Category Archives: 文件、信件、聲明 Documents, Letters & Decla

關於拆天星的技術性資料,專業團體建議和聲言

新聞稿: 行政獨大,保育無望

本土行動新聞稿 — 行政獨大,保育無望

去聽本土行動對判詞的觀點

今日,高等法院就皇后碼頭的司法覆核作出裁決,判政府勝訴。法官的判詞再一次確認,現有制度及法例容許行政部門權力獨大,繼而使大財團及政府主導的發展壓倒一切。如果不進行徹底的改革,香港的保育工作毫無希望可言。

法官在判詞中解釋古物古蹟條例,指法例容許古物監督擁有極大的酌情權﹝判詞第五十五段﹞。此酌情權讓行政部門可以地產發展及工程理由,大量破壞香港的文化遺產。例如,何志平自行決定戰後建築物不具足夠歷史價值被列為法定古蹟,以此標準,本港所有戰後的重要公共建築物,包括大會堂及尖沙咀天星碼頭,都難以得到法定古蹟的保障。

同時,判詞指出,法定古蹟的決定與古物諮詢委員會的評級沒有連繫,再次確認了行政部門的絕對權力。可憐的古物諮詢委員會變得可有可無,政府可以完全不理會委員會的評級。換言之,所謂公眾諮詢,已淪為行政部門的花瓶。

由於保衛天星碼頭及皇后碼頭的衝擊,政府官員曾承諾檢討古物古蹟制度。但是,新成立的發展局,連一位專門負責保育的常務秘書也沒有,古物古蹟辦事處仍然是康文署轄下一個部門,地位極低,無法制衡最終決定古蹟命運的發展局﹝發展局長林鄭月娥是新任的古物事務監督﹞、城規會及市建局。

香港現存的古物古蹟制度是在三十多年前設立,極為落後。在此制度下,市民完全沒有渠道參與指定古蹟。經過皇后碼頭運動的衝擊,現在連特首委任的古物諮詢委員也變成多餘的。

市民越來越清楚,修改香港古物古蹟條例和改革本港文物保育制度,刻不容緩。兩名司法覆核申請人何來及朱凱迪,正積極與大律師研究上訴的可能。我們將繼續透過所有渠道保衛皇后碼頭,以及促進相關的制度改革。我們相信,保育香港文化的城市運動不會在此終結,這只是一個開始。

本土行動 二零零七年八月十日

讀判詞

採訪通知:解放愛丁堡最後通碟

根據七月廿四日發展局局長林鄭月娥向立法會議員解釋的拆碼頭計劃,大會堂和愛丁堡廣場範圍只需封閉一晚(立法會文件, CB(1)2151/06-07(01),附件F ,頁一)。皇后碼頭既已被清場高及圍板,但整個愛丁堡廣場至今依然被警方以兩米多高的大型水馬封鎖。除了工程人員和警方,所有人均不得內進。整個愛丁堡廣場被無理地封鎖。

雖然發展局發表聲明,指由於要遷就工程車出入,所以封路;但就我們所見,工程車是由天星地盤通往皇后,根本不用封鎖愛丁堡廣場。另外,根據現有行政部門的權力,運輸署可以不斷地延長封鎖。為避免行政部門繼續濫用權力,本土行動將發出最後通碟,要求政府立即移走水馬,解封愛丁堡廣場。

本土行動

日期 / 時間:八月十一日﹝六﹞下午四時
地點:舊天星碼頭外空地,愛丁堡廣場封鎖範圍外
查詢:蘇小姐(91677401 )

發表留言

Filed under 皇后碼頭 Queen's pier, 街頭抗爭 Streets Actions, 文件、信件、聲明 Documents, Letters & Decla

提提您兩件事

請於星期二早上到高等法院聲援,支持原地保留皇后碼頭。

星期二早上十點高等法院七號庭,本土行動司法覆核聆訊

皇后碼頭司法覆核法援上訴得直

皇后碼頭的司法覆核聆訊將於明天﹝星期二﹞早上十時於高等法院舉行。大戰前夕,本土行動兩名申請人何來及朱凱迪,在法律援助的上訴聆訊中先勝一仗。高等法院聆案官歐陽桂如在今日中午,推翻法律援助署的決定,裁定兩名司法覆核申請人得直,有權得到法律援助署的資助,繼續司法覆核聆訊。

由於今早的進行的是內庭聆訊,在徵詢律師意見後,申請人只會約略交代整個申請過程如下:

一﹞高等法院法官林文瀚於七月三十一日﹝二﹞准許何來及朱凱迪的司法覆核申請,該司法覆核申請指出,前民政事務局長何志平判定皇后碼頭不是古蹟的決定是「非法」和「非常不合理」的。由於訴訟可能涉及近百萬的堂費及律師費,兩名申請人同日便到法律援助署申請法律援助。法律援助署當時表示,要獲得法律援助,申請人需要經過兩項測試,包括﹝一﹞涉及的訴訟要有勝算;﹝二﹞申請人的資產符合當局要求;

二﹞星期五晚上,申請人收到法援署的電話,表示申請人的司法覆核不能通過第一項測試﹝即有勝算的測試﹞;

