International Journal of Heritage Studies

ISSN: 1352-7258 (Print) 1470-3610 (Online) Journal homepage: http://www.tandfonline.com/loi/rjhs20

Heritage Conservation in Post‐colonial Hong Kong

Tracey L.‐D. Lu

To cite this article: Tracey L.‐D. Lu (2009) Heritage Conservation in Post‐colonial Hong Kong,
International Journal of Heritage Studies, 15:2-3, 258-272, DOI: 10.1080/13527250902890969

To link to this article: http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/13527250902890969

Published online: 28 May 2009.

Submit your article to this journal

Article views: 1324

View related articles

Citing articles: 16 View citing articles

Full Terms & Conditions of access and use can be found at

http://www.tandfonline.com/action/journalInformation?journalCode=rjhs20

Download by: [Peking University] Date: 04 July 2017, At: 22:45

International Journal of Heritage Studies
Vol. 15, Nos. 2–3, March–May 2009, pp. 258–272

Heritage Conservation in Post-colonial

Hong Kong
Tracey L.-D. Lu

Hong Kong is a small territory located at a strategic position in South China, with very
luliedan@hotmail.com
Dr
0000002009
International
10.1080/13527250902890969
RJHS_A_389268.sgm
1352-7258
Original
Taylor
2009
2/3
15 TraceyLu
and
&Article
Francis
(print)/1470-3610
Francis
Journal of Heritage
(online)
Studies

limited land and other natural resources. When it became a British Colony, the city was
intended as a military fort and an economic centre. However, since the change of sovereignty
in 1997, heritage conservation has become one of the most popular issues. The current
concern for local heritage has been primarily raised by the local community, including
residents and non-government organisations. This paper discusses the economic, social,
political and environmental impetus of this unprecedented popularity of heritage conser-
vation in contemporary Hong Kong, and argues that heritage conservation has become an
implement for various parties in post-colonial Hong Kong to present themselves in the
discourse of urban renewal and development, and to defend and negotiate their interests.
This dynamic process also has significant impacts on the conservation of heritage properties
in Hong Kong.

Keywords: Post-colonial Hong Kong; Heritage Conservation; Communities

Located at the north coast of the Pacific Ocean and the south-east border of the East
Asia continent, Hong Kong is strategically a gateway connecting China, Southeast Asia
and the Pacific. To date, the total area of the Hong Kong Special Administrative
Region (HKSAR for short and referred to as ‘Hong Kong’ in this paper), is measured
to about 1104 km2, including the Hong Kong Island, the Kowloon Peninsular, the
New Territories, and 262 small islands.1
Geologically, Hong Kong is a mountainous landscape on sedimentary and volcanic
bedrocks, the oldest of the latter formed in 400 million years ago.2 Geographically,
apart from the small Yuen Long Plain in the New Territories, there is very little

Tracey L.-D. Lu, Anthropology Department, The Chinese University of Hong Kong. Correspondence to:
luliedan@hotmail.com

ISSN 1352–7258 (print)/ISSN 1470–3610 (online) © 2009 Taylor & Francis

DOI: 10.1080/13527250902890969
 International Journal of Heritage Studies 259
naturally flat land on Hong Kong Island and the Kowloon Peninsular. With a popula-
tion of over 6 million people, land suitable for human settlement is always in short
supply in Hong Kong.
Thus, land reclamation by private companies commenced in 1841, right after the
beginning of the British occupation. Large-scale land reclamation directed by the
government began in 1887, and the practice has been continuing ever since in order
to meet the growth of population and economics.3 The government is the legislated
landowner, and the income generated from land sales has been an important part of
the government revenue. For example, the estimated revenue for the financial year
2007–2008 from land sales is HK$287 million, or about 11.68% of the total revenue.4
As we shall see in the following sections of this paper, both the shortage of land and the
government’s fiscal reliance on land sale have profound and lasting effect upon
heritage management in Hong Kong.

