emerging sense of collective memory.
It is because the expert panel’s assessment did not necessarily considered by AAB to act to protect the
buildings. Queen’s Pier in 2007 was a good example.
156
Development Bureau, "Legislative Council Brief; Heritage Conservation Policy," 2007, File Ref:
DEVB(CR)(W) 1-55/68/01
157
Moe, Terry, “Political Institutions: The Neglected Side of the Story,” Journal of Law, Economics and
Organization. Vol 6, 213-253
88
semi-democratic and executive-led political system. To explain this inaction, Ng’s
comment to Government attitude may be useful. He criticize the Government’s
insincerity and thus the lack of progress on public engagement till now, although he
admit that it has put considerable conservation policy forward better protecting heritage.
All current changes were administrative which the Government can control their
impacts and select their scale. Certain above demands such as definition on monuments,
public engagement and establishment of conservation area can seriously affected
economic activities on constructions and redevelopments which was not accepted by the
pro-development coalition.
6.6 Summery
Compared with previous decades, policy alternation for local heritage conservation in
the 2000s was considered to be substantial. Especially since the late 2007, Tsang’s
Administration put forward several concrete policy initiatives into actions, such as
prompt execution of statutory power to declare monuments and proposed monuments,
and introduction of batches of the revitalization scheme for historical buildings. In spite
of these changes, the Government was criticized for ignoring the demand for reforming
the legal framework and introducing public participation for local heritage conservation.
Unlike the changes in the administrative level introduced, legal and participatory
reforms would limit the authority’s power and flexibility on the issue.
Sabatier and Jenkins-Smith, “The Advocacy Coalition Framework,” 120

89
Chapter Seven: Conclusion
After defining the key concept and reviewing Easton’s Political System Theory (PSF),
Sabatier’s Advocacy Coalition Theory (ACF) and Kingdon’s Multi-Stream Theory
(MSF) as the analytical frameworks, the study identifies major components and actors
of the originally existing heritage policy, examines the types and scales of the recently
emerging challenges since 1997, and finally analyzes the policy process of the
Government’s policy changes in the decade of 2000s.
To understand the changing challenges and policy changes for local heritage, the policy
area was comprehensively examined with the three policy frameworks, Easton’s PSF,
Sabatier’s ACF and Kingdon’s MSF. It was found that several emerging factors
including the change in the local political system, the rise of public concern on the issue,
the growth of conservation groups in civil society, the introduction of new advocacy
means, and existence of major crises causes conservation policy changes since the
handover. To respond to these challenges, heritage policy of the Government evolved
throughout the 2000s, with the most remarkable changes from the late 2007, despite it
remaining in a top-down level.
Theories explain the influences of these factors in different perspectives. PSF interprets
them as inputs to the political system, while the system need to produce outputs, i.e.
said policy changes, to prevent the stress detracting people’s acceptance from an
acceptable level and to maintain itself existing. ACF focuses on the impacts of the
changes on resources and constraints to members inside the heritage policy subsystem.
The framework suggests the pro-conservation coalition was aided and grew under the
emerging challenges to the existing policy, facilitating the Administration’s policy
alternation. MSF explains the factors in the three streams, and the convergence of the
streams best explains the dramatic policy change in 2007. Generally speaking, the three
policy framework can well examine some component or phenomena of local heritage
conservation policy. PSF and ACF are better in analyzing different component of the
90
system including concepts of institution, environment, inputs and outputs, and the cycle
of policy making, which is some kind of “feedback loop” named in PSF. In contrast,
MSF better explains non-incremental changes joined by problem, policy and political
streams. ACF is also unique to bring the concept of advocacy coalition, which is to large
extent suitable to apply on local heritage policy area explaining pressure group activities.
And the belief system and policy learning in ACF is to some extent related to the policy
stream in MSF, explaining the researches and policy oriented learning inside the
heritage subsystem.
This study explains the policy processes of local heritage conservation policy, which is
expected to be a controversial subject in the foreseeable future. Considering the
identified trends, actors, and factors would be helpful for local public administrator in
their future policy making on heritage conservation.
91
Reference Cited
Agnew, Neville, Demas, Martha, "Principles for the Conservation of Heritage Sites in
China". Getty Conservation Institute, 60.
Alano, Rita. “Heritage Society calls for preservation of barracks,” Hong Kong
Standard, 1977
Antiquities Advisory Board, Minutes Of The Open Session Of The 121st Meeting,
AAB/4/2005-06
Antiquities Advisory Board, Annual Report 1979
Antiquities Advisory Board, Annual Report 1990 & 1991, Appendix III, Annual
Report 1992 & 1993 Appendix IV
Antiquities Advisory Board, Minutes Of The 129th Meeting (Open Meeting), accessed
via
http://www.lcsd.gov.hk/CE/Museum/Monument/en/antiquities_meetings_minut
es129.php, Ref: LCS AM 22/3
Antiquities and Monuments Section, Urban Services Department, Report of the