三﹞星期六下午,申請人提交新的文件,要求法援署覆核申請,法援署當日維持原來的決定。兩名申請人不服決定,獲安排於今早在高等法院上訴;

四﹞在今早的內庭聆訊中,兩名申請人指出,有關皇后碼頭的司法覆核申請,意義重大,因為聆訊除了涉及皇后碼頭一地的保育問題,更涉及古物古蹟條例和政府整個保育架構的運作,聆訊將有助政府及市民共同檢視目前的法例及制度的不足。他們認為,由於是項司法覆核主要關乎一項公眾議題,並不涉及個人利益,申請人能否勝訴不應成為法援署拒絕申請的唯一理由。最後,申請人亦認為,自己擁有的資產非常有限﹝符合法律援助的資產要求﹞,若果得不到政府法律援助,實在難以承擔可能面對的律師費用,有關司法覆核申請亦可能要臨時中止。高等法院聆案官歐陽桂如聽取申請人及法援署的表述後,判兩名申請人得直,有權得到法援署資助繼續司法覆核。

本土行動

二零零七年八月六日傍晚六時四十分

==========================
皇后碼頭被警方清場當日, 你在哪兒?
戲劇工作坊 –李俊妮

日期: 2007年8月7日 (星期二)
時間: 晚上7時30分至9時30分
地點: 舊天星空地
內容: 皇后碼頭被警方清場當日, 你在哪兒? 被重重鐵馬重重警方陣線隔開, 在鐵欄外不得而入的人們? 是留守在碼頭內, 將要被強大警力抬走的人兒? 還是在碼頭上蓋, 被暴烈的陽光猛曬一整天的朋友? 就算你當天不在現場, 在家看電視直播的你, 也可能心有戚戚焉. 就讓我們以戲劇形式, 重溫當日因不同崗位,不同地點所併發出的複雜感.

2 則迴響

Filed under 皇后碼頭 Queen's pier, 街頭抗爭 Streets Actions, 文件、信件、聲明 Documents, Letters & Decla, 最新活動 ﹣﹣ 一起來參與 Recent Activities

發展局局長在皇后碼頭公開論壇的發言全文(只有中文)

發展局局長林鄭月娥今日(七月二十九日)下午出席在皇后碼頭舉行的公開論壇的開場發言全文(只有中文)

發表留言

Filed under 皇后碼頭 Queen's pier, 文件、信件、聲明 Documents, Letters & Decla

皇后碼頭論壇 — 與林鄭月娥會面(歡迎大家來)

本土行動由去年十二月底發起保衛皇后碼頭運動,轉眼已近七個月。由四月廿六日開始的廿四小時留守行動亦已持續了三個月。在這些堅持的日子裏,沒有一個官員 正式來過皇后碼頭﹝拆碼頭的決定都是在辦公室作出的﹞,整個政府唯一一班來碼頭的公務員,就是負責監視抗爭者動向的警察。

It has now been over six full months since Local Action started the movement to save Queen’s Pier. We have also kept our watch at the Pier continuously for over three months, since we initiated a 24-hour round-the-clock guard in situ on 26 April. During all this time, not one Government official has come to see any of us at the Pier. All the decisions about removing the Pier have been made in the office, and the only representatives of Government who do come to see us regularly, to watch over us closely and keep an eye on our protest moves, have been none other than the police.

新任發展局長林鄭月娥,在皇后碼頭即將被圍板清拆前夕到碼頭與民間團體會面,公關色彩遮也遮不住。令其公關策略失效的唯一方法,就是所有對香港無節制的發展感到難過、對政府漠視歷史和保育感到憤怒和焦急的市民,七月廿九日兩點鐘一起來到皇后碼頭,大聲說明我們為何難過、為何憤怒、為何焦急。

The new Secretary for Development Mrs Carrie Lam’s upcoming visit to the Queen’s Pier and meeting with the civil society representatives right before her Bureau staff start tearing down the place is a remarkable move by Government, for its blatant gestures in public relations. To render them ineffective, the only way is for all the people of Hong Kong who feel distressed, angry and desperate about what is happening to our heritage and our history in the face of uncontrolled development to turn up this Sunday, 29 July, at 2 pm at Queen’s Pier to show and explain clearly to our Government our distress, our anger and our desperation.

日期:零七年七月廿九日﹝星期日﹞
時間:
下午一點四十五分至兩點──本土行動祈天儀式
下午兩點十五分至四點半──論壇
主要發言嘉賓:
一﹞文化傳承監察代表鄭敏華﹝see網絡總監﹞
二﹞本土行動成員朱凱迪
三﹞保育皇后碼頭古蹟專業關注組成員解端泰
四﹞規劃師龐婉儀﹝前規劃師學會副會長﹞
五﹞林鄭月娥局長
地點:中環皇后碼頭

Date: 29 July 2007 (Sunday)

Schedule:

1:45 – 2:00 pm Ritual by Local Action

2:15 – 4:30 pm Forum

Key Guest Speakers:

