Culture and Heritage Commission Consultation Paper 2002

Back to Other Index

Culture and Heritage Commission Consultation Paper 2002
Comments by the Hong Kong General Chamber of Commerce

December 2002

To be successful economically is not good enough for Asia's world city. Hong Kong should feature a vibrant cultural scene and a wealth of heritage that befits a world class city. The Culture and Heritage Commission's consultation paper is very timely in setting out the framework for developing Hong Kong's culture and heritage.
The business sector is part and parcel of Hong Kong's overall cultural fabric. As the leading business association of Hong Kong, the Hong Kong General Chamber of Commerce welcomes the consultation paper and is pleased to contribute our views to the Commission's vision of Hong Kong culture, of "Diversity with Identity, Evolution through Innovation".

Principle and perspective

Despite the diversity of our art and cultural scene, it must be said that Hong Kong is not yet "the cultural capital of the world" which we aspire to be. As the consultation paper acknowledges, there is much room for improvement over the past years in cultural software like audience development and art education (para 1.15 of the consultation paper). The Commission apparently takes the view that our cultural hardware is more advanced, but in our view even that is deficient – our cultural venues and facilities are not impressive, many are in the wrong places, and none can yet be described as a world-class flagship.
Much needs to be done and the Commission's paper does provide a useful framework, based on sound principles developed from the previous round of consultation. Among other things, the consultation paper has rightly put cultural policy into focus and indeed it is for the purpose of developing a long-term cultural policy that the Commission was established (para 1.19).
Cultural policy involves many complicated issues and we pay tribute to the Commission for the inclusive and open-minded approach it has taken in the consultations. In taking on the various issues the Commission has been guided by the six strategies it developed. These are broadly in line with our thinking but we shall supplement with one more, namely, that while maintaining the present level of public resources, government should reduce its involvement in culture and art, thus "giving culture and art back to the people".

Hong Kong's cultural positioning

We agree with the Commission's depiction of "diversity with identity" for Hong Kong's cultural position. Our cultural identity is firmly rooted in mainstream Chinese culture, and this must be further promoted. At the same time, Hong Kong is unique as a city defined by the interaction between Chinese and foreign cultures, hence our diversity must be emphasised.
As the consultation paper says, Hong Kong people should be proud of our country and society (para 2.7). But as the most globalised city in China, we should be more ambitious. As rightly pointed out by the Commission, we should not develop our culture for its own sake. We should be looking forward with a vision, even mission, to seek "an active role in the modernisation of China and the development of the Chinese culture in this century" (para 2.13). We should be mindful that with globalisation and WTO membership, China's own mainstream culture is itself becoming more diversified, hence presenting a big challenge for Hong Kong. We would need to go beyond identifying with Chinese culture, but seek to contribute positively to China's own cultural development in the globalising world.
Hong Kong has the benefit of being highly integrated with our hinterland, the Pearl River Delta, which both acts as an economic engine and houses a wealth of culture. A great opportunity thus beckons for the SAR to truly become "the world city of China", a proud Chinese city and a great city of the world.
To achieve that, it is very important to ensure that Chinese culture and international character reinforce, rather than undermine each other. To strike the right balance, we have to give due regard to "diversity" as we emphasise Chinese culture. We should ensure that diversity is continually reflected in our "internationalness" or "globalness".

