The Shady Story Behind Hong Kong’s ‘Palace Museum’

Why do Hong Kong executive council members continue to act without the least regard for the people of Hong Kong?

In the latest chapter of Hong Kong’s political playbook, late last year veteran lawmaker and chief executive hopeful Carrie Lam Cheng Yuet-ngor announced plans for a Beijing approved “Palace Museum” to be located in Hong Kong.

The Hong Kong Palace Museum is expected to display antiques from the Forbidden City, as well as various other pieces related to the ancient Chinese imperial palace. The planned museum shares many similarities with Beijing’s existing Palace Museum. Some have claimed that the museum was proposed as something of a gift to Beijing to commemorate this year’s 20th anniversary of the return of Hong Kong to Chinese rule, which is not the most popular reality for many Hong Kongers.

What was initially a strange, but largely innocuous, announcement about the construction of a HK$3.8 billion ($489 million) Palace Museum to house and display ancient Chinese artifacts borrowed from the central government soon began to reveal more sinister dealings made without public consultation or knowledge.

The proposed site for the museum would cover an area of 30,000 square meters in the West Kowloon Cultural District (WKCD), a public space in Hong Kong. The proposal put forward was kept confidential and away from public view. Despite the proposed site being on public lands, the government and the WKCD Authority initially argued that there was no need for public disclosure, as the proposed museum would be built in compliance with permissible building codes and funded entirely from charitable donations from the non-profit Hong Kong Jockey Club (Hong Kong’s sole horse racing operator, which holds a government-granted monopoly on horse racing gambling, the Mark Six lottery, as well as fixed odds betting on overseas soccer games).

This claim also conflicts with the West Kowloon Cultural District Authority Ordinance which states:

“…the Authority shall, in relation to matters concerning the development or operation of arts and cultural facilities, related facilities, ancillary facilities and any other matters as the Authority considers fit, consult the public at such time and in such manner as it considers appropriate.”

Further adding to the mystery is the claim by veteran arts advocate Ada Wong Ying-kay, who sits on the West Kowloon Cultural District consultation panel, that she received notification of the approved museum plan via a single WhatsApp (a digital messaging application) message sent by the Home Affairs Bureau on December 23, the day the project was formally announced.

It was then later revealed by local news agency FactWire that the WKCD Authority had engaged an architect more than six months before the official announcement, suggesting that indeed there was no consultation of any form along the way.

It is all the more interesting that it was legislator Carrie Lam, who also chairs the WKCD Authority’s board, who announced the plan, just one week before she formally announced her candidacy for the chief executive position. The chief executive will be elected (though not by popular vote) in March.

Public and political outrage has ensued since the announcement, along with the threat of legal proceedings against the government by a group of activists. Hong Kong, for the most part, is a practical city. The people understand the concept of public land, and while they appreciate cultural heritage, they also have a strong history of voicing their concerns about social injustice when they see fit. Subsequently, a special legislative council meeting was convened in early January with the express purpose of looking into the series of events.

Lam, however, saw the meeting as an appropriate opportunity to sell her leadership credentials.

“I am an official who likes to take initiatives,” Lam said. “For the past three decades, especially in the leadership roles in recent years, I have been rather proactive. I hope to do things for Hong Kong.”

The core issue here is not the museum itself. Rather, it is the shady, secret dealings that preceded the public proposal. After a week of intense scrutiny, the administration has bowed to pressure and will launch a six-week public participation process on the new project, but only insofar as its design and operation. There will be no consultation on the approval of the museum itself.

The peculiar timing of the announcement and Lam’s heavy involvement screams of political self-interest, and authoritative high-handedness – two things that have a very close connection with China, as far as Hong Kongers’ perceptions are concerned. The fact of the matter is that Hong Kongers are not the priority here. Despite Lam’s claims, this museum is clearly not being constructed for the benefit of the local population. Lam has been accused of using the museum as part of her pursuit of the leadership role; any benefits are ancillary to that of political pandering on Lam’s part. It should come as no surprise, then, least of all to a career politician like Lam, that there would be such a backlash and public outrage.

The complete disregard for the views of the Hong Kong people will have long political consequences not only for Lam, but for the Chinese government in Hong Kong. The fact of the matter is that this was a secret deal made between one political hopeful and Beijing. In the process, Lam put her own needs above the needs of Hong Kong, and her haste to appease the Chinese central government demonstrates her complete lack of respect for public opinion.

With Lam in position as a potential next chief executive, this is a dire warning for the people of Hong Kong.