1. Ms CHENG Man-wah, Patsy (Representative of Heritage Watch, Director of SEE Network)

2. Mr CHU Hoi-dick (Member of Local Action)

3. Mr Freddie HAI (Member of Professional Concern Group on the Conservation of the Queen’s Pier Heritage)

4. Ms Y Y PONG (Former Vice President, Hong KongInstitute of Planners)

5. Mrs Carrie LAM (Secretary for Development)

發表留言

Filed under 皇后碼頭 Queen's pier, 街頭抗爭 Streets Actions, 文件、信件、聲明 Documents, Letters & Decla

本土行動絕食宣言

本土行動絕食宣言

來自飢餓身體的呼喚:請為下一代守衛此地

本土行動絕食宣言

保衛皇后碼頭的號角已經響起,我們決定發起無限期絕食(不進葡萄糖,只喝清水),向市民和政府發出最終的呼喚:請為下一代守衛此地。

這是一個我城急速受到破壞的時代。很多珍貴的人事物,在還未來得及沉澱成深厚的文化土壤前,人已被訓練成對毀滅和強拆麻木。皇后碼頭只是數之不盡的例子之一,而我們,就是在這時代成長的年輕人。

近半年來,我們在皇后碼頭,進行了不下二十次的文化藝術活動、有關皇后碼頭一帶的歷史研究、無數次學生和市民參與的文化導賞團。三個月前,在政府宣告碼頭停用之際,我們開始了二十四小時全天候的進駐行動,逐漸熟悉這片市民空間的生態和習性,還認識了在這裡生活了數十年的叔叔伯伯,及每星期日風雨不改的外傭移工等。

再一次,我們又要再次面對毀滅和強拆。政府半年前清拆天星時仍抵賴說它未足五十歲,故無法評級。受到市民廣泛愛戴的皇后碼頭經已被官方委任的古物諮詢委員評了最高級,今天仍難逃厄運!

我城還有多少社區網絡、市民空間和歷史文物可堪拆毁?從天星到皇后,政府根本風紋未動。易地重置是荒謬:皇后不是迪士尼,不能拆掉後胡亂挑個地方重建。事到如今,我們已別無選擇!天星已經消失,皇后現在危在旦夕,政府不可一錯再錯,我們唯有絕食直至政府承諾原地保留皇后碼頭。我們也在此呼喚:來皇后,為下一代守衛此地。

本土行動

二零零七年七月廿七日

1 則迴響

Filed under 皇后碼頭 Queen's pier, 文件、信件、聲明 Documents, Letters & Decla, 最新活動 ﹣﹣ 一起來參與 Recent Activities

給香港人的信 letter to Hong Kong people

fireworks7.1at queens

保衛皇后碼頭 差你一個

各位爭取民主的同路人,你可能偶爾在傳媒報道中得知半年來的保衛天星及皇后碼頭運動,卻想不到事情和自己的關係。在這短短的篇幅裏,我們希望說明一點:保衛碼頭運動與你大有關係,保衛碼頭運動也跟香港民主化大有關係。

一﹞保衛碼頭運動是要爭取城市規劃制度民主化
香港的城市規劃制度極度封閉,政府和地產商合謀,要拆什麼要蓋什麼要填多少海,通通自己說了算,小市民根本無從過問。曾蔭權要將政府總部搬到解放軍總部和警察總部中間,以後遊行只能沿着沒人的海邊走,你有權阻止嗎?解放軍要在中環新填海區蓋軍事碼頭,隔絕新中環海濱,你有權阻止嗎?市區重建局將一個個舊區消滅改建大商場,你有權阻止嗎?香港政府將天星皇后碼頭等重要歷史見證消滅,你有權阻止嗎?香港政府一次又一次填海,你有權阻止嗎?沒有。保衛碼頭運動不單是保一塊石屎,更是捅開封閉的城市規劃制度,讓市民能決定城市發展方向的第一步。

二﹞保衛碼頭運動是要對抗無所不用其極的發展主義
香港城市發展完全向地產商傾斜,不斷將公共空間私有化,以求牟取最大利潤。我們看西九龍填海區,這片三百三十一公頃的新土地,原來目標是配合市區重建,疏導九龍半島市區的擠逼環境﹝參一九九一年都會計劃研究﹞。結果在地產商的挾持下,西九龍的私人樓宇愈蓋愈多,愈蓋愈密,將舊區重重包圍。西九龍的人口目標由九四年的十一萬飈升至零五年的廿三萬,政府透過土地拍賣及補地價,得到接近五百億的收入。現在西九龍填海區只剩下南面四十公頃的文娛藝術區空地,政府居然還說沒錢蓋,計劃將大部分地皮用來建豪宅。保衛碼頭運動不單是保一塊石屎,更是要向這種貪得無厭的發展主義說不。

三﹞保衛碼頭運動是要守衛香港的公共空間、讓下一代知道香港人爭取民權的歷史
政府的中環新海濱規劃,意圖消滅有近五十年歷史的大會堂、天星碼頭、愛丁堡廣場公共空間,逼市民穿過大商場才能抵達新海濱。但是,這片地方不單是幾塊石屎加一塊空地,這片地方是香港戰後最重要的公共空間,見證着一代又一代人爭取民權自由的歷史:六六年反天星小輪加價、七十年代的反殖民運動、八九年聲援國內民主運動,多不勝數。當權者意欲消滅這片重要的公共空間,就是要抹去四十年來香港民權運動的過去。保衛碼頭運動不單是保一塊石屎,更是要保住這片香港庶民營造了近五十年的公共空間,讓下一代了解香港人爭取民權、爭取尊嚴的歷史。