Heritage Conservation in Hong Kong’s Context Before 1997

Hong Kong is a place where the East meats the West. On one hand, migrants from
mainland China from at least 6500 years ago have created rich prehistoric and historic
heritage assets, and intangible heritage such as Chinese customs and rituals, many of
the latter have already vanished in the adjacent South China mainly due to the political
movements after 1949. On the other hand, the British colonial period from 1841
to 1997 also witnessed the construction of many beautiful buildings, illustrating a co-
existence of Chinese and European cultures.
After obtaining the sovereignty of Hong Kong in 1841, the British colonial govern-
ment intended to build Hong Kong as a commercial port and a station for the British
Navy on its global route.5 Culture and cultural heritage were not on the colonial
government’s agenda. Traditional customs and rituals were practised by the indige-
nous villagers in the New Territories,6 but urban Hong Kong people had little interest
in heritage prior to 1997. Unlike many other societies of the world, the majority of
Hong Kong residents are migrants. From the late nineteenth century to the 1970s,
hundreds of thousands of people came to Hong Kong, with the biggest proportion
from mainland China,7 and the rest from Europe, South Asia, and other countries. To
these people, Hong Kong was not their home but a place to make a living. The majority
intended to return to their homeland after making substantial money in Hong Kong.
They did not have a strong sense of belonging to this land, and thus had little concern
about its history.
It was only in 1976 that the Colonial government passed the first legislation on heri-
tage management: the Antiquities and Monuments Ordinance, and established the
Antiquities and Monuments Office (AMO) to be in charge of heritage management in
Hong Kong. From the 1980s to the 1990s, AMO conducted several surveys on archae-
ological sites and historical buildings. According to survey results, there were about 200
archaeological sites dating from the Neolithic to the Qing dynasty (AD 1644–1911), or
from approximately 6500 to 200 years ago, and over 9500 buildings built before the
1950s, of which 900 had been recorded as historic buildings. More than 70 heritage sites
260 T. L.-D. Lu
were declared as heritage sites (called ‘declared monuments’ in Hong Kong), consisting
of about 18 archaeological sites and more than 50 historical buildings.8 The majority of
the declared archaeological sites are rock carvings dated to approximately 4000 years
ago, and the declared historic buildings are in either European or traditional Chinese
style, the former dating from the nineteenth to the early twentieth century, and the
latter from the seventeenth to the nineteenth century. Once declared, these buildings
are protected by law and cannot be demolished. However, the majority of buildings in
Hong Kong are only 20–30 years old.9
AMO was only a small branch within the Home Affairs Bureau before 1997, with
very limited power.10 While the legislation defines ‘heritage’ and empowers AMO to
declare archaeological sites and buildings of cultural significance as ‘heritage sites’, and
to protect and manage cultural and natural heritage properties in Hong Kong,11
neither the legislation nor AMO have had sufficient power to stop the demolition of
many buildings with historical, architectural and other value since the 1960s, when
Hong Kong entered an era of rapid economic development, modernisation and global-
isation. A government official in charge of AMO said in a lecture, ‘Buildings of more
than 20 years old in Hong Kong are considered “old” and can be demolished’.12 Thus,
since the 1970s, skyscrapers have replaced buildings constructed in the nineteenth and
early twentieth centuries, and huge shopping malls have replaced traditional street
markets and house-shops.
Before 1997, the public seemed to embrace this development model. A typical
example is the demolition of the beautiful Hong Kong Club building, which was a fine
example of Victorian architecture. The destruction of this dwelling stirred very little
protest from the public. Even the owners of this building objected to the conservation
proposal raised by the government.13
There are various reasons behind this social phenomenon prior to 1997. The first, as
mentioned above, is the shortage of land. As the population in Hong Kong grows, more
dwellings are required to provide residential and other social and cultural facilities. Old
buildings usually have fewer floors, so they had to be demolished to make way for new
and high buildings, which can provide more space. Second, it has been the Hong Kong
government’s policy to develop Hong Kong as a commercial and financial centre in
Asia and to attract more international investment and companies.14 Consequently,
more commercial, residential and social facilities must be constructed, and skyscrapers
are unavoidable as there is not enough land, especially in Hong Kong Island, which is
the commercial centre of Hong Kong. Third, Hong Kong is a capitalist society and the
ownership of private property is protected by law. The majority of historical buildings
or lands with archaeological remains are privately owned.15 If the government wants to
preserve any dwellings and/or land as heritage sites, it has to compensate the private
owners for the loss of ‘development potential’, which refers to the possible financial
return from selling the land for further development.16 This usually involves a large
sum of taxpayers’ money, and may not be supported by the public.
In summary, due to the geographic, economic, political and social factors, the
conservation of cultural heritage was never an important issue in colonial Hong Kong
prior to 1997. As land is such a valuable resource in Hong Kong, traditional buildings
 International Journal of Heritage Studies 261
have been demolished to make way for skyscrapers, and archaeological sites are
extremely difficult to protect from being damaged by property development and other
construction projects.

Heritage Conservation in Hong Kong after 1997—Two Examples

It was after the change of sovereignty in 1997 that heritage preservation became a popu-
lar issue in Hong Kong, particularly in the last few years. It is also noticeable that the
majority of the participants of this heritage preservation ‘movement’ are not the elders,
but younger and better educated persons. This social and cultural change can be
illustrated by two examples, both occurring in the Hong Kong Island.
The first example is the conservation of Kom Tong Hall, which originally was the
four-storey home of a wealthy Euro-Chinese merchant, and was built in 1914 in
the Mid-levels of Hong Kong Island. The mansion evidences the first residential occu-
pation of Chinese at the Mid-levels in the 1910s, which had been reserved for European
elites before that time. The building itself is a typical Edwardian classical dwelling with
Greek-style granite columns, wrought-iron balconies and red-brick walls, and is one of
the few surviving architectural structures of this style in Hong Kong (Figure 1). Thus,
it was identified as a grade two historical building (but not a declared moment) in 1990
by the Antiquities and Monuments Office.17
The Hall was put on sale after the death of the master and sold to a church in 1960;
Figure 1 The Kom Tong Hall, Now a Memorial Museum for Dr. Sun Yat-sen.

