四月廿二日的皇后碼頭聯署聲明記者會，大批發起人聯署人前仆後繼出席，盛況空前。令人尊敬的馬國明先生，警告特區政府，不能講金唔講心，不能只念茲在茲國金、交易廣場等拜金建築，而賤視皇后碼頭、大會堂等香港「心臟」。他旱地拔蔥當頭捧喝，有到場的回味，沒到場的，就睜大眼看清楚！去片！
ma kok ming on Vimeo
petition campaign to save queen's pier on Vimeo
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[email protected]，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：
截止四月二十二日上午十時十五分
（共三百八十八位個人或單位聯署！！）
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