在皇后碼頭廿四小時留守超過兩個月的本土行動,正是抱着上述的目標堅持到今日。七一敏感期過了後,香港政府很快就會派警察來清場,將碼頭拆散。我們謹止呼籲認同上述目標的同道,在七一後一起到來守衛碼頭。我們深信,回歸十年,這個城市的規劃權,該回歸到我們市民手上,我們不是順民,不會再容許有人開著推土機,肆意破壞香港人的家園!

本土行動 七月一日

Escalation of Operation Protect Queen’s Pier

If all goes according to plan, the Legislative Council (LegCo) Finance Committee will today pass a bill allocating HKD $50 million for the HKSAR government to dismantle Queen’s Pier and reassemble it at an as yet undecided location some years in the future. This allocation of funds will open the final door for the government to take apart Queen’s Pier; soon, construction workers will, with the assistance of police officers, fence off this important public space that Hong Kong citizens have enjoyed for fifty-three years and begin the dismantling procedure.

Before the HKSAR government again defends itself using “all necessary procedures were completed” as an excuse for dismantling the pier, we would like fellow Hong Kong residents to see what so-called procedures have actually taken place in the last six months:

1. “Overpowering, oppressive” procedures

The reason no LegCo member will petition against the destruction of Queen’s Pier in front of the LegCo Finance Committee, is because they are all extremely afraid of Donald Tsang. Over half of LegCo’s members have already demonstrated this fact through their actions in the working group of May 23rd: Once Donald Tsang personally makes an order, members will turn back on their principles and either abstain from voting, or avoid voting with ridiculous excuses such as having to “heed to the call of nature,” or to have to go for a hospital checkup. This “executive dominance” means Hong Kong residents will no longer dare to put their hopes on LegCo members, forcing the LegCo to once again fail the public trust.

2. “Accept only victories, deny any losses” procedure

Not all government procedures conducted in the past six months favored dismantling the Queen’s Pier. On May 9th, the Antiquities Advisory Board rated the Queen’s Pier as a highest first class historic building in a publicly broadcasted meeting. This rating, which reflects the desires of the Hong Kong public, would have required the government to “expend all efforts to preserve” the Pier. But following the rating, bureaucrats began a campaign to publicly deny the importance of the rating, claiming that this rating is irrelevant to both the decision to dismantle and to whether the Pier legally constitutes a historic building. To dismantle Queen’s Pier, Donald Tsang has sacrificed the public faith in the Antiquities Advisory Board, shaming the newly installed Board members.

3. “Self-contradictory” procedures

Near the end of May, the Home Affairs Bureau presented a discussion paper to the LegCo that clearly stated: “the Antiquities and Monuments Office has always taken executive measures to ensure that rated buildings will be preserved or protected in a way consistent with the building’s value.” It is the Antiquities and Monuments Office’s duty to ensure that rated building receive appropriate protection. But in dealing with preserving Queen’s Pier, the entire Home Affairs Bureau has consistently played dumb. The method proposed by Housing, Planning & Lands Bureau in March (i.e. prior to the Queen’s Pier receiving the rating of first class historic building), which involved dismantling and reassembly, will very likely lead Queen’s Pier to follow the footsteps of Murray House – which was downgraded to “no rating given” because of subsequent damage to infrastructure and detachment from its original contextual surroundings. Why has the Antiquities and Monuments Office been irresponsibly silent on this issue?

In the face of these ridiculous procedures, Action Here in HK and other civil society, professional and cultural bodies have, in the past six months:

– requested the government to publicly disclose the contents of its landfill contracts

– provided civil servants with alternative waterfront proposals that would preserve Queen’s Pier at its original location

– proposed that a public tendering/bidding process be used to make a request for proposals for preservation of Queen’s Pier from the engineer community

– persuaded and canvassed councilors

The perseverance of Hong Kong civil society has ignited Hong Kong People’s concern for democratization of conservancy issues and city planning. But the government remains defiant to our work –ever since the Star Ferry Pier movement, the government has continued to use public relation maneuvers and procedural violence to violate the will of the Hong Kong people. We have struggled against this tightly prescribed bureaucratic procedure until this day. We have already exhausted all the channels available from the establishment, and now we can be proud and justified in declaring: If the government treats civil society’s constructive proposals as if they are garbage, neither will civil society put up with dismantling decisions borne out of unjust procedures! The Queen’s Pier issue has not been resolved yet, despite what the government wants to think!

The violence of the bulldozers will follow the procedural violence. Star Ferry Pier met this fate and now Queen’s Pier has arrived at the same position. At this point in time, we have no choice but to engage in peaceful civil disobedience, to use our own bodies to defend one of Hong Kong last remaining important public buildings. Action Here in HK members have already guarded Queen’s Pier 24/7 round-the-clock for the last 47 days. Today, our operation will escalate – to show our determination, we will camp atop the Queen’s Pier, facing the open sea and our backs leaning against the City Hall.