the latter wanted to demolish it for further development in 2002.18 However, the local
communities were not happy about this development, arguing that the Hall was a
historically important building and deserved to be preserved as a local landmark. They
expressed their objections by marching in the street, and by urging the local council of

Figure 1 The Kom Tong Hall, Now a Memorial Museum for Dr. Sun Yat-sen.
262 T. L.-D. Lu
the Central and Western District to negotiate with the owner and the government. The
Conservancy Association, which is a permanent local non-government organisation
founded in 1968 in Hong Kong with a mission of environmental and heritage conser-
vation,19 and two local political parties, also joined the protest.
The Hong Kong government also objected to this demolition, as the Hall had been
defined as a historical building. With support from the public, the government began
to negotiate with the church in late 2002. After a lengthy negotiation, an agreement was
finally reached in 2004. The government paid HK$53 million to the church to acquire
the mansion, and converted it to a memorial museum for Dr. Sun Yat-sen.20 The
museum was formally opened to the public in December 2006 to commemorate
the 140th anniversary of Dr. Sun’s birth.
In this case, the heritage property was successfully preserved initially because of the
efforts made by local communities, NGO and political parties. This community-driven
initiative fitted well into the government’s need to build a museum in that district, a
proposal raised in 2001 by the Cultural Committee of the government.21 Because Dr.
Sun’s revolutionary activities mainly took place in the Central and Western District of
Hong Kong Island, it was proposed to found the memorial museum in a historical
building in Central, which would be a focus of the Sun Yat-sen historical trail in its
vicinity.22 Apparently, the eventual conservation of the Hall is a result of shared inter-
ests of local communities, NGOs, and the government; and it was the government’s
action using public funds that produced decisive effects.
If the case of Kom Tong Hall illustrates a successful conservation of built heritage in
Hong Kong resulting from a convergence of interests of different parties, the case of
the Star Ferry Pier and Queen’s Pier illustrates a failure of attempted conservation due
to the conflict of different interests and parties. Both piers were located at the northern
waterfront of Hong Kong Island, and were built in 1958 and 1953 respectively. The
former served as a very important public transportation facility, as hundreds of thou-
sands of people took the ferry to cross Victoria Harbour daily from home to work and
vice versa. The Star Ferry Pier was also a place for local people to meet friends and/or
family members, so it also served a community purpose. The Queen’s Pier, on the
other hand, mainly served as the landing spot for new Governors, royalty and other
state visitors in the colonial period, but lost its political function after 1997, although it
was still used by the public for fishing and meeting friends, as well as a pier for private
boats.
According to an unclear agenda set up by the government, both buildings were not
classified as historical buildings. Thus, both were subject to demolition when the
government planned the Central Reclamation Project phase III in 1997 to construct
two highways, a long ‘harbour-front corridor’, a huge shopping mall, a military berth
for the Liberation Army Forces Hong Kong, and business office buildings in this area.23
However, the public was not aware of this plan until November 2006, when the local
media reported that the Star Ferry Pier would be demolished. Suddenly, hundreds of
thousands of people went to the Ferry Pier on the last day of its operation on 11
November 2006, expressed their objections and urged the government to keep the Pier,
including its clock tower, which contained a big electronic-mechanical clock specially
 International Journal of Heritage Studies 263

Figure 2 The Star Ferry Pier and the Clock Tower before Being Demolished. Thousands
of Hong Kong Citizens Went to the Ferry on the Last Day of Operation and Posted Their
Opinions, Urging the Government to Keep the Ferry and the Tower.

made for the Pier in the 1950s by the same company Dent, which made Big Ben in
London (Figure 2).
From November to December 2006, the issue of conservation vs. demolition of the
Figure 2 The Star Ferry Pier and the Clock Tower before Being Demolished. Thousands of Hong Kong Citizens Went to the Ferry on the Last Day of Operation and Posted Their Opinions, Urging the Government to Keep the Ferry and the Tower.

Star Ferry Pier was discussed, reported and hotly debated by all means of mass media,
on the internet, and at the Legislative Council of Hong Kong. Various local communi-
ties, NGOs, and political parties joined the protest, with a group consisting of university
students, journalists, members of NGOs and social workers, as well as architects, town
planners, and university teachers being the most active. However, the government
refused to yield, arguing that the reclamation project had been consulted and finalised,
and the project had been contracted to construction companies, so the conservation of
the Star Ferry was impossible.24 The government also said that this Pier was only built
in 1958 by demolishing its antecedent, an Edwardian-style pier, so it was not ‘old’
enough to be preserved. Further, the government explained that a new pier imitating
the Edwardian one had been built, so there was no need to keep this one built in 1958.25
However, the public considered the new pier a ‘fake’, and insisted on keeping the one
built in 1958. Nevertheless, the Ferry Pier and the Clock Tower were eventually demol-
ished in December 2006 amid fierce protests from a few hundred persons, the majority
being youngsters.
The same groups then moved to campaign for the conservation of the Queen’s Pier
in early 2007, including camping at the Pier, hunger strikes, and taking a legal action to
the Supreme Court of Hong Kong SAR against government’s decision. However, none
of these actions worked, and the Supreme Court judgers endorsed the government’s
decision. In August 2007 all the protestors were removed by police from the Queen’s
Pier, and the Pier was demolished.
264 T. L.-D. Lu
Discussion

