為皇后碼頭司法覆核案與宣傳特刊印刷 籌款 Fund Raising for Queen’s Pier Judicial Review and Heritage Reform Promotion

大家好,

Dear all,

皇后碼頭司法覆核案在2007年8月7日在高等法院開審.

The Queen’s Pier Judicial Review case was heard by the High Court on 7 August 2007.

司法覆核得到法庭的肯定:

The Judicial Review is endorsed by the court’s legal aid approval:

基於本土行動成員以上提出的司法覆核理據，高等法院聆案官歐陽桂如認為申請人交出的資料顯示，他們「極值得進行申訴」，這案件意義重大，除了涉及皇后碼頭一地的保育問題，更涉及古物古蹟條例和政府整個保育架構的運作，聆訊將有助政府及市民共同檢視目前的法例及制度的不足。她並指出是項司法覆核關乎一項公眾議題，而並不涉及個人利益，所以裁定兩名司法覆核申請人得直，而且有權得到法律援助署的資助，繼續司法覆核聆訊。她還指出，申請人無論在申請或者在覆核聆訊中，都有可能說服法庭判他們勝訴。

This judicial review case GOT APPROVAL FOR LEGAL AID because the judge thinks that this important case will lead to a better and clearer analysis of the loopholes in the present laws and procedures on heritage preservation, will push towards more desirable reforms, and will raise public awareness on heritage issues. The case is considered by the court as a worthy public cause that has legal merits and does not involve private interests.

司法覆核案的內容包括以下的議題:

Issues involved in the judicial review include the following:

1. 肯定古物諮詢委員會(AAB)將皇后碼頭評定為一級歷史建築的決定。在評定皇后碼頭是否可以列為法定古蹟時，《古物古蹟條例》要求民政事務局長(SHA, 他也是古物事務監督)須依賴古物諮詢委員會(AAB, 法定諮詢機構) 的意見。古諮會在參考了古蹟辦(AMO) 高度和正面評價皇后碼頭的文物評估後，於2007年5月9日將皇后碼頭評定為一級歷史建築。於5月9日至5月22日期間，古蹟辦和局長卻嚴重地偏離了古諮會專業的意見。局長於22日決定不把皇后碼頭列為法定古蹟時，局長沒有將「皇后碼頭被評定為一級歷史建築，則行政機關應該盡一切努力予以保存皇后碼頭」這個因素，給予足夠的比重。而且，此決定只建基於另外一份古蹟辦做的短文件 (5月23日提交立法會的loose minutes)，而古蹟辦是沒有法定諮詢地位的，《古物古蹟條例》完全沒有提過這部門，也沒有把它列為法定諮詢機構。因此，局長基於古蹟辦的文件判定皇后碼頭不是古蹟的決定是「非法」的。更何況古蹟辦做的這份短文件，奇怪地完全推翻了它十三日前做給古諮會的、高度和正面評價皇后碼頭的文物評估，明顯地扁低皇后碼頭的文物價值，在評估皇后碼頭的客觀環境並無改變的狀況下，嚴重地改變了評估內容。這份文件連古諮會將皇后碼頭評定為一級歷史建築的事實都沒提到。因此，局長判定皇后碼頭不是古蹟的決定是「非常不合理」的。

Upholding the integrity of the Antiquities Advisory Board’s (AAB) decision to make Queen’s Pier (QP) a Grade 1 heritage site. The argument: the Antiquities and Monuments Office (AMO) of the government, which at first wrote a report very sympathetic to the heritage value of QP, and as a result, helped the AAB to grade QP as grade 1 on 9 May 2007, also wrote 13 days later, an opposite document that belittle the heritage value of QP (The Loose Minutes for the 23 May 2007 Legislative Council [LegCo] meeting). However, the Secretary for Home Affairs (SHA, at that time Patrick Ho) explained to the LegCo his decision not to declare QP a monument based entirely on this second “advice” of the AMO [wrote 13 days later], which is a U-turn against its previous positive valuation of QP. But, according to the Antiquities and Monuments Ordinance, the AAB is the only statutory advisory body that the SHA should consult for matters on antiquities and monuments. Nowhere in the Ordinance does it says that the SHA can make his decision based solely on the advice/report of the AMO. The SHA made an unlawful and unreasonable decision by basing his decision not to declare QP a monument solely on the advice of the AMO, while neglecting the advice of the AAB. (The AAB’s grading of QP as grade 1 is not mentioned in the second U-turn advice of the AMO that the SHA relies on).