We sincerely implore Hong Kong Residents who respect the city’s history, who treasure public space, to step forward at this critical time, to demonstrate the power of the people and to defy senseless destruction by the self-indulged HKSAR government! Donald Tsang can manipulate the LegCo and Antiquities Advisory Board like puppets. The only thing that can overcome him now is the perseverance and determination of the people.

Action Here in HK

June 12th, 2007.

2 則迴響

Filed under 皇后碼頭 Queen's pier, 文件、信件、聲明 Documents, Letters & Decla

提提您:聯署!吹雞!今日中午十二點半皇后碼頭,文化界集會

也到這個link 自原文。

inmedia編按:原地保留皇后碼頭的抗爭來到最後階段。立法會規劃事務委員會將於四月二十三日,討論政府提出的拆骨重置方案,而立法會財委會最快於五月初就會審議有關撥款申請。一班文化界及學界人士為了阻止皇后碼頭被去歷史化地重置,發起「原地保留皇后碼頭」聯署行動。他們並將於四月二十二日﹝星期日﹞下午十二點半至兩點半於皇后碼頭舉行集會,要求政府及立法會尊重歷史、原地保留碼頭。
集會詳情:

十二點半至一點半:音樂界聯署人wilson tsang及leo of fruitpunch以歌大聲演奏出原地保留皇后碼頭的聲明

一點半至兩點半:文化界發起人及聯署人分別發言。出席者包括:馬家輝先生、馬國明先生、素黑小姐、陳清僑教授等等……

本聲明歡迎所有文化藝術界的朋友聯署,聯署人可以在回應欄留名,或將姓名電郵至hoidick@gmail.com,獨立媒體編輯會負責整理聯署名單。對整個討論有疑問的可到這裏。

皇后碼頭,哪裡都不要去!

文化界支持原地保留聲明

去年12月強拆天星碼引起了軒然大波,文化界及其它專業界別,連同廣大的普羅市民,都對政府之缺乏諮詢誠意、對文化及歷史欠缺尊重、以經濟發展壓倒一切的邏輯表示了強烈的異議。及至近日,在保留皇后碼頭的議題上我們可以看見,政府並不像它所宣稱那樣汲取教訓、有所學習:政府近月所拋出的「保存中環皇后碼頭的建議」,仍然顯示它對文化、歷史價值這些層面的問題,若非不屑一顧,就是魚目混珠。就此,我們作為一群文化藝術界人士,願在這裡再次重申我們的看法。

海岸不可被壟斷,珍重公共空間

皇后碼頭的意義並不是孤立的,它與天星碼頭、大會堂是三足而立的現代主義建築群,構成一個開放的公共空間,近五十年來供不同興趣、國籍、背景的人士行坐休憩;尤其對於大會堂這個藝術場地來說,這樣氣氛紓緩、視野開闊的空間非常重要,孕育著70年代以降之文化種籽。

天星碼頭已被夷平,照政府現時提供的規劃藍圖,在皇后碼頭也被拆卸之後,橫亙在大會堂外的將是一條40米闊的P2公路,公路的另一旁將是4層高的商場。而屆時若要走到海邊,只有兩個途徑:一是經由商場(摩地大廈),一是經由新政府總部的平台。這象徵著,將來我們與海岸的關係,必須經過財團與政府的中介。我們不禁要問,在消費和管治之外,香港還剩下什麼?

不知有多少人抨擊過多少次,香港已有太多一式一樣的商場,人所身處的消費性空間,枯燥得令人窒息。這些關於城市規劃的意見,在天星抗爭之後曾極為響亮。而政府意圖以拆卸皇后為代價所提供的這幅城市圖景,仍然是一樣的枯燥。

在空間格局中重認歷史

皇后碼頭、大會堂、愛丁堡廣場和天星,是一個具有歷史象徵的整體。於上世紀五十年代,皇后與天星先後搬至現址,其後歷任港督抵達中環、在皇后碼頭上岸,然後步入大會堂宣誓就職。五十年代的轉址,標誌著殖民政府與人民的關係由以往的「貴族與平民」,轉為「現代政府與市民」。這不是什麼美好的回憶,但是殖民統治歷史的重要座標之一。天星、皇后以及大會堂的方正平凡外貌,所飾演之平易近人的管治姿態,亦足為「強政勵治」之諍言。

在天星之後,曾有大量民間自發的藝術、學術、文化、民眾活動在皇后碼頭舉行,文化界不少人士正與民間力量攜手,以自發自主的活動,將這個本來象徵著殖民統治權威的碼頭,重塑為引發及凝聚人民力量的場所。揮別殖民狀態,人民在這裡出發。老去的碼頭上,散發光和熱的歷史正在被書寫,它也(將)成為我城人民日後的記憶之重要零件。