The above two cases facilitate a comparative study of heritage conservation in post-
colonial Hong Kong. Based on interviews, participant observation, and analysis of mass
media and internet discussion, it can be argued that there are many hidden agendas
behind the conservation or demolition of these built dwellings.
The conservation appeal in both cases was initiated by communities, including local
residents, district councillors, young social workers, journalists, university students,
and the Conservancy Association, which is a permanent NGO formed by scholars,
social workers, journalists and other educated persons. This NGO mainly focuses on
environmental preservation and has been working on this issue since its establishment
in 1968. According to an officer of this NGO, heritage conservation is one of their main
issues along with environmental conservation. They mobilised the public by compiling
electronic magazines, publishing articles in newspapers, and sending messages through
mobile phones, as well as joining and supporting local community protest activities.
The government in the first case was pushed by the community, whereas in the
second case it was in conflict with the community. There have also been several other
cases initiated by local communities in the last few years.26 It seems that local commu-
nities in Hong Kong have shown a much greater willingness to participate in heritage
conservation after 1997, which is very encouraging. As emphasised by the Burra Char-
ter,27 heritage conservation cannot be sustained without community participation.
But why does this change occur after 1997? It has been argued that the construction
of identity is a crucial driving force behind heritage conservation in Hong Kong.28 As
mentioned above, before the 1960s the majority of Hong Kong residents did not view
Hong Kong as their home but a place to make a living. However, generations born in
Hong Kong after the 1960s gradually came to consider Hong Kong as their home, and
built up their Hong Kong identity. This construction of a Hong Kong identity acceler-
ated in the 1980s when the issue of returning to mainland China in 1997 was raised. As
quoted and discussed in the following section of this paper, many Hong Kong residents
still want to emphasise their Hong Kong identities after 1997 and to distinguish Hong
Kong from other big cities in mainland China. Thus, Hong Kong identity is
constructed through food culture,29 through advocating democratisation in Hong
Kong, and other political activities. The public support for the pan-democratic parties
in Hong Kong, which emphasise the ‘core values of Hongkongness’ and often criticise
the post-colonial local government and the Beijing government, has remained at
around 60% since 1997.30
Besides the identity issue, there are other causal factors. In both cases there were
several groups of stakeholders, and each group had its own economic, social, environ-
mental and/or political interests.
a) Local communities, including members of the NGO, university scholars and
students, are the most active party in both cases. In the Kom Tong Hall case, many local
residents have been living in the area for several decades, even more than one genera-
tion. They argued that the Hall was a symbol of both the district and Hong Kong
history, and by keeping the Hall their district would be visualised, and the unique
 International Journal of Heritage Studies 265
culture of Hong Kong would be ‘preserved.’ In the case of the two piers, although
people were from various districts in Hong Kong, they argued that both the Star Ferry
and the Queen’s Pier belong to the public, reflect a ‘collective memory’ of Hong Kong,
and symbolise the unique history of Hong Kong. As one person said:

I am against the demolishment, because the Ferry carries collective memory of many
persons, such as taking the ferry, or going to work etc. The new ferry cannot refresh
our memory because we need some tangible items we are familiar with … The loss of
the Ferry is like the loss of our feelings…

