Stocktaking Hong Kong's Culture:
The First Full-Fledged Culture
And Arts Policy Review

by Horace W. K. Chin

《 香 港 文 化 藝 術 政 策 研 究 報 告 》 是 香 港 政 策 研 究 所 成 立 文 化 組 之 後 的 首 份 研 究 成 果 ， 並 獲 香 港 藝 術 發 展 局 撥 款 資 助 。 透 過 對 文 化 藝 術 政 策 的 釋 義 與 界 定 ， 報 告 書 省 覽 了 回 歸 前 政 府 公 共 文 化 服 務 的 各 種 政 策 ， 作 出 回 顧 、 分 析 和 綜 合 建 議 。 鑑 於 過 去 對 本 港 文 化 政 策 研 究 的 文 獻 零 碎 不 全 和 概 念 含 混 ， 而 特 區 政 府 正 考 慮 是 否 制 定 總 體 文 化 政 策 ， 研 究 同 人 特 以 嚴 謹 規 格 寫 作 ， 副 以 翔 實 資 料 ， 以 資 日 後 研 究 香 港 文 化 政 策 人 士 之 參 考 ， 也 可 提 供 定 義 嚴 謹 的 概 念 工 具 予 社 會 各 界 ， 以 期 在 文 化 政 策 的 討 論 上 ， 促 成 有 效 的 和 有 建 設 性 的 公 共 交 流 。 報 告 本 年 4 月 30 日 提 交 藝 展 局 後 ， 遵 守 低 調 原 則 ， 不 作 任 何 公 開 宣 傳 ， 然 文 化 界 和 學 術 界 有 肯 定 評 價 ， 明 報 文 化 版 甚 至 說 ， 「 香 港 政 策 研 究 所 . . . 儼 然 編 寫 了 一 部 半 官 方 、 半 民 間 的 香 港 文 化 史 」(22-6-1998)

Reviews and studies of culture and arts policies in Hong Kong in the past were mostly piecemeal and responsive to isolated events or separate consultation papers. Even working definitions of "culture", "arts" and "culture and arts policy" in the local context were not available, not to mention a comprehensive policy review. The Hong Kong Policy Research Institute (PRI) deems it necessary to conduct a comprehensive review of the public services on culture and arts in Hong Kong to provide policy-makers as well as art communities with a thorough understanding of the present situation before they plan for the future. Through a broad research framework, the PRI review examines the cultural and arts policies in Hong Kong from the 1960s until the end of 1997.

Cultural 'policies' in Hong Kong since the 1960s have been rather disjointed and are scattered among different governmental structures and executively-led. They are mainly reactive in nature, without an overall vision or a rational implementation structure. As cultural services were not conceived as an indispensable part of public services before the 1960s, they were put under the Urban Council and whatever department that happened to have the resources or willingness to take the "trouble" of running them at a particular time. Therefore cultural administration was disjointed and sometimes even dislocated: no single official body would be held responsible for policy-making and its implementation but each department or statutory body tried to safeguard its own resources inherited from the past. Each involved agency delineated its own territory; joint operations were rare, if not absent at all. Policy implementation and the daily running of cultural facilities were left in the hands of government functionaries with little formal training in arts administration. Efficiency, uncontemplated egalitarianism and financial austerity were the codes of practice, while the effect on arts was not considered of important concern. Artists frequently complained of clandestine politics and mismanagement.

However, the government's heavy investment in the cultural facilities and performing arts since the 1960s should be acclaimed. In the 1990s, the Arts Development Council was set up and strategic plans for public consultation were released by various councils. Accountability and public participation were being fostered. Aroused by the Legislative Council election and the transfer of sovereignty, the heightened political awareness of artists and critics drove them to form a political front and discussion forums on cultural policy were established.

Dragged downed by the outdated cultural administration and sub-professional management, cultural policies in the past failed to make Hong Kong a cultural metropolis. Imported high arts lacked local flavour; commercial popular arts and the cultural industry were usually imitative and without depth; grass-root avant-garde arts were still at their budding stage or very often tamed by the government through funding control. What the "big-spending" government created were occasional flower fairs, not a garden with species rooted in the local soil. When the curtain was down, artists departed without the community's appraisal. The blurred cultural scene of Hong Kong has failed to give her a character in the course of globalization and reunification with China. The foundering tourism is only a prelude of this disaster, which was foretold by Dr. Peter Brinson in his consultancy report to the Recreation an Culture Board (1996:26).

Arts open us to the world of wonder and tolerance. When people participate in arts, they learn to see things beyond their routine perception and are mentally better prepared to meet challenges and to withstand and even benefit from uncertainties. A taste for arts can also dilute the monistic, money-minded judgement in society and pave the way for an international city where peoples and cultures coexist and interact.

Dr. Horace Wan-kan Chin is a researcher of the Hong Kong Policy Research Institute.