Education in art and culture

Of the role of government in art and cultural education there is little dispute. We would therefore support most of the proposals in the Commission's paper. But there are a few aspects which we do wish to comment upon.
The paper alludes to a diversified and comprehensive curriculum in basic education, to put into practice "diversity with identity". This will have our full support, if the curriculum is to be genuinely comprehensive while seeking to be grounded in Chinese culture. But the paper seems to reflect a slight uneasiness when it cautions against "placing too much emphasis on western art forms" (para 3.13). If that denoted an inclination to de-emphasise international art then that would be a concern. In our view, Chinese art should not be placed in opposition to "western" art. Rather, Chinese and non-Chinese (international, not just western) art interact with each other and they should form a totality to be studied together in our art curriculum.
A different set of issues are presented by the tertiary institutions. These go beyond the curriculum into the very nature of university education itself. As the Commission's paper demonstrates, art education in our universities is woefully inadequate. The number of students in the fine arts courses is pitifully small (para 3.11), not to speak of electives to cater for the 10,000's of students in the other courses. Both will need to be strengthened considerably. In addition, university museums and theatres could do with much more upgrading, not just in hardware but more importantly as a harbour of expertise of the highest standards of excellence.
These will require additional investment – in curriculum, facilities as well as expertise – but such investment will be necessary for our universities to become truly world-class. All top universities are noted not just for academic excellence but also a richness in culture and art; the two reinforce each other. Our universities should thus aim for bigger achievements in art and culture as an integral part of their development.
For professional art academies, we support the Academy for Performing Arts, but it is not clear to us if there is a need for another academy for visual arts as proposed in the paper (para 3.11). If our universities do house a wealth of art and culture, then the talent could be nurtured through a combination of the universities’ own fine art courses as well as continuing education, taking advantage of the infrastructure provided by the universities.
For performing arts, a converse of the "arts groups in residence" (para 4.31) concept can be contemplated – an "artist outreach" scheme by which art students are encouraged to do more ex gratia performances outside. This can help hone their skills as well as relate professional art training to the community.
What is important is to have a community that appreciates art and culture. The school should indeed be used as a platform (para 3.22) but art and culture appreciation at the district and community level should receive no less attention. Here perhaps more should be done to harness the volunteerism of the so-called "third sector". Apart from art and cultural organisations, it is important to involve other groups, both at the territorial level and through local communities.
In promoting culture and art to the community, a delineation is necessary between local and territorial levels. Local activities by District Council should be encouraged but separate territory-wide activities and performances should be organised so as to reflect and strengthen the international character of our cultural and art scene.
As the consultation paper says, education in culture and art is a key ingredient in moral and civic education (para 3.27). We would add that one important role of art education is to nurture the critical mind. The community can, collectively, be critical in a constructive way that befits a dynamic civil society. In that way, education in art and culture can help build up our social capital.

Cultural facilities

For cultural facilities to be successful, software such as expertise and management is as important as, if not more important than, hardware like buildings and collections. For excellence is more than a matter of the venue itself, but of the activities that are organised around it. The Chamber believes that the best way of achieving excellence is to entrust the operation of our cultural facilities to the community at large.
The best way of taking this forward is to corporatise some of the functions currently undertaken by the government. Every major facility, be it performance venue, museum or library, should have its own budget and expertise, and be managed by an independent board made up of committed trustees. The management should not just act as a venue manager but an organiser and promoter of activities around the venue. Smaller facilities such as local community venues can be managed by the District Council.
The consultation paper shows what pittance is spent on exhibitions – $50 million in 2001/02 – in museums staffed by an army of 600 civil servants (para 4.16). A number of measures are suggested for museums to develop their resources through partnership with private collectors, businesses, academia and other museums (para 4.21), but this presupposes that a culture of proactive engagement with other sectors already exists. In our view, the best way of bringing that about is through corporatisation so as to capture the dynamism of the private sector.
It should be clear that our proposal is one step further than the re-structuring proposed in the consultation paper. We support the creation of the Libraries Board and the Museums Board as statutory regulatory bodies but they should be supplemented by a restructuring of the management and operation of the major venues through corporatisation.
With respect to museums, a major proposal in the consultation paper is to re-align them by converting the Hong Kong Museum of Art into a Museum of Chinese Heritage and Antiquities, and the Heritage Museum into a Museum of Lingnan Culture or Ethnic Culture (para 4.18). While we understand the rationale, our advice is that this should be implemented gradually. The West Kowloon cultural district provides the opportunity for a new flagship museum which should represent the international and diversified character of Hong Kong. But before that materialises, the re-alignment of the museums should be managed carefully, to ensure that our museums do not appear too China-oriented overall. The Museum of Art should continue to display international and regional art as well as strengthen its international and regional expertise. Our Heritage Museum, on the other hand, should expand on the local themes locally exhibited such as housing, comics, local artists and designers, Cantonese opera, etc.
On cultural and performance venues, again, government should limit its role to policy and regulation and stay out of management and operation. Hence we do not agree with the view that "the private sector is not yet equipped to take over LCSD's role in the operation of major venues" (para 4.31). Instead, we believe the outsourcing of venue proposed in the paper as a pilot scheme should be expedited and expanded.
Instead of operating venues, the government should contend with more policy-oriented issues, such as the delineation of venues between territorial and local levels. There should be clearer policy guidance on the deployment of resources for territory-wide cultural venues and activities, as opposed to those at district-level. District venues should be equipped with the best features to meet local needs, such as multi-purpose halls, but they should supplement, rather than compete with, facilities of a territorial significance.
The most important territorial venue for Hong Kong is the oncoming West Kowloon cultural district. Not only must it be built to the highest standards set in the Commission's vision statement (para 6.21), but it must be supported by a management plan that enables the full potential of the cultural district to be exploited. After the project is completed, the venues should be turned over to an independent board of trustees.
We support the concept promulgated in the consultation paper of creating and using more "cultural space" (para 4.33). There are many possible ways to do so and we would highlight one in particular, namely, the creation of a Harbour Park in Causeway Bay. This could provide a world-class public space on which ample opportunities exist for Hong Kong public culture to excel.