When discussing the reclamation project, another person said: ‘It’s pity that some
people will never understand the issue; it’s not only about memory and feeling, but also
the attitude how to craft our identity as an international city.’
Apparently, people argued that the Pier was important to them because: 1) the
memory of their personal life, like taking the ferry to work every day, or meeting friends
at the Pier, was attached to the Pier, so the Pier was a public place of the city; and 2) the
togetherness of this memory, or ‘collective memory’ as they claimed, represented and
characterised local culture and society. In this ‘conservation movement’, both piers
were constructed as symbols of local history and culture, and were perceived as impor-
tant icons for the construction and enhancement of Hong Kong people’s identity, and
the identity of Hong Kong as an ‘international city’.
But why should Hong Kong be portrayed as an ‘international city’? Why is it impor-
tant? According to some local people, being ‘international’ is one of the vital images of
Hong Kong, which makes Hong Kong a unique city, a city that is different from other
cities in China.31 There seems to have been a collective anxiety shared by some
members of the society that Hong Kong is being rapidly ‘Sinicized’ since 1997, and they
do not like it. Thus, they hope to maintain Hong Kong’s uniqueness by preserving its
past. A secondary school teacher described this as some sort of ‘subtle resistance [to
Sinicization]’.
To date, many Hong Kong people have not identified themselves as ‘Chinese’; they
rather claim to be ‘Hong Kong citizens’. According to surveys conducted by the Hong
Kong University in July 1997, 34.9% of the surveyed Hong Kong people identified them-
selves as ‘Hong Kong citizens’, 24.8% identified themselves as ‘Chinese Hong Kong
Citizens’, 20.1% called themselves ‘Hong Kong Chinese citizens’, 18.6% identified
themselves as ‘Chinese Citizens’, and 1.4% did not know their national identity. In June
2007, the figures were 23.4%, 31.8%, 16.7% and 26.4% respectively.32 The former two
identities emphasise ‘Hongkongness’, while the latter two are more on ‘Chineseness’.
Apparently, although more people are moving towards the identity of ‘Chineseness’ ten
years after the handover (38.7% in 1997 versus 43.1% in 2007), 55.2% of the people in
Hong Kong are still keen to differentiate themselves from mainland ‘Chinese’ and keep
their Hong Kong identity. This desire is the result of the profound differences in terms
of economic, social, legislative, political and cultural developments and achievements
between Hong Kong and mainland China since the 1960s, of the sense of pride of Hong
Kong residents based on these achievements, which in term has been enforced by mass
media, and of a rather widely exiting prejudice upon mainland Chinese.
266 T. L.-D. Lu
Further, in both cases, local communities demanded conservation in order to gain
more social spaces and facilities for themselves, spaces that could be shared by the
public, not just by the rich and the powerful. Since the change of sovereignty in 1997,
the gap between the rich and the poor has widened, and the working-class social
segment in post-colonial Hong Kong, which has enlarged since 1997,33 is increasingly
unhappy about the economic and political power acquired by property developers and
other big companies in Hong Kong. They want to keep the old buildings and are
against the skyscrapers, which, according to them, not only block the view, cause more
air pollution, create more traffic jams, and destroy the environment and the quality of
their life, but also symbolise the rich and the powerful, of which they are resentful.
What is more, they also view heritage conservation as an opportunity to participate
in the decision-making process of urban planning and city development, and as their
democratic right. As another person said: ‘I absolutely believe that the majority of
Hong Kong citizens support the preservation of the Ferry and the Queen’s Pier …
When government ignores the opinions of the public, I think we have no choice but to
act … This is what democracy is about…’
To summarise, the construction of local and/or collective identity, the public
concern over the environment and pollution, and the public’s need for more social
spaces and facilities as symbols of social fairness and justice, as well as more democratic
rights, are all driving forces behind the appeal and activities of heritage conservation
initiated by communities in post-colonial Hong Kong.
Heritage conservation has also facilitated the publicity of local community
members, who are not social elites and would not have had a say in Hong Kong affairs
had they not participated in this ‘conservation movement’. One of the most proactive
persons in the two piers’ event, a single mother, became politically well-known after
joining the conservation movement, and run for the by-election of the Hong Kong
Legislative Council in 2008.
b) Another stakeholder group is the local councillors. District councillors in Hong
Kong are elected by local residents, and primarily act as government consultants and
mediators between the government and local communities. In both cases, the district
councillors supported the community’s appeal for conservation. According to the
councillors, they do so not only because they have been elected by the latter, but also
because some of them share the residents’ concern about the environment and other
issues such as social space, facilities, and traffic problems in their district. The council-
lors urged the government in the Pier case, and the church in the Kom Tong Hall case,
to keep these ‘heritage properties’ by organising or supporting protest activities and
actively participating in the whole process of multi-party negotiation. By doing so, the
councillors want to demonstrate their ability to ‘serve’ the local community, which is
very important for winning the district council election.34
c) Several political parties, including the pro-government parties and their political
opposition, the pro-democracy parties, have also been involved in both cases. The
latter were particularly interested in the Pier case and seized it as an opportunity to win
public support, by participating in protest activities and arguing the issue at the Legis-
lative Council against the government. Apparently, in the Kom Tong Hall case, the
 International Journal of Heritage Studies 267
objectives and interests of the government and the local community were compatible,
so there was not much room for the pro-democracy parties to generate debates.
However, in the Pier case the government was in conflict with (part of) the community.
It is of course more politically beneficial for the opposition parties to take part in the
second case.
In sum, district councillors and political parties were important stakeholders in the
two cases. This illustrates that heritage conservation is definitely a process of power
demonstration and negotiation, and is part of the political game in post-colonial Hong
Kong.
d) Owners, of course, are vital stakeholders. In the Kom Tong Hall case, it was
primarily the interest of the church as the owner that was in conflict with the other
stakeholders, including the government, councillors, the local community and NGOs.
By giving up the land for redevelopment in Central, the church may lose financial
potential, but it may obtain intangible gains, including but not limited to popularity
and publicity, which are important for the survival and development of church as a
public institution.
However, in the Pier case the government as the owner claimed that a very large sum
of taxpayers’ money and public interests would be at stake if the two piers were
preserved. As mentioned above, land sale and property development have been the
priority of Hong Kong government policy since the colonial period; in addition, a new
berth for the Liberation Army of the PRC as part of the Reclamation Project is also an
important political issue. The government had significant economic and political
interests in this case and had to stand firm.
Because the pro-democracy parties were a minority in the Legislative Council, the
government had sufficient support to proceed with the demolition of the two piers.35
It should also be noted that, according to opinion polls,36 the majority of Hong Kong
residents did not strongly object to the demolition of the two piers, which gave the
government more confidence to proceed. This, again, proves the importance of
community participation and power in heritage conservation.
It is also worth noting that the majority of active participants in both cases were
younger people aged between 20 and 40, and their occupations ranged from university
students and young teachers, journalists, architects, town planners, social workers to
NGO members. They are well-educated, and know how to use the internet, public
forums, political parties and mass media to present their opinions and mobilise the
public, and take necessary actions to attract public attention in order to achieve their
goals.
What has driven these people to demand the conservation of things that are ‘old’?
There are different values and concerns among different individuals and groups. While
many of them are concerned about the local history and identity, environment and
pollution, the sustainable development of Hong Kong, or social justice, some have other
reasons. According to one young person, his concern about insecure employment and
an unpredictable future as a result of globalisation, of transnational movements of
investments and jobs, and of the current economic transformation in Hong Kong from
a light industry centre in the 1960s and the 1970s to a finance and service centre, has
268 T. L.-D. Lu
triggered his ‘pursuit of values other than getting a good job and making money’. It
seems that the globalisation of business activities and economic changes also plays a role
in the surge of heritage conservation in post-colonial Hong Kong.