2. 根據古諮會的文物評級表，一個歷史建築可得到的最高分數是68，而戰前(1920-1939年) 與戰後 (其實是1940-1970年)建築的分別只是1分，所以建築的年份不是最重要的評級因素。但建築是否罕有卻可得到最高12分，比重明顯比較大。在這前提下，皇后碼頭是獨一無二、非常罕有的雙用碼頭，它既是公眾碼頭，也是皇家／ 舉行特別儀式的碼頭。可是民政事務局長決定不把皇后碼頭列為法定古蹟時，卻以「所有法定古蹟皆為戰前樓宇」為由，扭曲地把不是關鍵的戰前與戰後建築的分別，曲解成最關鍵的因素，無理地扁低皇后碼頭的歷史價值。因此，局長在決定時錯誤地理解法例規定的準則與要求，引進了一個比法例所要求更嚴格的年份測試標準(根據法例，30年的建築就有資格被評級了)，因此他的決定是不合理與不合法的。

According to the AAB grading system, the maximum points a structure can get is 68 points, of which a post-WWII (in fact 1940-1970) building gets 1 point, and a pre-war (in fact 1920-1939) building gets 2 points. The difference is only 1 point among 68 and thus, age is not a decisive factor at all. In fact rarity/uniqueness is: it gets a maximum of 12 points. Now QP is unique among all piers, due to its dual purpose as a ceremonial pier and a public pier at the same time. It is the one and only one. However, Patrick Ho claims that his decision not to declared QP a monument is because all other declared monuments are pre-war, thus twisting a minor criteria into the decisive criteria for not declaring QP. This is unreasonable.

3. 民政事務局局長在決定是否宣布皇后碼頭為法定古蹟時，引用現有的63幢法定古蹟作為以後古蹟評定時「極為嚴格」的「挑選門檻」是不合理的，因為通常一個國家都會先把最重要的、最古老的、最需要優先處理的、最有被破壞的危機的文物先予以法定古蹟地位，但是以這些古蹟做「挑選門檻」，對往後評級的文物來講，就是過高的要求了。比如說，如果所有中國的文物都要跟敦煌與長城比，那中國現在很多的法定古蹟都不能達標成為古蹟了，因此會白白失去法定古蹟的保護了。顯然易見，局長在條例沒有訂明的情況下，引進一個比法例所要求更嚴格的測試標準，是不合理與不合法的。還有，有其他戰前歷史建築物比皇后碼頭具有更高的歷史價值，與皇后碼頭是否應列為古蹟，並不相關。因此，局長在決定時錯誤地理解法例規定的準則與要求，考慮了不相關的因素。

The SHA also declares for the first time that he is using the previous 63 declared monuments as the yardstick for the declaration of all later monuments. But this yardstick is unreasonable, because by definition, the most important buildings/structures must be declared first, if these are then used as yardstick, then there can be no further declaration (or very few) in the future. This “yardstick” or “threshold” is too unreasonably high, and therefore, unreasonable.

我們現在要做甚麼? What we need to do now:

要令法援生效, 朱凱迪與何來現在就立刻就要交 $25,000.

In order for the legal aid to be activated, Chu Hoi Dick & Ho Loy need to pay a total of $25,000 RIGHT NOW.

為了更有效地令公眾了解整個皇后碼頭保育事件與第三期填海工程的問題，本土行動還需要 $5000 出版進一步的特刊與海報.

Also, in order to better inform the public about various heritage preservation issues, the historical and social value of the Queen’s Pier architectural cluster as a public space, and the details of the Phase III reclamation project, Local Action needs another $5,000 to make an updated printed leaflet (A3 size, a few pages long, color illustrated.)

希望大家為了這保育運動付出經濟與精神上的支持，幫忙籌 30,000圓。

Let's support them (and the preservation movement) as much as we can both financial and spiritually and HELP RAISE $30,000.

所有捐款都會用來支付皇后碼頭司法覆核案的費用與作運動宣傳特刊印刷。

The money will be used solely for the purpose of the Queen’s Pier judicial review and the printing of information leaflets by Local Action.

The non-profit & non-government organization Community Cultural Concern has kindly offered to manage the donation drive and accounting.

*捐款辦法: *DONATION METHOD:

請於2007年8月31 日前捐款. 謝謝.

*Please donate on or before August 31, 2007. Thanks.

(1) 劃線支票 (請把你的名字與電郵地址寫於支票背後)

Crossed Cheque: (write your name and email address at the back of the cheque)

支票抬頭：社區文化關注

Pay to: Community Cultural Concern

請於8月31 日前將劃線支票寄往：荃灣 沙咀道305號 眾安大廈 3 樓 A1 室

Mail the cheque to Flat A1, 3rd Floor, Chung On Building, 305 Sha Tsui

Road, Tsuen Wan, HK.

(2) ATM 或 銀行:

ATM or Bank Deposit:

把捐款直接傳入恒生銀行戶口：773-401898-668

Pay the Hang Seng Bank account number: 773-401898-668

然後把收據傳真至 2358-2352或寄往上述地址

請附聯署人姓名及電郵(或其它聯絡方式)，方便核對.

Then fax a copy of the payment slip to 2358-2352, or mail a copy of the payment

slip to the above address for verification and accounting purposes. Please remember to write your name and email address.

籌款事宜將由社區文化關注(CCC)一個非牟利的非政府組織)管理，並於八月三十一日後向各位捐款人報告籌款結果. 請捐款人務必於支票或傳款單留下電郵地址!

All funds will be managed by Community Cultural Concern (CCC). CCC will notify everyone of the fund raising results at the end of the donation drive. Please remember to leave your EMAIL address at the back of your cheque or fax.

p/s 想知道更多有關保衛皇后碼頭的消息, 請至 www.queenpier.hk

p/s For more information about this preservation movement, please go to:
www.queenpier.hk

謝謝大家, 請廣傳我們的籌款呼籲.

Thank you everyone. Please pass on this donation message.

祝安好.

Best wishes,

本土行動 上

Local Action