Engaging the business community

Of the various sectors, needless to say, we are most closely associated with the business community. We are encouraged by the advocacy of partnership by the Commission (e.g. paras 4.21, 5.9). The Hong Kong Arts Festival is probably the best current example of partnership between business and art, but it is specifically focused on one particular event. In the wider picture, business involvement in art and culture is still rather diffuse. To bring them together, a crucial element will be the government's facilitating role.
The consultation paper acknowledges that a big potential exists for private sponsorship which is yet untapped (para 5.26). We believe the government can harness this potential by effecting changes at two levels. The first is to introduce structural changes in the management and operation of art and cultural facilities through corporatisation, as described above. The second is to introduce policy changes to provide incentives for business sponsorship. One possibility is for government to introduce a matching grant system. Another is to double the current profits tax allowance for art and cultural sponsorship. These will provide a powerful incentive for business to raise corporate sponsorship. Apart from raising extra cash, they will give an added boost to the commitment of business people to art and culture. The result could be a multiplier of benefits without much additional pressure on the public purse.^(Note)
The business sector can also play a bigger role in the "creative industries" initiative proposed in the paper (paras 6.15 to 6.19). Elsewhere the business sector's primary role in driving the development of creative industries is well recognised – witness Singapore's Creative Industries Development Strategy, or London-First in the UK. There is a strong case for encouraging creative industries, and the strategy for their development as well as the business sector's involvement should be thoroughly examined. In that connection we understand a study is being conducted by the Central Policy Unit, which should provide timely information for further consideration by the business sector and other stakeholders.

