【明報專訊】◆Source A

Details of the revitalisation scheme by project (see table)

◆Source B

It has been ten years since the Revitalising Historic Buildings Through Partnership Scheme was introduced. The government has earmarked or spent $2.4 billion's worth of public money to allow non-profit organisations to revitalise historic buildings. These organisations are only required to pay a nominal rent and their operations are subsidized by the government. The objectives of the scheme are to convert these historic buildings into unique cultural landmarks, encourage the public to play an active role in the preservation of historic architecture, and create job opportunities at community level.

As of today the scheme has had five phases with altogether 19 projects. Excluding the recently-opened Hong Kong News Expo and Fong Yuen Study Hall at Ma Wan which was taken over by the government in 2017, eight of these projects have come into operation. The oldest project has been in operation for eight years.

■Questions and answering guidelines

1. Explain the phenomena as reflected in source A. (4 marks)

Many comparisons can be made from Source A. Students can choose one of them for detailed elaboration. They can, for example, compare the effectiveness of Phase one and Phase two of the scheme (such as the proportion of projects that meet the estimated numbers of visitors ) or analyze whether all the projects have drawn the expected number of visitors.

Students can also figure out whether the money has been well-spent. For example, does a bigger amount of investment make it easier for a project to achieve its goal? More than $200 million has been spent on the revitalisation of YHA Mei Ho House Youth Hostel, and it has attracted around 220 thousand visitors. But the revitalisation of the Tai O Heritage Hotel , in contrast, cost just about one-fifth of the amount, but the building has been visited by around 200 thousand people.

2. "To preserve old architecture of value, it is worthwhile for the government to continually devote a huge amount of public money to the Built Heritage Conservation Fund". Do you agree? (8 marks)

The points of contention are "public money", "preserve" and "worthwhile". While preservation is the right thing to do in general, it is another matter whether resources should be devoted to this cause unlimitedly.

Those who agree with the argument can allude to Source A, which shows that many projects financed with public money have achieved a certain degree of success, an example being the Jao Tsung-I Academy.

Those who disagree with the assertion can point to Source A, which shows that some of the projects supported with public money have not been visited by a satisfactory number of visitors, an example being HKBU SCM Lui Seng Chun. The public might not support the use of public money on such projects. Furthermore, society has different opinions as to what is meant by "buildings of value". The government should not decide how many resources to devote until there is a consensus.

Text:劉錦輝, Liberal Studies teacher at Christian and Missionary Alliance

Sun Kei Secondary School

Translation: Terence Yip

[通通識 第580期]