January, 2005

The Hunghom Peninsula Campaign - A New Page to Hong Kong's Social Movement

Chan Ka-wai

(The author is the associate director of the Hong Kong Christian Industrial Committee [HKCIC].)

The Hunghom Peninsula project is publicly subsided housing for sale in a luxurious waterfront area of Hong Kong that has raised questions about the relationship between the Hong Kong government and local developers as well as other issues. With seven buildings of approximately 35 stories each, the project can provide more than 2,000 flats. Three years ago, however, the Hong Kong government suddenly stopped all sales of publicly subsided housing, including the Hunghom Peninsula project and another joint venture like it with private developers. At the time, the Hunghom Peninsula project was almost complete, but the new buildings were left empty because the government had suddenly changed its policy, a policy that was criticised because it was seen as an attempt to prop up falling property prices for large land developers. In the case of the Hunghom Peninsula project, however, the government had signed an agreement with the developer that the buildings had to be sold in 18 months after the project was complete. During this period, many groups asked the government about the destiny of the Hunghom Peninsula project, but the government repeatedly refused to release any information, replying that it was a commercial secret.

In February 2004, the government abruptly announced that the whole project had been sold back to the developers for HK$800 million (US$103 million). Everyone was surprised by the low price, for it was estimated that the buildings were worth about HK$3 billion (US$385 million). The government responded by saying that the total price was HK$2.7 billion (US$346 million), which included compensation to the developers for their loss that amounted to HK$1.9 billion (US$243 million). It was claimed that this was the highest price that the government could negotiate with the developers. However, no one knew how the deal was made; nothing was transparent. Consequently, the public demanded a clear accounting of the issue.

Several months later it was learned that the developers planned to demolish the new buildings and construct luxury residential buildings on the site that would be more profitable. The developers could earn HK$2.3 billion (US$295 million) if they sold the existing buildings but HK$6.8 billion (US$872 million) after the redevelopment. Green groups and more than 1,000 pupils and their parents at a primary school near the project, however, strongly objected to the redevelopment: it would create a nuisance to the school and an abundance of waste materials; it was not environmentally sound. The government still maintained their silence and said that the buildings no longer belonged to them. Legally, the developers could do as they liked; the government could offer little help.

On Dec. 1, 2004, the developers announced their redevelopment proposal for the Hunghom Peninsula project. To please the public, the developers adopted a more environmentally sound demolition method to reduce waste. Moreover, 95 percent of the waste would be reused, and all fixed furniture, including air conditioners, would be freely given to social welfare agencies.

The redevelopment proposal though continued to arouse strong criticism in the community, especially from environmental organisations, teachers, religious groups and political parties. In the face of this strong opposition, the government claimed that they would be unlikely to allow any change to the project's original master plan. Even Chinese Premier Wen Jiabao spoke indirectly about the issue, saying that social harmony was of the utmost importance. On Dec. 10, a day after Wen's speech, the developers announced that they had given up the redevelopment project.

Most people were surprised by this decision, especially since one of the developers is among the 50 wealthiest families in the world. Furthermore, the developers had sufficient legal grounds, and financially they are powerful.

After this unexpected victory, many people have begun to rethink the future of the social movement. One place to begin is to incorporate and redefine some of the new terms used in this campaign, such as corporate social responsibility (CSR). CSR though is not yet well defined; and in Hong Kong, it is a new concept. In many cases, it refers only to the charitable acts of corporations. However, in this case, CSR has been defined as corporations' position concerning social goods. Commercial activity should not be at the expense of social goods, which can include how corporations promote labour rights and enable a harmonious community as well as protect the environment. A core concept of CSR is the multistakeholder approach that relates to the process as well as the outcome. It involves all parties, especially the communities affected, to monitor corporate activities. In the Hunghom Peninsula project, the multistakeholder approach was not raised. This approach though is an essential element of being a good corporate citizen. The corporations must stay in harmony with the community, which should be involved in the corporate decision.

During the response to this issue, some people have also raised other new concepts that the social movement can adopt. For example, a political party asked Hong Kong's people to consider a boycott campaign against other businesses of the two developers involved in the project. Some church groups also demanded that the shareholders call an emergency meeting to stop the redevelopment. The former is a preliminary step of a consumer campaign; the latter is related to ethical investment. These two strategies are new in Hong Kong, but they have successfully pressured many corporations to respect CSR in the West. Among different actors in society, the Church is one which can facilitate this development, for, first of all, the Church has ways to touch people and distribute information to people, and secondly, the Church often has large investments. If the Church adopts a good practice of ethical investment, it will send a powerful message. Thus, the Church in Hong Kong should set up a taskforce to study these two issues. If so, the social movement in Hong Kong has the possibility to advance further and enter a new age.