中環的美利樓在拆卸近二十年後,政府方將其於赤柱「重置」;而整棟建築物變成一個商場、其原有價值泯滅無存,可稱是一個具教育意義的「重置」失敗例子。不顧歷史與空間脈絡,美其名為「保育」,其實是埋葬記憶的一種手段。恕我們清醒而悲觀,政府現時提出要「重置」皇后碼頭,只怕是另一次犧牲。

公關不是誠意

自1998年至今,滔滔十年,政府只就整個中環第三期填海工程諮詢公眾,從未就天星及皇后的去留,請過市民說一句話。我們看不到政府有向專業團體及市民提供足夠資料,供其判斷或設計另類方案。政府把自己親手製造出來的沉默,當成拆卸碼頭的許可證。當專業團體被「邀請」就皇后碼頭的保存作出建議時,它們根本無法在政府手中取得足夠資訊。政府一味誇大合約範圍和損失金額,各種原址保留的方案被排斥。事實上,政府言之鑿鑿的「機鐵隧道﹝後460米﹞」、「摩地大廈」等等,根本未有任何合約簽定。

在天星事件之後,政府在城市規劃的思維上毫無進步,並沒有真正吸納文化保育的精神,只是把「保育」和「集體回憶」當成公關手段。作為一個殖民地,我們已經被寫入過太多不能認同,充滿空白和斷裂和創傷和弦外之音的歷史書。能不能讓我們,及下一代,在原本、無奈的空間格局裡,重溯、反省我們的歷史,在公共空間裡免於消費、自由交流,而不是在假古董的圍繞中醉醺醺不知人間何世?

我們要求原址保留皇后碼頭。
發起人:

梁文道﹝牛棚書院院長﹞

馬家輝﹝城大中國文化中心助理主任﹞

吳俊雄﹝港大社會學系副教授﹞

李歐梵﹝香港中文大學人文學講座教授﹞

董啟章﹝小說家﹞

梁寶山﹝藝術工作者﹞

曾德平﹝香港理工大學設計學院副教授﹞

麥海珊﹝電影/錄像/聲音藝術家﹞

伍美琴﹝香港大學城市規劃與環境管理中心副教授﹞

鄭威鵬﹝小西、劇評人及文化評論人﹞

蘇耀昌﹝科大社會科學部教授﹞

司徒薇﹝港大比較文學系助理教授﹞

陳允中﹝科大社會科學部助理教授﹞

鄧小樺﹝文學雜誌編輯、詩人、文化評論人﹞

聯署人:
截止四月二十一日下午十一時

連署﹕(加入的個人或單位已達三百八十八!!)