Conclusion
Why have some Hong Kong urban people become so ‘nostalgic’, and why is heritage
suddenly beloved after 1997? We have to place this social phenomenon into the cultural
context of post-colonial Hong Kong in order to understand it. The economic, environ-
mental, social and political factors behind this ‘heritage conservation movement’ can
be summarised as follows.
First, as a result of both the lack of land and the economic development model focus-
ing on property development, land in Hong Kong is extremely valuable, which makes
conservation of the built heritage all the more difficult. Many ‘built heritage’ properties
have been demolished in urban Hong Kong. Now the local community thinks that it
has lost too many heritage properties and wants to save some; but, more importantly,
local people are not happy about this economic development model, so heritage
conservation has become a tool for them to attack the model.
Second, the Basic Law has empowered Hong Kong people to participate in the
management and development of the city following 1997.37 But the current constitu-
tional framework in Hong Kong does not facilitate a government election by universal
suffrage. Thus, at least part of the community uses heritage conservation as a legiti-
mised public domain to express a demand for democracy, and a strong desire to have
a say in the development of Hong Kong. This desire is both the result and the causal
factor of the rising sense of Hong Kong identity before38 and after the handover in
1997. It also shows a strong willingness among the working and middle classes in Hong
Kong to protect and negotiate their economic and social interests with the dominating
power in post-colonial Hong Kong, such as more public space and facilities, and social
justice.
Third, heritage conservation is closely related to the construction and enforcement
of local identity after 1997, which is a results of the historical and cultural differences
between mainland China and Hong Kong. Unlike other post-colonial societies in Asia,
the decolonisation of Hong Kong was not initiated from inside. Thus, the construction
of identity and local culture is also quite different. As mentioned above, for some
societal members, ‘preserving the past’ has become a legitimised approach to subtly
resist Sinicisation after 1997.
Finally, heritage conservation in post-colonial Hong Kong has also been used as an
implement by the relatively powerless residents and NGO members to fight against the
powerful private property owners and the government, and by the relatively poor to
fight against the rich, who have been building skyscrapers and huge shopping malls.
This phenomenon reflects social discontent over the ever-increased gap between rich
and poor in post-colonial Hong Kong. My informants have argued that the govern-
ment is too pro-business and has had too little concern about the poor; that there is a
collusion of merchants and government officials. They intend to prevent or reduce the
 International Journal of Heritage Studies 269
construction of more skyscrapers by demanding the conservation of the built heritage,
and they view this as a way to fight against the tycoons. Thus, heritage conservation in
post-colonial Hong Kong is not just for heritage; it is not even mainly for heritage, but
for different needs of different groups and peoples. Heritage has become an economic,
social and political tool in Hong Kong today.
The two examples discussed in this paper also raise many questions. For example,
what is ‘heritage’? What is the agenda to define ‘heritage’? Should heritage show the
history of the social elite, or the history of the community? What should be preserved
or forgotten? Whose heritage? Who has the power to decide, to preserve and manage
heritage sites? Is heritage management a social elite’s business, or community’s
business, or both? How to preserve and manage heritage in areas like Hong Kong with
very little land and a relatively large population? How to balance economic develop-
ment and heritage conservation? Does Hong Kong want to develop cultural/heritage
tourism? What are the pros and cons of heritage tourism? Will that be helpful to the
poor and the local community?
All the above questions require further studies. Further more, both funding and
professionals are insufficient for heritage conservation in Hong Kong at the moment.
However, in order to tackle these questions, the government should have a clear cultural
policy and strategies; there should be updated legislation for heritage conservation; the
government should understand the community’s needs and desire in order to manage
heritage in a sustainable manner, and more education is required. What is more, the
government should make an effort to balance economic development, a better environ-
ment and better quality of life, and heritage conservation can help to achieve this goal.
While the conflicts of these needs and interests may result in a failure of heritage
conservation, a balance of these interests will be beneficial not only for heritage but for
a more harmonious society. The Hong Kong government should take a more proactive
role in this field, not only because it is responsible for the management of heritage
in Hong Kong, but also because it is responsible for the well-being of all Hong Kong
citizens and the society as a whole.
Finally, to the Hong Kong government’s credit, the policy address delivered on 10
October 2007 by the chief executive Mr. Donald Tsang tackled some of the public’s
concern. He realised that ‘In recent years, Hong Kong people have expressed our
passion for our culture and lifestyle’, and promised to ‘inject $1 billion into the
Environment and Conservation Fund’ for ‘environmental protection and conservation
activities’, and ‘will press ahead with our work on heritage conservation’.39 Although
we have to wait and see how this policy will be implemented, at least this statement
proves that the efforts of many local community members in the past few years have
not been totally in vain; and that the bottom-up approach of heritage conservation in
a relatively open administrative system like that in Hong Kong can work.