Antiquities Advisory Board, Government Printer, Hong Kong, 1979
Apple Daily, Radiation Leak found in Daya Bay (大亞灣洩核輻射), 16 Jun 2010
Buildings 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.pdf
Chan, W.K., The Making of Hong Kong - 40 years champion for the environment
(2008)
Charles Lave and James March, An introduction to Models in the Social Science (New
York: Harper & Row, 1975)
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
Civil Engineering and Development Department, "Public Participation on conserving

Lung Tsun Stone Bridge, Kai Tak Developmemt Project," 2010, WTSDC paper
26/2010
92
Cody, "Heritage as Hologram: Hong Kong after a Change in Sovereignty, 1997-2001,"
2002
Cohen, Urban Conservation, Cambridge, (Mass: MIT Press, 1999)
Combining Planning and Lands Bureau and Housing Bureau as Housing, Planning and
Lands Bureau
Committee of CU Student Press, "Interview about Local Archaeology," CU Student

Press, 2000
Conservancy Association, "Heritage Conservation and Sustainable Development,"

accessed via http://www.conservancy.org.hk/heritage/mainE.htm on 2011/02/28
Conservancy Association, “Heritage for the People,” (2003)
Development Bureau, "Legislative Council Brief; Heritage Conservation Policy," 2007,

File Ref: DEVB(CR)(W) 1-55/68/01
Easton David, A System Analysis of Political Life, New York:John Wiley & Sons, Inc.,
1965
Easton David, The Political System An Inquiry into the State of Political Science, New
York: Alfred A. Knopf, Inc., 1953
Elinor Ostrom, Governing the commons:the evolution of institutions for collective

action, Cambridge University Press, 1990
Environment, Transportand Works Bureau, Works Bureau Technical Circular No.

33/2001
Felix Chan, “Rejected Wan Chai street renewal scheme wins award,” South China
Morning Post, 2005-11-12
Helen Wu , “Historic police station may be preserved,” South China Morning Post,
2007-11-11
Heritage Watch, "Built heritage conservation," 2007, CB(2)1666/06-07
HKJCCT claimed they started to beware the public concern on heritage conservation.
HKJCCT starts to began to take notice of the general public's interest and
concerns over issues related to heritage conservation in Hong Kong.)(The
Hong Kong Jockey Club, Conservation & Revitalisation of the Central Police
Station Compound: A Proposal by The Hong Kong Jockey Club, Report on the
Public Consultation From 11 October 2007 to 10 April 2008,
http://www.centralpolicestation.org.hk/wp-
content/uploads/2010/08/Public_Consultation_Report_English.pdf
93
HKSARG, “Summery of Public Survey on Review of Heritage Conservation Policy”
(文物建築保護政策檢討意見調查結果摘要), 2004
HKSARG, Policy Address 1999, 133
Home Affairs Bureau, "Legislative Council Panel on Home Affair: Declaration of the
Morrison Building as a Monument," 13, November 2003, CB(2)1794/03-04(01),
Home Affairs Bureau, Paper provided by the Administration on "Review of Built

Heritage Conservation Policy," 2004, CB(2)1734/03-04(03)
Hong Kong Daily News, Over 70% of Citizens Hope to Conserve Heritage (逾七成市
民盼保留古蹟), Hong Kong News, 2004-11-08
Hong Kong Economic Journal, “New Fire Safety Guidelines Should be Made for Old
Buildings” (古老建築宜定新消防建築指引), 2005-11-15
Hong Kong Economic Journal, 70% of Citizens Support the Government to Take Up
Heritage (七成市民贊成政府收回私人古蹟), 2007-10-04
Howard, Heritage management, interpretation, identity, Continuum International

Publishing Group, (2003) 6
http://daisann.com/2007/06/18/local-action.aspx (25 Feb 2011)
http://www.heritage.gov.hk/en/rhbtp/ProgressResult_Lai_Chi_Kok_Hospital.htm (28
March 2011)
http://www.hkcss.org.hk/cb4/Policybulletin/development.html (29 March 2011)
Information Service Department, HKSARG, Press Release "Sai Ying Pun and Sheung
Wan Outline Zoning Plan amended," accessed via
www.info.gov.hk/gia/general/201005/07/P201005070184.htm on 3/4/2011
Introduction of Approved Projects - Projects Approved in First Round Call of

