In response to the HK government’s “public engagement exercise” for the “Proposed Amendments to Protection of the Harbour Ordinance” (PHO), the Society for the Protection of the Harbour (the Society) held a press conference on July 18 and expressed strong opposition and concerns. The Society worries that if the government’s intention was to “take back control of reclamation” in the harbour, with earlier reclamation plans already in place, Hong Kong’s Victoria Harbour might soon become “Victoria River or even Victoria Stream” in the future.
Reclamation vs Preservation—A Fine Balance
While improving the harbourfront is in the public interest, protecting and preserving Victoria Harbour—Hong Kong’s greatest natural asset and an international icon, is also in the long-term public interest. According to the Society for the Protection of the Harbour, in a survey conducted by Hong Kong University during the time when it was lobbying for the enactment of the PHO, 97 percent of Hongkongers are keenly in support of preserving Victoria Harbour against excessive reclamation. The question is how to strike a balance between harbour development and preservation.Rebuttal Against Preservation Principle
“The harbour is to be protected and preserved as a special public asset and a natural heritage of Hong Kong people,” and for that purpose, the PHO has a “presumption against reclamation” principle. The government, however, complained in its March 28 discussion paper that the PHO itself does not explain how the “presumption against reclamation” principle can be rebutted, which it claims has made some small-scale harbour enhancement works difficult. It goes on to suggest the rebuttal process be defined through making “the fulfillment of ‘overriding public need’ in the judgment of the Court of Final Appeal in 2004 into a “test” (the Test), and provide a mechanism for assessing whether a proposed reclamation fulfilled “the Test.”
The Government’s “proposed legislative framework” suggests three types of works in the harbour to be “streamlined” by amending the PHO: (a) large-scale reclamations, (b) small-scale “statutory” enhancement involving reclamation, and (c) non-permanent reclamations.
In both (b) and (c), secretary-level government officials (such as the Financial Secretary) were to be granted the power to “exempt” a harbour development project from the “presumption against reclamation” principle of the PHO as well as “the Test;” while in (a), the new requirement will be added concerning fulfillment of “the Test” to the satisfaction of Chief Executive-in-Council (CE-in-C), plus time limits be set for the exhibition, public inspection and comment, and so on.
In other words, the Government is proposing that the principles and considerations as set out in the 2004 Court judgment be reflected in the amended PHO as a “test” for rebuttal of the “presumption against reclamation” principle, and the power of assessing and deciding whether the projects satisfy “the Test” rests with the Chief Executive-in-Council.NGO Deeply Concerned
The Society is deeply concerned and said in its response letter to the government that:“It is not clear whether Government’s present proposal that the ‘assessment of the need for reclamation will be made by the Chief Executive-in-Council,’ is intended by the government to take back control of reclamation. If so, this will both abrogate the PHO and the decisions of the Law Courts and will invalidate all that the PHO has accomplished over the past 25 years. The government can, as before the PHO, again reclaim as much of the harbour as it likes.
“If it was not the government’s intention to take back control of reclamation but just for an internal mechanism to clarify procedural matters, then there is absolutely no need to change or amend the PHO,” the letter continued.
The Society’s letter further suggested the government could simply issue the usual technical circulars, which had been used many times before to deal with authorisations of works sought under the current FSRO and PHO. A list of such government circulars in 1997, 2001, 2004, and 2010 was also provided by the Society in the letter.
UNESCO World Cultural Heritage Site
In a separate open letter to the Chief Executive-in-Council, John Lee Ka-chiu, the Society urges the government to (1) withdraw the proposed amendments to the PHO, so that legal control of large-scale reclamations will remain with the Law Courts as at present, (2) officially withdraw the “Reclamation Plan” (1994 plan by the then British colonial Hong Kong government, to reclaim 1,297 hectares of the harbour), and (3) Hong Kong’s Victoria Harbour be declared a “national treasure of China” in the PHO and a World Cultural Heritage Site with the UNESCO.What Next?
After the “public engagement exercise,” the Government expects to “finalize the legislative amendments with a view to submitting the amendment bill to LegCo in the first half of 2024.”The ‘Reclamation Plan’ and the PHO
A reclamation plan was presented to the Town Planning Board on Oct. 14, 1994, to the then-British colonial Hong Kong government, to reclaim a further 1,297 hectares of the harbour. If this plan were implemented in full, the Victoria Harbour would have irreversibly been converted into a narrow sea channel only 800 meters wide, Mr. Chu, CEO of the Society, recalled.This “Reclamation Plan” drew attention and opposition from the Hong Kong people, hence the birth of the Society for the Protection of the Harbour in that same year.
The Protection of the Harbour Ordinance was successfully enacted in June 1997 after two years of intense lobbying led by the Society—the “Save Our Harbour” campaign. The bill went through seven Legco meetings before finally becoming law, although by then, nearly half of the reclamation in the Reclamation Plan had already started.
After Hong Kong was handed to China, and with the PHO already in place, the new government still tried to proceed with the remaining reclamation projects in accordance with the “Reclamation Plan” of the former British Hong Kong Government, totaling 584 hectares. There were two big public rallies involving tens of thousands of people, petitions, and other actions, in support of the proposed Protection of the Harbour Ordinance Bill.
The Society took the government to court. After seven years of legal battle, these reclamations were finally stopped by the 2004 judgment by the Court of Final Appeal and the 2008 High Court judgment. In the Society’s words, the PHO, with the support of the Law Courts, had successfully saved the harbour in 2004.