陳清僑、熊一豆、素黑、俞若玫、黃惠貞、

劉國英、葉蔭聰、金佩瑋、梁美儀、潘毅、

陳順馨、蔡寶琼、梁偉怡、何芝君、黃英琦、

何秀蘭 、古學斌、TAN See Kam、楊陽、李小良、

梁旭明、潘國靈、李智良、張歷君、WongYu-Pang、

So Lok Yee, Sophia、沈寶莉、陳潔華、馬國明、邵家臻、

李偉儀、劉美兒、羅永生、鄧正健、sandy chan man yee、

何翹楚、梁麗清 、陳錦華、聶依文、蔡穎儀、

鍾緯正、馬樹人、Markus Reisenleitner、馬傑偉、Kenny Ng、

Ku Shuk Mei, Agnes、李慧嫻、蕭競聰、黃靜、朱凱迪、

陳景輝、周思中、江瓊珠、周保松、Staci Ford、

林宗弘、何式凝、Travis Kong、梁漢柱、Daniel F. Vukovich、

Ellen Yuen、鄭敏華、陸迎霜、許日銓、阿丙、

梁啓智、Linda CH Lai、黃世澤、張翠容、游靜、

許漢榮、Su Ngai、歐贊年、Donna Chu、陳健華、

徐承恩、李照興、陳也、湯禎兆、陳慧燕、

黃思存、陳效能、鄭宇碩、文潔華、陳巧盈、

Day Wong、楊秀珠、plato、黎健強、呂文珊、

楊韻、林偉雄、Miranda Tsui、梁以瑚、歐陽應霽、

Hong Kong Design Community、Habitus、辛朗庭、廖淑嫻、

蔡芷筠、劉建華、陳世樂、楊秀卓、何慶基、

白雙全、陳靜昕、鄭怡敏、李民偉、張嘉莉、

張康生、李傑、梁美萍、二二六工程、文晶瑩、

梁志和、黃志恆 、Christina Li、蘇恩祺、何淑儀、

何渭枝、梁展峰、張鐵樑、王偉健、彭倩幗、

陳啓賢、Choi Chi Kit、余祖慰、趙欣珮、高麗珊、

樊俊佳、Chan Kwan Wai、RlingJet、wallis leung、Adonian Chan、

斐、王毓生、張蓓麗、Lau Cheuk Hang、范國偉、

Cheng Oi Man、Ho Yuen Yi、江康泉、智海、bubi au yeung、

香港插畫師協會、劉莉莉、Sindy Lau,袁樹基,miranda yiu、

尊子、Don Mak 麥震東、Fei Wong 黃俊飛、Colan Ho、Au-Yeung Wai Hon、

Patrick Pun 潘嘉良、花苑、一木、Stella So、Linda C.H. Lai、

陳清華、Emily Chau、何昆霖、勞玉明、葉曉薇、

楊東龍、黎明海、莊依琪、Milton Wong、Man Lai Yeung, Joey、

譚家明、蔡甘銓、甘文輝、葉玉梅、周強、

張偉雄、朗天、馮家明、羅展鳳、Robert Iolini、

鄧肇恒、謝柏齊、沈嘉豪、謝至德、戴毅龍、

阮小芹、解端泰、羅出世、吳永順、Wu Sou Chi、

Cheung Hoi Kwan、Chan Tsz Ching、Tang Wai Kwong、Chong Wing Chi、Liu Wai Man、

FalseAlarm、Christina Chan & Alok Leung of Lona Records、在草地上、22 cats、

粉紅A、Leo Cheung of Fruit Punch、Su Ngai、曾永曦、林忌、

關勁松、噪音合作社、袁智聰、潘德恕、Superday、

譚國明、何謙信、My Little Airport、The Marshmallow Kisses、陳銘匡、

郭達年、Cedric Maridet、陳樂斌、馮偉恩、鄧樹榮、

羅靜雯、袁堅樑、甄拔濤、PS劇場、莫昭如、

孫惠芳、洪節華、祝雅妍、陳炳釗、甄明慧、

歐陽東、一代人公社、潘詩韻、嚴惠英、陳國慧、

何應豐、盧偉力、詹瑞文、甄詠蓓、黃婉玲、

何來、葉輝、陳智德、洛謀、葉愛蓮、

鄧阿藍、羅貴祥、飲江、黃燦然、何福仁、

洛楓、廖偉棠、可洛、鄭政恒、陳志華、

陳寧、麥樹堅、蘇娜、陳麗娟、袁兆昌、

周子恩、禾迪、張婉雯、韓麗珠、李金鳳、

雨希、李芷昕、孟浪、樊善標、陳子謙、

郭詩詠、黎佩芬、陸姵而、杜家祁、楊佳嫻、

許赫、呂永佳、鴻鴻、夏夏、梁偉詩、

aki、鄺梓桓、謝曉虹、梁璇筠、不信、

譚以諾、鄭依依、林藹雲、董肇中、蔡傳威、

陳慧玲、陳浩倫、張嘉雯、Yoko Leung、公民起動、

陳日東、鄭斌彬、施德安、蕭曉華、李筱怡、

Tiffany Sum、Esther Yeung 、陳嘉麗、Francis Chan、陳序慶、

林萬、羅嘉欣、郭蓬娥、羅步勤、黃永成、

陳慧玲、au-yeung wai hon、郭梓祺、盧燕珊、二犬十一咪、

徐岱靈 、沈偉男、灰明、蘇穎詩、鄺珮詩、

Alex Hui King Yip、Celia、Ng Kwun Lun, Tony、irene c、吳彥真、

Ko Tin Yan、陳穎妍、徐逸、Katherine Lee、Pamela Tam、

馮惠卿、霍瑞棠、徐映雪、岑倩衡、余振雄、

Raymond Chow、冼家佩、詹愷苾、Kobe Ho、Orange Ip、

李卓倫、呂媛、一蚊健、小狼、唐嘉汶、

鄭潔心、周堅、黎明海、陳惠芳、Sunny、

Michele Chui、劉思航、翟桐、ky chan 陳啟賢、Ada Lee、

潘藹婷、羅婉儀、梁惠敏、高小蘭、張培樂、

彭誠昌、三木、Lau Cheuk hang、蘇守忠、重建監察、

甘霍麗貞、周峻任、杜惠珍、張家瑜、冼惠芳、

麥鋒慈、徐益堯、周綺薇、麥天男、譚偉峰、

鄧鳳瓊、黃乃忠、姚淑珍、朱健儀、馮錦新、

胡露茜、潘宇軒、Romain Dugue、李耀基、梁錦威、

吳煬梓、李芷荺、大嶼報(lantaupost)

QUEEN’S PIER IS NOT MOVING ANYWHERE!
Statement of Artists, Cultural Practitioners and Academics in support of the Preservation of Queen’s Pier in-situ

The forced demolition of Star Ferry Pier last December has created turbulence last year. People from the cultural circle, along with the other professions and the general public, have expressed strongly their disagreement with the government in terms of its lack of sincerity in consultation, its lack of respect for culture and history, and its logic that economic development should be the overriding priority for Hong Kong. In the recent discussion about the preservation of Queen’s Pier, the government has shown that it has not learnt from the lesson as it claimed it had. The recent government document on the “Proposals in the Preservation of Queen’s Pier” shows that the government either does not give a damn to questions on the level of cultural and historical value, or it pretends that its document is already addressing these issues. Because of this, the undersigned artists, cultural practitioners and academics would like to express our opinions and thoughts again.

No to monopoly of the sea coast. Preserve the public space.

The preservation of Queen’s Pier is not an isolated issue. Queen’s Pier, Star Ferry Pier and City Hall are part of a group of modernist architecture that forms an open public space where people with different interest and of different ethnicities and background walk, sit and rest. A space with such a relaxed atmosphere and such an open view is particularly important for an art site such as City Hall, and has nurtured the cultural seeds sowed since the seventies.