Applications, http://www.susdev.gov.hk/html/en/sdf/approvprj.htm
Jokilehto, History of Architectural Conservation, (1986) 6-9
Kingdon, J.W, Agenda, Alternatives and Public Policies. 2nd ed. (New York:
HarperCollins College, 1984), 89
Kwan Nok Chan, Institutions, Policy Networks and Agenda Setting: Heritage
Conservation in Hong Kong, 1970-1997, (Mphil diss, Hong Kong University,
2010)
Lam Wing Wah, Agenda Setting of Heritage Conservation Policy in Hong Kong: A
Policy Stream Analysis, (MA diss. University of Hong Kong, 2008)
94
Larkham, Conservation and the City, London: Routledge, (1996) 85
LCSD, Presentation at the 22nd Tuen Mun District Council Meeting, "Historical
Building Conservation in Hong Kong," assess via
http://www.districtcouncils.gov.hk/tm_d/chinese/doc/min_DC%2007/8.5.07%2
0P1.pdf
LegCo, "Subcommittee on Heritage Conservation - Terms of Reference," accessed via

www.legco.gov.hk/yr07-08/english/panels/ha/ha_hec/general/ha_hec.htm
LegCo, Minutes of special meeting held on Friday, 20 April 2007, LC Paper No.
CB(2)2585/06-07
LegCo, Official Record of Proceedings, 17 January 2007, p96-98, 156-158, via

http://www.legco.gov.hk/yr06-07/chinese/counmtg/floor/cm0117-confirm-
ec.pdf
LegCo, Paper for the House Committee meeting on 10 January 1997 Report of the Bill
Committee on Enviromental Impact Assesment Bill LegCo Paper No. CB(1)
/96-97Ref : CB1/BC/20/95
Legislative Council Secretariat, “Subcommittee on Heritage Conservation Background

brief prepared by Legislative Council Secretariat Review of Built Heritage
Conservation Policy”, CB(2)2178/06-07(02)
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)
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)
Leisure and Cultural Services Department, HKSARG, “Administration's paper on

Surveys on Historical Buildings in Hong Kong," 2003, CB(2)2879/02-03(01)
Leisure and Cultural Services Department, HKSARG, AMO Official Website,

accessed via
http://www.lcsd.gov.hk/CE/Museum/Monument/en/monuments_64.php
Leong’s Policy Platform (http://www.competitionforce.hk/urban_eng.php)
Lichfield, Economics in Urban Conservation, Cambridge: Cambridge Universtiy Press,

(1998)
Metropolis Daily, “Trees-saving Groups Urge Redefining Heritage” (團體護樹籲重訂

古蹟定義), P06, Hong Kong News, 2005-07-11
95
Ming Pao Daily News, “CE reject Ho Family’s Plan with the Reason of Fair
Competition “ (何東後人基金保中區警署特首公平競爭為由否決) , 2004-09-
21
Ming Pao Daily News, “Councilors discontent for bypassing LegCo” (議員不滿繞過
立會), 2004-02-22
"Ming Pao Daily News,“Tao Fung Shan is a Grade II Historical Building,” (道風山屬
二級歷史建築),
1999-01-07"
Ming Pao Daily, “600 Old Buildings may Be Declared as Monument Blocking
Development,” (6000 幢舊樓或列古蹟凍結發展), 1999
Ming Pao Daily, 60% of Citizens Agree using Public Fund to Take Up Heritage (六成
市民贊成公帑收購古蹟), Hong Kong News, 2007-10-29
Ming Pao Instant News, Audrey EU visit the hunger strikers (余若薇探望 3 名絕食市
民), 2007-07-28
Minutes of Meeting of LegCo Panel on Planning, Lands and Works, PLC Paper No.
CB(1)189, Ref: CB1/PL/PLW/1PLC Paper No. CB(1)189 , Ref:
CB1/PL/PLW/1, 11/6/1997,
Moe, Terry, “Political Institutions: The Neglected Side of the Story,” Journal of Law,
Economics and Organization. Vol 6, 213-253
Mucciaroni, G.. The Garbage Can Model and the Study of Policy Making: A Critique,
Polity, Vol. 24, No. 3, (1992 ) 459-482.
Ng Ka Chiu , “Town Planning Ordinance Cannot Save Heritage” (城規條例未能挽救

古蹟), The Sun, 2004-08-18
Ng Ka Chiu, “The Government need to Take up the Duty of Heritage Conservation ”

(保護古迹政府須有勇氣承擔), The Sun, 2004-03-04
Nikolaos Zahariadis, “Ambiguity, Time and Multiple” in Theories of the Public

Process, ed. Paul A. Sabatier, (Oxford: Westview, 1999)
Official website of AMO (http://www.amo.gov.hk/en/about3.php) & Government

Directory, (http://tel.directory.gov.hk/0243000387_ENG.html,
http://tel.directory.gov.hk/0243007193_ENG.html,
http://tel.directory.gov.hk/0243005825_ENG.html)
Official Website of Lord Wilson Heritage Trust, "Project Approved," accessed via
http://www.lordwilson-heritagetrust.org.hk/project/index.php
96
Official website, "About SEE - Service," accessed via http://www.project-
see.net/en/about/services/
Olga Wong & Joyce Ng, "'Rubber stamp' council lashed over pier vote". South China
Morning Post, 24 June 2008
Oriental Daily News, “The Church raise Actual Demand to Keep Kom Tong Hall”
(保留甘棠第教會將提具體要求), 2002-10-31
Panel on Home Affairs Minutes of special meeting held on Wednesday, 2 January