Notes
[1] Hong Kong SAR Government, Hong Kong-the Facts.
1

[2] Peng, Hong Kong Minerals.

2
270 T. L.-D. Lu
[3] Antiquity Advisory Board of Hong Kong SAR, ‘A Historical and Architectural Appraisal of
3

Queen’s Pier, Central’.

[4] Tsang, ‘Structural Problem as Revealed by the Budget’.
4

[5] Miners, The Government and Politics of Hong Kong, 3.

5

[6] Cheung, ‘Remembering through Space’.

6

[7] Ibid.
7

[8] Chau and Siu, ‘The Findings of the Territory Wide Archaeological Sites and Historical
8

Buildings Survey’, 1–13.

[9] Yue, ‘The Reborn of Ageing Buildings’.
9

[10] Teather and Chow, ‘Identity and Place’.

10

[11] Hong Kong SAR Government, ‘Antiquities and Monuments Ordinance’.

11

[12] Dr. Hu (not his real name), lecture at CUHK, October 2006.
12

[13] Lu, ‘Preserving Cultural Heritage in Hong Kong-Achievements and Problems’.

13

[14] Hong Kong SAR Government, ‘Investment Promotion’.

14

[15] Ng, ‘The Conservation of Antiquities in Hong Kong’, 16–17.

15

[16] (ibid.)
16

[17] The Conservancy Association, ‘Mission’.

17

[18] Ibid.
18

[19] Ibid.
19

[20] Home Affairs Bureau, HKSAR, ‘Conversion of Kom Tong Tall for use as the Dr. Sun Yat-sen
20

Museum’.
[21] Home Affairs Bureau, HKSAR, ‘The Development of Hong Kong Museums’.
21

[22] Ibid.
22

[23] Civil Engineering and Development Department, Hong Kong SAR, ‘Central Reclamation’.
23

[24] Wong, ‘The Government has Met All the Legal Requirements when Demolishing the Star Ferry’.
24

[25] Leisure and Cultural Service Department, HKSAR, ‘AAB reaffirms no objection raised to Star
25

Ferry Pier demolition plan in 2002.’

[26] Lu, ‘Cultural Heritage Preservation and Urban Renewal in Hong Kong’.
25

[27] Australia ICOMOS, Burra Charter.

26

[28] Teather and Chow, ‘Identity and Place’; Henderson, ‘Heritage, Identity and Tourism in Hong
27

Kong’; Cheung, ‘The Meanings of A Heritage Trail in Hong Kong’; Wong, ‘Collective
Memory and Social Indicators’.
[29] Tam, ‘Lost, and Found?’.
28

[30] Cai, ‘Election is a Gamble?’

29

[31] Based on my interview with activists and analysis of internet discussions.

30

[32] Poll of People, Hong Kong University.

31

[33] Fong, ‘Rethinking the Problem of Poverty’.

32

[34] A resident bluntly said: ‘Well, if they [the councilors] don’t support us, we will remember and
33

show this in the next election’.

[35] Anonymous, ‘The Legislative Council did not Pass the Proposal for Conserving the Queen’s
34

Pier’.
[36] The results of opinion poll conducted by different parties varied and are contradictory, but it
35

seems that about, or less than 50% of Hong Kong people support the conservation of the
Queen’s Pier. See http://paper.wenweipo.com/2006/12/30/HK0612300038.htm, http://paper.
wenweipo.com/2007/08/13/YO0708130013.htm, and http://www.liberal.org.hk/contents/
modules/issue/showsublistContents.php?sublist_Contentid=5793 (accessed 12 September
2007).
[37] HKSAR Government, The Basic Law, Article 3, ‘The executive authorities and legislature of
36

the Hong Kong Special Administrative Region shall be composed of permanent residents of
Hong Kong in accordance with the relevant provisions of this Law’.
[38] Wong, ‘Collective Memory and Social Indicators’.
37

[39] Tsang, A New Direction for Hong Kong.