Resource deployment and institutional framework

The crux of the Commission's proposals is summarised in the new institutional framework (para 5.29). The thinking behind the proposed change is to redefine government's role and direct it away from management or administration – a direction which has the Chamber's support. We would once again reinforce the principle that government's role should be limited and that the bulk of activities should be undertaken by the private sector and the community.
Between culture and art, however, we do see a difference in the government's role. No doubt government has an important part in education and promotion of culture and art; with respect to art and cultural development, however, a distinction between the two becomes necessary, difficult though it may be. As we have been advocating all along, government involvement in art and culture should be more circumscribed. For art development, however, more public resources would be justified since the grooming of talent and creativity, like education, is a common good which calls for an investment by the public sector.
This is not to say that government should direct art development, but it does mean that art development must have a special place in government's overall cultural policy as well as the institutional structure for art and culture.
In this connection, it is not entirely clear to us how far the development function hitherto undertaken by the Art Development Council would be taken up by the new Culture Foundation. The latter appears primarily a funding agency to rationalise art and cultural funding, and art development is apparently only a minor part of its purview. In our view, art development would merit the effort of a dedicated body. For that purpose, the creation of a strategic-level advisory body on art education and development, separate from the proposed Culture Foundation, should be considered. In the composition of this body, an element of democratic representation can be considered.
The consultation paper suggests that membership of the Culture Foundation be made up of both appointed and elected representatives. We do not agree with this arrangement. In our view, to have elected representatives in a funding agency will run the risk of "capture" of resources by vested interests. If the Culture Foundation is to be primarily a funding agency, its membership should be made up of dedicated personalities who have the commitment to act in the best interest of the Hong Kong community. Thus they should be appointed members who can be replaced if necessary, not elected members who have to answer to interest groups.
An important task for the Culture Foundation would be to re-establish the principles of art funding. Some sectors like the experimental or avant garde groups would justifiably require more assistance in public funding, but for the more established arts, public resources should be distributed in way that better reflects the interaction between the art practitioners and the community. The Foundation should seek to "give art back to the people": to make the arts more responsive and accountable to the community at large.
Here one could do with more innovation – novel concepts like a voucher system for schools to attend art performances, or relating subsidy to box office records. The key is to relate performance to patronage, thus involving the public more in the allocation of subsidies. This will not only help improve quality of productions but also engender a greater sense of ownership of our arts. The aim is not to reduce the amount of subsidy but to use public resources more effectively.
In the same vein, we fully endorse the need for flagship companies (para 5.22) to seek more resources from the private sector. Public funding should be re-structured to encourage these groups to interact with the public more, but this does not mean government subsidy should be reduced. Instead the flagships should be encourage to harness more resources, both public and private, to help them build up a regional name that befits a world class cultural city.

Preservation of heritage

The preservation of historical buildings is an important part of culture and heritage. It is curious therefore that the Commission is proposing to put the Antiquities and Monuments Office under the planning and lands authorities, rather than consider it part of the institutional structure under the government's cultural development policy (para 6.9).
A more important issue than AMO's position within government is to find the mechanism for preservation of heritage buildings. If the policy to allow transfer of plot ratio first raised by former Secretary for Planning and Lands Mr John Tsang could be hastened, then it would not matter too much where AMO would be placed.
With regard to use of heritage buildings, in the consultation paper there is a suggestion to accord higher priority for cultural uses (para 6.5). While we have no objection to this concept, we would caution against the tendency to use all historical buildings for "culture". Not all heritage buildings can be suitably used as museums or art studios. In any case, the buildings are themselves part of culture, hence it is not necessary to make them more "cultural" by imposing a culture-related use. Instead a more diverse range of beneficial uses should be encouraged, such as retail, restaurants, boutique hotels, commercial office uses, etc.

Conclusion

In this paper we have surveyed a wide range of issues which must be tackled if we were to make Hong Kong an international cultural metropolis. Every sector must play its part, but the role of the government is critically important. It must know where to take the lead – in effecting the right institutional and structural changes; and where to step back – to allow the dynamism of the private sector to work.
We concur with the consultation paper's theme – Diversity with Identity, Evolution through Innovation. We would emphasise that the business sector is not a spectator in the development of our culture and heritage, but a stakeholder with keen interest. The Commission has rightly identified the importance of facilitating between business and art, and the Chamber would be more than happy to play a part.

Note. Apparently, doubling the tax allowance on art sponsorship means government would be forgoing $30 revenue for every $100 dollars of corporate profit donated, assuming a 15% rate on profits tax. However, for the community, this is more than offset by the $100 dollars of additional spending on art, thus the overall benefit for the community is multiplied several times.