2008, LC Paper No. CB(2)1692/07-08, http://www.legco.gov.hk/yr07-
08/english/panels/ha/minutes/ha080102.pdf
Panel on Home Affairs, Minutes of special meeting held on 2 January 2008,

CB(2)1692/07-08
Panel on Home Affairs, Minutes of special meeting held on 2 January 2008,

CB(2)1692/07-08
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), 117,118
Peter Drucker, The Effective Executive (New York: Random House, 1967), 25; R.
Alec Mackenzie, The Time Trap (New York: AMACOM, 1972)
Planning, Environment and Lands Bureau Technical Circular No. 10/98
Planning and Lands Bureau until 2002, Housing, Planning and Lands Bureau from
2002 to 2007, and Development Bureau since 2007
Planning Department, Hong Kong Planning Standards and Guidelines List of Key
Amendments in Reverse Chronological Order,
http://www.pland.gov.hk/pland_en/tech_doc/hkpsg/full/hkpsg_amend.htm
Planning, Environment and Lands Branch, Government Secretariat, Hong Kong,

"Comprehensive Review of the Town Planning Ordinance, Executive
Summary," 1991, 12
Robinson, N. The Politics of Agenda Setting: The Car and the Shaping of Public
Policy, UK: Ashgate Publishing Limited, 2000.
SDEV’s Speech on Amended Plan of CPSC, accessed via

http://www.info.gov.hk/gia/general/201010/11/P201010110199.htm (Chinese
Only)
Sing Tao Daily, “$53 Million Buy Kom Tong Hall, Councilors Worry for a Wrong
Case” (改裝國父博物館議員憂開壞先例港府 5300 萬收購甘棠第), A02,
2004-02-22
97
Sing Tao Daily, “Five Family’s Plan was rejected, CPSC may become Land Kwan
Fong II” (五大家族方案被拒作公開招標中區古迹擬變蘭桂坊二號), 2004-
09-21
Sing Tao Daily, “Privately Own Buildings may be Turned Graded Historical Buildings,
AAB Urge Citizens to Monitor “ (涉大批私產古諮會籲全民監察防拆建 212
幢建築物隨時列古迹), A02, 2009-03-20, Hong Kong Economic Journal, “212
Buildings are Graded Grade 1 Historical Building” (212 建築物被評為一級歷
史建築), 2009-03-20
Sing Tao Daily, “The Church negotiated with the Government Again for Land
Exchange” (政教再交手寶蓮寺事件「翻版」摩門教「拆」甘棠第逼港府換
靚地), 2002-11-09
Sing Tao Daily, “The Church Raise a New Plan for Ho Fuk Tong Redevelopment” (何
福堂重建教會遞新方案), 2004-03-23
Sing Tao Daily, “The Government was fickle for redevelopment application, the
Church has lost 300 millions” (申請清拆重建政府態度反覆中共活動舊址暫
列古迹拉鋸經年教會損失三億), 2003-04-11
Sing Tao Daily, AMO listing thousands of buildings, King Yin Lane may be declared
as monument preventing demolition (古迹辦詳列千幢文物待評級景賢里或列
古述免清拆), A04, 2004-09-26
South China Morning Post, “requiem for Central site,” 25 April 1981
South China Morning Post, “Strong public support to keep KCR buildings,” 3 August
1977
Successive amendments to the section of conservation are general updates or updates

to title of Departments and Bureaus
Ta Kung Pao , “The Morrison Building was declared a monument” (政府與中華基督

教會談判破裂首次動用古蹟條例保馬禮遜樓), 2004-03-27
Ta Kung Pao, $1 Billion support Historical Building Revitalization (10 億元支持活化

歷史建築), 2009-02-26
Ta Kung Pao, “Tsang Yam Kien’s Election Platform: Manifesto of Progress.” (曾蔭權
競選政綱：進步宣言), A06, 2007-02-03
Ta Kung Pao, Wan Chai Residents Hope to keep King Yin Lane (灣仔居民盼保留景
賢里), 2004-07-10
98
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.2
The Conservancy Association, “The Conservancy Association’s Position on Hong

Kong’s Built Heritage Conservation Policy,” 2006, CB(2)1599/06-07(05)
The Development Bureau, "Legislative Council Brief: Heritage Conservation Policy,"

2007
The Development Bureau, Legislative Council Brief “Heritage Conservation Policy,”

11 October 2007,
The question was “Whether you paid attention to the news of demolition of Queen’s
Pier?” (你有否留意皇后碼頭遷拆事件的報道或消息？) Answer: Yes: 92%,
No: 4%,Don’t Know: 4%. Wen Wei Po, (港青會訪問 500 市民 59%同意政府
規劃絕食保「皇碼」半數不認同), 2007-08-13
The Sun, “Grading on Historical Buildings are criticized unreasonable” (歷史建築評