38
 International Journal of Heritage Studies 271
References
Anonymous, ‘The Legislative Council did not Pass the Proposal for conserving the Queen’s Pier’,
Mingpao News, 3 May 2007.
Antiquity Advisory Board of Hong Kong SAR. ‘A Historical and Architectural Appraisal of Queen’s
Pier, Central’. Unpublished government document, 2007.
Australia ICOMOS. 1999 Burra Charter, article 12. Available at http://www.icomos.org/australia/
burra.html (accessed 21 September 2007).
Cai, Z. Q. ‘Election is a Gamble?’ Mingpao News, 9 September 2008, p. A32.
Chau, H. W. and L. K. Siu. ‘The Findings of the Territory Wide Archaeological Sites and Historical
Buildings Survey’. Conference paper presented at the international conference on Heritage
and Tourism held in 1998 in Hong Kong.
Cheung, C. H. S. ‘The Meanings of a Heritage Trail in Hong Kong’. Annals of Tourism Research 26,
no. 3 (1999): 570–588.
———. ‘Remembering through Space: The Politics of Heritage in Hong Kong’. International Journal
of Heritage Studies 9, no. 1 (2003): 7–26.
Civil Engineering and Development Department, Hong Kong SAR. ‘Central Reclamation Phase III’.
Available at http://www.criii-cedd.com/background/objectives.htm (accessed 20 September
2007).
Fong, M. S. ‘Rethinking the Problem of Poverty’. Singtao Daily, 5 October 2007, p. A10.
The Conservancy Association. Mission of the Conservancy Association. Available at http://
www.conservancy.org.hk/aboutCA/mainE.htm (accessed 25 September 2007).
Henderson, J. ‘Heritage, Identity and Tourism in Hong Kong’. International Journal of Heritage
Studies 7, no. 3 (2001): 219–235.
Home Affairs Bureau, HKSAR. ‘Conversion of Kom Tong Tall for Use as the Dr. Sun Yat-sen
Museum’. unpublished government document, 2005.
———. ‘The Development of Hong Kong Museums’. Unpublished government document, 2005.
Hong Kong SAR Government. Hong Kong- the Facts. Available at http://www.gov.hk/en/about/
abouthk/facts.htm (accessed 19 September 2007).
———. Antiquities and Monuments Ordinance. Hong Kong: Government Press, 1998.
———. Investment Promotion Ambassador Scheme. Available at http://www.investhk.gov.hk/
pages/1/54.aspx (accessed 24 September 2007).
———. The Basic Law. Available at http://www.gov.hk (accessed 10 September 2007).
Hong Kong University. Poll of People. Available at http://hkupop.hku.hk/ (accessed 25 September
2007).
Leisure and Cultural Service Department, HKSAR, ‘AAB reaffirms no objection raised to Star Ferry Pier
demolition plan in 2002’, government press release on 12th December 2006. Available at http:/
/www.info.gov.hk/gia/general/200612/12/P200612120263.htm. (Accessed October 10, 2007).
Lu, T. L.-D. ‘Preserving Cultural Heritage in Hong Kong—Achievements and Problems’. Paper
presented at the international conferences of Social Sciences at Hawaii, 13 June 2003.
———. ‘Cultural Heritage Preservation and Urban Renewal in Hong Kong’. In Proceedings of the
International Conference on Urban Culture and Cultural Heritage Conservation, edited by the
State Administration of Cultural Heritage, PRC. Beijing: SACH, 2007.
Miners,Norman. The Government and Politics of Hong Kong. Hong Kong: Oxford University Press,
1975.
Ng, C. W. ‘The Conservation of Antiquities in Hong Kong’. New Asia Bulletin 9 (2006): 16–17.
Peng, C. J. Hong Kong Minerals. Hong Kong: The Urban Council of Hong Kong, 1991.
Poll of People, Hong Kong University, ‘Hong Kong People’s Identity’. Avialable at http://
hkupop.hku.hk/ (accessed 10 September 2007).
Tam, S. M. ‘Lost, and Found? Reconstructing Hong Kong Identity in the Idiosyncrasy and Syncre-
tism of Yumcha’. In Changing Chinese Foodways in Asia, edited by David Y.-H. Wu and
TanChee-beng. Hong Kong: Chinese University Press, 2001.
272 T. L.-D. Lu
Teather, E. K. and C. S. Chow. ‘Identity and Place: The Testament of Designated Heritage in Hong
Kong’. International Journal of Heritage Studies 9, no. 2 (2003): 93–115.
Tsang, D.The 2007–08 Policy Address—A New Direction for Hong Kong. Available at http://
www.policyaddress.gov.hk/07-08/eng/docs/policy.pdf (accessed 10 October 2007).
Tsang, Y. C. ‘Structural Problem as Revealed by the Budget’. Mingpao News, 29 January 2007.
Wong, T. W. P. ‘Collective Memory and Social Indicators: Hong Kong People on the Eve of
Handover’. In Changes of Chinese Societies and Social Indicators, edited by LauSiu-kai et al.
Hong Kong: Hong Kong Institute of Asia-Pacific Studies, The Chinese University of Hong
Kong, 1998.
Wong, Y. W. ‘The Government has Met All the Legal Requirements when Demolishing the Star
Ferry’. Mingpao News, 18 January 2007.
Yue,Chi-hang. ‘The Reborn of Ageing Buildings’. Paper presented at the Construction Industry
Institute Conference, 2006. Available at http://www.ciihk.org.hk/conference2006/postevent/
14%20Mr%20C%20H%20Yue/Yue%20Chi%20Hang.pdf (accessed 7 September 2007).