Star Ferry Pier has already been torn down. According to the planning blueprint of the government, after the demolition of Queen’s Pier, a 40 meters wide P2 Highway will stretch in front of City Hall. The opposite side will be dominated by a large 4-storey commercial building. In such a scenario, there would only be two ways to get to the sea coast: one is by way of the commercial complex, the other is by walking over the podium of the new government headquarter. In other words, in the future our relationship with the sea coast would be mediated by conglomerates and the government. We would like to ask: Besides consumption and governance, what is Hong Kong going to be left with?

For how many times have innumerable people commented that Hong Kong has too many commercial complexes that look alike, and how people are feeling bored to the point of feeling stifled by the increasing domination of our space by consumerism. These opinions about city planning have grown louder after the movement against the demolition of Star Ferry Pier. However, the picture of the city the government wants to build at the price of demolishing Queen’s Pier is just as boring.

Relearning history in the setting of the space

Queen’s Pier, City Hall, Edinburgh Place and Star Ferry Pier form an integrated whole with historical significance. Queen’s Pier and Star Ferry Pier were moved to this location in the 50’s of the last century. Since then, it was here that the various Hong Kong governors landed and walked from Queen’s Pier to City Hall for the inauguration ceremony. The relocation in the fifties symbolized that the relationship between the colonial government and the people had changed from that between the “aristocrats and the commons” to that between the “modern government and the citizens.” This might not be good memories since they were part of a colonial past. Nevertheless, they were important signposts of the colonial history of Hong Kong. The simple and plain outlook of Star Ferry Pier, Queen’s Pier and City Hall has played the role of manifesting a style of governance which is approachable, and could indeed serve as a reminder to the “strong governance” propounded by the Chief Executive, Donald Tsang.

Since the movement for Star Ferry Pier, numerous art, academic and cultural activities, and people’s actions have taken place at Queen’s Pier. In an effort to reshape a pier which symbolizes the authority of the colonial government into a site that stimulates and gathers together the power of the people, many people in the cultural field have been working hand in hand with other citizens to initiate and organize autonomous activities at Queen’s Pier. Say goodbye to the state of colonization, and it is from here that the people start off again. It is at this aging pier that history is being written, and they are (and will be) important parts of the memory of the people of this city.

The Murray Building was finally “relocated” to Stanley Bay 20 years after it was demolished. The building is now a commercial complex. Its original value is gone forever. It is a good example to educate ourselves of how “relocation” has failed. Calling it “preservation” when history and space as the context are ignored is actually a means to bury memories. Please excuse us for being sober and pessimistic: we are afraid that the present suggestion of the government to “relocate” the Queen’s Pier is another sacrifice.

PR tactics are not sincerity

In the long duration of 10 years between 1998 and now, the government has only carried out public consultations casually with regard to the Third Phase of the Central Reclamation. It has never invited the Hong Kong people to say one word about the preservation of Star Ferry Pier and Queen’s Pier. We have not seen the government providing the professional organizations or the citizens with sufficient information so that they might assess the proposed plans or propose alternative plans. The silence resulting from the manipulation of the government has been used as a permit for the demolition of the two piers. When professional bodies were “invited” to make suggestions about the preservation of the Queen’s Pier, they simply could not get sufficient information from the government. On the other hand, by exaggerating the magnitude of the contract and the loss it implied in terms of money, all plans to preserve Queen’s Pier in-situ are excluded. In fact, no contract has ever been signed for the new “overrun tunnel for the airport rail (460 meters)” and the “Mody Building”, both of which have been used by the government as reasons for the demolition of the Star Ferry Pier and the Queen’s Pier.

Since the public furor over the demolition of Star Ferry Pier, the government has not shown any progress in its way of thinking in city planning, and has not really integrated the ethos of cultural conservation. Instead, “conservation” and “collective memory” have only become means of its public relation. Having been a colony, Hong Kong has too often been written into a history which we do not identify with, and which is filled with blank pages and fragmentations and trauma and meanings between the lines. Could we allow ourselves and the next generations to reshape and reflect on our history in its original and given settings? Could we also allow ourselves and the next generations to have free exchanges in the public space rather than to be only engaged in consumption activities, and to end up anesthetized in the encompassing of fake antiques, forgetting about life and about living?

We demand that Queen’s Pier be preserved in-situ.

Statement initiated by Leung Man Tao, Lee Ou Fan, Ma Ka Fai, Dung Kai Cheung, Ng Chun Hung, Cheng Wai Pang﹝Siu Sai﹞, Kith Tsang Tak Ping, Anson Mak Hoi-Shan, Mee Kam Ng, Alvin Y So, Mirana May Szeto, Chen Yun Chung, Tang Siu Wah
April 17, 2007
Hong Kong

5 則迴響

Filed under 皇后碼頭 Queen's pier, 回顧、反思和展望 Revisits and Reflections, 天星之外 Beyond The Stars, 文件、信件、聲明 Documents, Letters & Decla