級被轟不合理), 2009-06-09
Truman, The Governmental Process (New York, Alfred A. Knopf,1951), 37
Una So, “$1.8b Jockey Club plan for old police site unveiled,” The Standard, 2007-10-
12
Una So, “Protesters pledge to ramp up fight to save pier,” The Standard, 2007-06-13
W.I. Jenkins, Policy Analysis: A Political and Organizational Perspective (New York:
St. Martin's Press, 1978) 15
Wen Wei Po, “10 million annual maintenance fee , made the seller to demolish and
redevelop” (甘棠第保養費年耗千萬業主不勝負荷清拆重建), 2002-12-14
Wen Wei Po, “Antiquities should be preserved in Town Planning and Renewal” (城規
重建應保留古物), 1999-12-14
Youth Research Centre, “A Study on Young People's Vision on Hong Kong's Planning
and Development Strategy,” in Youth Study Series No. 25, Sept 2001,
http://yrc.hkfyg.org.hk/eng/ys25.html)
“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)
99
“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.
Central & Western District Council, Secretariat, "Concerning Kom Tong Hall's usage
after conservation," accessed via
http://www.districtcouncils.gov.hk/central_d/pdf/2004/CW_2004_031_TC.pdf,
CWDC Paper 31/2004
Indeed, although alternation of assessment criteria is in 2005, shortly after the 2004
consultation, the Administration was criticized for ignoring diversified values
such as emerging sense of collective memory. It is because the expert panel’s
assessment did not necessarily considered by AAB to act to protect the buildings.
Queen’s Pier in 2007 was a good example.
Oriental Daily News, Executing Heritage Law for the First Time, Morrison Building
was declared a monument (首引法例馬禮遜樓列古蹟), 2004-03-18
The Conservancy Association, “The Conservancy Association’s Position on Hong

Kong’s Built Heritage Conservation Policy,” 2007. CB(2)1599/06-07(05).
The Sun, DC discontent with downgrading to Tai Hom Village heritages, (區會不滿大
磡村兩寶降評級), 2009-09-23
Wong Tai Sin District Council, Secretariat, Minutes of the 18th Meeting on 21.9.2010,
accessed via http://www.districtcouncils.gov.hk/wts_d/english/doc%202008-
2011/3_DC%5BM18%5D_e.pdf
100
Appendix
Appendix 1: List of Abbreviation ................................................................................................. 102

Appendix 2: Full List of Local Presses Covered By the Survey................................................. 104
Appendix 3: Results of Survey on Local Media Coverage about Heritage-related
Keywords (1998-2010).......................................................................................................... 110
Appendix 4: List of Questions & Motions Raised in LegCo since 2000 ................................... 111
101
Appendix I
Appendix 1: List of Abbreviation
A&MO Antiquities and Monument Ordinance (Cap. 53)
AAB Antiquities Advisory Board
ACF Advocacy Coalition Framework
AMO Antiquities and Monuments Office
CA Conservancy Association
CE Chief Executive
CHC Culture and Heritage Commission
CHO Commissioner for Heritage’s Office
CPSC Central Police Station Compound
DC(s) District Organization
DEVB Development Bureau
DPA Development Permission Area
EIAO Environmental Impact Assessment Ordinance (Cap. 499)
ExCo Executive Council
Government, The The Government of Hong Kong Special Administrative Region
HAB Home Affairs Bureau
HKIA Hong Kong Institute of Architects
HKIP Hong Kong Institute of Planners
HKJCCT The Hong Kong Jockey Club Charities Trust
HKPSG Hong Kong Planning Standards and Guidelines
ICOMOS International Council on Monuments and Sites
LDC Land Development Cooperation
LegCo Legislative Council
102
MSF Multi-Streams Approach / Framework
NGO Non-governmental organization
NPO Non-profit Organization
OECD Organization for Economic Co-operation and Development
OZP Outline Zoning Plans
PSF Political System Theory / Framework
SDEV Secretary for Development
SHA Secretary for Home Affair
TPB Town Planning Board
TPO Town Planning Ordinance (Cap. 131)
URA Urban Renewal Authority
URAO Urban Renewal Authority Ordinance (Cap. 563)
103
Appendix II
Appendix 2: Full List of Local Presses Covered By the Survey
Categories Source
Governmen Hospital Authority -- 醫院管理局 The Equal Opportunities Commission
t -- 平等機會委員會
Information IS Department, Hong Kong SAR IS Department, Hong Kong SAR
Government(Chinese) -- 香港特別行政 Government(English) -- 香港特別行
區政府新聞處(中文版) 政區政府新聞處(英文版)
Magazine AV Bi-Weekly -- AV 雙周 Electronic Technology -- 無綫電技術

AV Free Electronics and Automotive -- 電子及
汽車
AV Magazine Elle Luxe
Advanced e-Process & Manufacturing -- Elle Shopping
新電子工藝
All About Wedding Elle Wedding
Asian Investor FACE -- FACE 週刊
Automobile -- 車主 Fashion & Beauty -- 流行新姿
Baccarat Hong Kong Finance Asia
Bauhinia Magazine -- 紫荊雜誌 Game Weekly -- 遊戲周刊
Beats HK Magazine
Benchmark -- 指標 Hao Zhai -- 豪宅
C for Culture -- 文化現場 Health Action Magazine -- 健康動力
雜誌
CEI Asia Hi-Tech Weekly -- 數碼誌尚
CUP Magazine -- 茶杯雜誌 Home Journal
Campaign Asia Pacific Hong Kong Business
Car And Driver -- 人車誌 Hong Kong Economic Journal
Monthly -- 信報財經月刊
104
Caz Buyer -- 車買家 Hong Kong Property -- 香港地產
China Automotive Journal -- 現代汽車 Hong Kong Tatler
China Plastic and Rubber Journal -- 中 Hong Kong Tatler SPARKLE
國塑料橡膠
China Textile and Apparel -- 中國紡織 Hong Kong Walker
及成衣
Chinamac Journal -- 機械與製造 International Watch Journal -- 國際手
表雜誌
CityLife -- 東方之珠 International Wrist Watch -- 城邦國際

名表
Clip JET
Computerworld Hong Kong Jiu Jik -- 招職
DiGi Bi-Weekly -- DiGi 數碼雙周 LIME -- 智尚
ELLE Accessories Me! -- Me!週刊
ELLE Decoration -- 家居廊 Media
ELLE Hong Kong Metals Bulletin -- 金屬工業
ELLE Men Metro Box
Earth Kids -- 地球少年 Milk
East Touch -- 東 Touch Milk B
Eastweek -- 東周刊 Milk X
Easy Finder -- 壹本便利 Mina
Eat & Travel Weekly -- 飲食男女 Ming Pao Weekly -- 明報周刊

Economic Digest -- 經濟一週 Mo Kung -- 無窮
Electronic Bulletin -- 電子工業 Monday -- 新 Monday
Magazine My Money -- 自我創富雜誌 Tea Magazine
105
Net Mazta 上網大師 -- 上網大師 Textile & Clothing Bulletin -- 紡織及
製衣
Next Magazine -- 壹週刊 Textile and Apparel(Asian Version) --
紡織及成衣亞洲版
O.N.E. (Chinese Version) -- 一樂也 (中 The IT magazine -- 資訊科技

文版)
O.N.E. (English) -- 一樂也 (英文版) The Mirror Monthly (Hong Kong) --
鏡報月刊
Open Magazine -- 開放雜誌 The list
Oriental Sunday -- 東方新地 Today's Living -- 今日家居

PC Game 2000 U magazine
PC Market -- 電腦廣場 Ultra
PC Station -- 電腦一週 Vivi
PC Tech -- 電腦技術 Wealthy Bi-Weekly -- 富周刊
PC Weekly -- 電腦週刊 Weekend Weekly -- 新假期

Packaging Pro -- 包裝縱橫 Where Hong Kong
Phone Magazine -- Phone 雜誌 With
Plastics Bulletin -- 塑膠工業 Yazhou Zhoukan -- 亞洲週刊

Plastics and Metals -- 塑膠及金屬 Zip Magazine
Prime Magazine -- 盛世雜誌 Zip homme
Prime Times -- 盛世時代 e-Campus Today -- 今日校園

Professional Adviser -- 專業理財 e-zone
Radio Experimenter -- 無線電製作 iMoney -- 智富雜誌

Reader's Digest Chinese -- 讀者文摘 - metro Life
中文版
Reader's Digest English -- 讀者文摘 - metropop -- 都市流行
英文版
106
Recruit News Agency
SMEWorld -- 中小企資訊世界 AFX -- AFX 法新社財經
SP Luxos PR Newswire Asia -- 美通社(亞洲)
Silk Road -- 絲路 Wise Press Release
Strait Bridge -- 台商月刊 Xinhua Finance -- 新華財經
Sudden Weekly -- 忽然一周
Newspaper A Daily -- A 報 Hong Kong Globe -- 公正報

Apple Daily -- 蘋果日報 Hong Kong Health Journal -- 香港健
康報
China Daily Hong Kong Edition -- 中國 Hong Kong Standard(Before 2000.5) -

日報香港版 - 英文虎報(2000.5 前)
Express Post -- 快線周報 I.T. times -- 資訊科技周刊

HK iMail -- 香港郵報 Kung Kao Po -- 公教報
Headline Daily -- 頭條日報 Metropolis Daily -- 都市日報
Hong Kong Commercial Daily -- 香港 Ming Pao Daily News -- 明報

商報
Hong Kong Daily News -- 新報 Ming Pao Education -- 明報 - 教得樂
Hong Kong Economic Journal -- 信報 Ming Teens -- 明 teens

財經新聞
Hong Kong Economic Times -- 香港經 Money Times -- 投資理財周刊
濟日報
Newspaper Oriental Daily News -- 東方日報 Take me Home (Hong Kong

Economic Times) - Kowloon East &
Tseung Kwan O & Sai Kung -- 生活
區報 (香港經濟日報) - 東九龍將軍
澳西貢
107
Property Times -- 置業家居 Take me Home (Hong Kong
Economic Times) - Kowloon West --
生活區報 (香港經濟日報) - 西九龍
SCMP-Young Post -- SCMP-young post Take me Home (Hong Kong
Economic Times) - New Territories
East & Shatin & Ma On Shan -- 生活
區報 (香港經濟日報) - 新界東沙田
馬鞍山
Sing Pao -- 成報 Take me Home (Hong Kong
Economic Times) - New Territories
West -- 生活區報 (香港經濟日報) -
新界西
Sing Tao Daily -- 星島日報 The Standard -- 英文虎報
Smarties -- 明報 Smarties The Sun -- 太陽報

South China Morning Post -- 南華早報 Tin Tin Daily News -- 天天日報
Ta Kung Pao -- 大公報 Wen Wei Po -- 文匯報
Take me Home (Hong Kong Economic am730
Times) - Hong Kong CWS -- 生活區報
(香港經濟日報) - 港島中西南
Take me Home (Hong Kong Economic
Times) - Hong Kong East -- 生活區報
(香港經濟日報) - 港島東
Web site Amy Magazine -- Amy 雜誌 Ming Pao Instant News -- 明報即時新
聞
Asiawise -- 亞洲資訊 Solicitor Online -- 法周刊

CarAndDriver.com.hk -- 人車誌 (網站) TodayIR -- Associate with Investors
(Chinese Version) -- 今日投資傳訊
108
(中文版)
ET Net -- 經濟通 TodayIR -- Assoicate with Investors

(English Version) -- 今日投資傳訊
(英文版)
ET Net English Section -- 經濟通 (英 Vitality -- 生命力
文)
Finet Newswires - China -- 財華中國 Web site (URL link)
Finet Newswires - Hong Kong -- 財華 TodayIR -- Associate with Investors

香港 (Chinese Version for Videos) -- 今日
投資傳訊 (中文版影片)
Irasia.com -- 亞洲投資專訊 TodayIR -- Associate with Investors

(English Version for videos) -- 今日投
資傳訊 (英文版影片)
109
Appendix III
Appendix 3: Results of Survey on Local Media Coverage about Heritage-related Keywords (1998-2010)
關鍵 "古蹟" + "
字組 "古蹟" + " "古蹟" + " "古蹟" + " "*級歷史
活化 / 再利
合
年份 "古蹟" 保育" 保存" 保護" 用" "法定古蹟" "歷史建築" 建築"
1998 154 0 13 29 0 9 7 0
1999 706 2 87 142 2 50 60 2
2000 728 6 124 175 2 49 84 3
2001 1857 40 337 468 7 167 163 2
2002 1908 15 319 469 8 167 206 16
2003 1728 37 307 436 13 148 180 6
2004 2354 148 522 685 40 264 279 12
2005 2006 126 352 469 24 176 336 26
2006 2411 316 414 693 57 264 454 41
2007 4270 1359 958 1318 407 924 1349 121
2008 2369 582 400 490 432 386 1193 79
2009 2431 689 329 433 556 431 1652 131
2010 2456 629 338 413 421 398 1233 151
Combin
"revitalization or
"conservation"
"monument" +
"monument" +
"monument" +
"monument" +
"preservation"
monument(s)"
"protect-ion"
"monument"
building(s)"
building(s)"
ation of
"historical
"declared
historical
"graded
reuse"
Keywor
ds
Year
1998 93 2 4 3 0 3 12 1
1999 175 1 4 9 0 2 19 3
2000 102 1 6 5 0 5 20 0
2001 99 3 4 5 0 12 27 5
2002 88 4 4 6 0 6 32 7
2003 101 5 8 8 0 3 17 5
2004 145 23 23 17 0 17 47 3
2005 186 12 4 9 0 2 28 4
2006 215 22 21 21 0 27 71 14
2007 374 91 77 51 6 42 120 36
2008 311 48 35 30 9 22 128 12
2009 205 39 23 18 4 35 53 7
2010 222 30 21 20 2 33 34 8
110
Appendix IV
Appendix 4: List of Questions & Motions Raised in LegCo since 2000
Date of
Council Proposed Member Question / Motion
Meeting
23.2.2000 Hon Howard YOUNG Conversion of historical buildings for cultural use
how the Urban Renewal Authority could achieve the aims of heritage
09.01.2002 Hon Fred LI
conservation in implementing redevelopment projects
18.12.2002 Hon MA Fung-kwok Culture and Heritage Commission Consultation Paper 2002
12.2.2003 Hon LAU Ping-cheung Policy on heritage preservation
19.3.2003 Hon WONG Sing-chi Preservation of privately owned buildings with conservation value
24.3.2004 Hon CHAN Kwok-keung Conservation of monuments and heritage

Conserving the Central Police Station Compound and formulating a
10.11.2004 Hon CHOY So-yuk
comprehensive policy on antiquities and monuments
2.3.2005 Dr Hon KWOK Ka-ki Development plans for historical buildings
26.4.06 Prof Hon Partick LAU Built heritage conservation policy
28.6.06 Prof Hon Patrick LAU Facilitating urban development
5.7.06 Hon Fred LI Fully conserving the 'Government Hill

Striving for valuable cultural or natural heritage in Hong Kong to be inscribed
15.11.06 Hon LAU Kong-wah
on the World Heritage List"
6.12.06 Hon Albert HO Management of monuments and historical buildings
6.12.2006 Hon CHOY So-yuk Classifying historical buildings
13.12.06 Hon Bernard CHAN Display of train compartment
17.1.2007 Hon Audrey EU Motion on "Policy on conservation of monuments"
18.4.07 Hon Timothy FOK Yau Ma Tei Theatre
2.5.2007 Hon Alan LEONG Conserving the Queen's Pier
16.5.07 Prof Hon Patrick LAU Lee Tat Bridge in Shui Tsan Tin Tsuen, Pat Heung
16.5.2007 Hon LAU Wong-fat Grading assessment of antiquities and monuments
30.5.07 Hon CHEUNG Hok-ming Cultural heritage tourism
4.10.2007 Dr Hon YEUNG Sum Preservation of buildings of historic value

Inventory of Hong Kong's intangible cultural heritage and a "Hong Kong
7.11.2007 Audrey EU
Memory" central database
7.11.2007 Bernard CHAN Revitalising Historic Buildings Through Partnership Scheme
12.3.2008 CHEUNG Hok-ming Cultural heritage of New Territories villages
23.4.2008 Fred LI Transparency of and public participation in heritage assessment
111

Finalized Dissertation

Uploaded by

Document Information

Original Title

Copyright

Available Formats

Share this document

Share or Embed Document

Sharing Options

Did you find this document useful?

Is this content inappropriate?

Copyright:

Available Formats

Finalized Dissertation

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

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

Department of Public and Social Administration

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

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

Table 1: Combination of Keyword for Media Coverage Search .................................................. 11

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

1.2 Study Goal & Research Question

1.3.1 Theoretical Frameworks

1.3.2 Literature Review

An interview to Roy Ng Hei Man, Senior Campaign Officer of the Conservancy

1.3.5 Survey on Local Media Coverage

"monument" + "conservation" "古蹟" + "保育"

"monument" + "preservation" "古蹟" + "保存"

"monument" + "protection" "古蹟" + "保護"

"monument" + "revitalization or reuse" "古蹟" + "活化 / 再利用"

“declared monument(s)” “法定古蹟”

"historical building(s)" "歷史建築"

"graded historical building(s)" "*級歷史建築"

1.4 Structure of the Study

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

There is no precise definition of heritage in local legislation. Antiquities and Monument

In "Principles for the Conservation of Heritage Sites in China," conservation refers to

Nonetheless, it is necessary to delineate the concepts “conservation” and “preservation.”

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

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

3.1 David Easton’s “Political System” Framework (PSF)

3.1.1 Premises & Basic Notions

3.1.2.1 Essential Variable

In short, according to Easton, a political system is a large and continuous conversion

3.2 Sabatier’s “Advocacy Coalition Framework” (ACF)

3.2.1 Premises & Basic Notions

3.2.2.1 Belief system

3.2.2.2 Stable Exogenous Variables

3.2.2.3 Fluid Exogenous Variable

Hypothesis Concerning Advocacy Coalitions:

Hypothesis Concerning Policy Change:

Hypothesis Concerning Learning Across Coalitions:

(Sabatier and Jenkins-Smith, “The Advocacy Coalition Framework,” p.124)

3.3 Kingdon’s Multiple Streams Framework (MSF)

3.3.1 Premises & Basic Notion

3.3.1.2 Temporal Sorting

3.3.1.3 Visible and Hidden Participants

3.3.2.1 Three Streams

3.3.3 Hypotheses – Coupling & Policy Window

4.1 Legislation, Regulations & Guidelines

4.1.1 Antiquities and Monument Ordinance (A&MO)

4.1.4 Planning-related Laws and Regulations

4.1.6 Other Laws and Regulations

4.2.1 Antiquities Authority & Heritage Policy Bureau

AMO is a sub-department in Heritage and Museums Division of Leisure and Culture

4.2.3 Planning-related Institutions

4.2.4 Urban Renewal Authority (URA)

The preservation of Western Market, an Edwardian-architectural-style building built in

4.2.5 Chief Executive (CE) and Executive Council (ExCo)

4.2.6 Legislative Council (LegCo) and District Council (DC)

Enactment and amendment of A&MO, TPO, URAO and ordinance relating to

4.2.7 Other Establishment Bodies

Other government departments such as Architectural Services Department and the

4.3 Pressure Groups, Professional & Academics

4.4.1 Government Funds

4.4.2 The Hong Kong Jockey Club Charities Trust (HKJCCT)