The CCAC has completed the investigation on the cultural heritage protection work for Lok Kok Restaurant, where it believes that the current and previous owners of Lok Kok Restaurant have not fulfilled the obligations vested by the cultural heritage protection laws since 1991, which directly caused the restaurant to become seriously dilapidated and to be practically abandoned for a long time. At that time, the cultural departments and public works departments did not hold those involved responsible for the relevant administrative illegalities in a timely manner according to the law. As a result, the relevant responsibilities were extinguished due to the statutes of limitations. This demonstrates that the supervisory efforts of the relevant departments were inadequate in the past. Nevertheless, given that the relevant departments have been stepping up efforts in their cultural heritage protection work in recent years and that the restoration and redevelopment project for Lok Kok Restaurant is coming to an end, the CCAC does not believe that the relevant cultural heritage protection work is again encountering challenges at this stage. To effectively prevent the problems revealed in the case of Lok Kok Restaurant, the CCAC however believes that the establishment of internal cultural heritage protection mechanisms should be reinforced. In addition, all departments should effectively perform their duties vested by the new Cultural Heritage Protection Law as well as strengthen communication and cooperation among themselves.
The CCAC has collected and collated different types of case files opened by the cultural and public works departments as well as documents and information concerning Lok Kok Restaurant over the last three decades. It also analysed the performance of duties respectively by the cultural departments and the public works departments under the new and the old Cultural Heritage Protection Law for the time being in force. The CCAC points out that the Cultural Affairs Bureau (IC) and the then Cultural Institute have only performed the duty as a building inspection committee member according to the General Regulation on Urban Construction over the past years. They did not implement the cultural heritage protection regimes independently and proactively for the time being in force. Neither did they open any independent case file regarding maintenance and preservation of Lok Kok Restaurant. Such passive state has called into question the cultural departments’ efforts in and stringency of executing the relevant cultural heritage protection regimes. Moreover, early on, after the new Cultural Heritage Protection Law entered into force, the IC did not impose administrative penalties on the owner of the immovable property who did not fulfil the obligation of carrying out cultural heritage protection work and the obligation of notification. As a result, the owner’s responsibilities arising from administrative illegalities were extinguished due to the statutes of limitations. As regards the criminal responsibility, in response to the disappearance of the façade of Lok Kok Restaurant in 2014, the IC made a technical judgement that it was not a natural collapse. In June 2022, the IC reported the case to the Public Prosecutions Office.
Regarding such case, the CCAC analysed Article 32 of the new Cultural Heritage Protection Law where the “three-stepped” procedures concerning demolition of buildings of architectural interests are provided for. They include listening to the views of the IC, seeking advice from the Cultural Heritage Council and issuing orders by the Chief Executive. The CCAC found that prior to the owner of Lok Kok Restaurant started the restoration and redevelopment project, he had made an application to the then Land, Public Works and Transport Bureau (DSSOPT) for demolishing the building. In addition, the IC had analysed and considered Article 32 of the new Cultural Heritage Protection Law. Since it believed that the works of demolition and clearance applied for by the owner only involved the remaining structural components of the façade after it was totally collapsed, there was no need to start the “three-stepped” procedures. The CCAC considers that the decision made by the IC is understandable and there is not any administrative illegality or impropriety.
During investigation, the CCAC also analysed the cultural heritage protection work for Lok Kok Restaurant carried out by the public works departments. It was found that in the past, the public works departments generally followed up and handled cases of classified immovable properties or immovable properties to be classified according to the classification of general dangerous buildings provided for in the General Regulation on Urban Construction. After the new Cultural Heritage Protection Law had come into force, regarding the issue of Lok Kok Restaurant, the public works department did not effectively exercise its specific powers and administrative punitive powers vested by the law or even the duty of reporting in response to the classified immovable property being demolished illegally. As such, the CCAC believes that the then DSSOPT was comparatively passive in implementing the new Cultural Heritage Protection Law regarding the cultural heritage protection work for Lok Kok Restaurant.
Given that the IC is currently making an all-out effort in strengthening the governance of the cultural heritage protection work and is not shying away from using forceful means vested by the new Cultural Heritage Protection Law, and that the construction project for the restoration and redevelopment for Lok Kok Restaurant is coming to an end, the CCAC does not think that the cultural heritage protection work for such building is again encountering challenges at this stage. The CCAC believes that the problems revealed in the case of Lok Kok Restaurant will be effectively prevented if the competent departments currently in force, particularly the IC, can persistently attach importance to and effectively perform the duties for cultural heritage protection vested by the new Cultural Heritage Protection Law and reinforce the establishment of internal cultural heritage protection mechanisms. In addition, the cultural departments and the public works departments should effectively perform their respective duties vested by the new Cultural Heritage Protection Law and strengthen necessary communication and cooperation among themselves.
The CCAC agrees that the protection work for immovable properties of private nature which are classified as those of cultural interests relies very much on their owners’ initiative. Protection for the cultural heritage of the Macao SAR is the shared responsibilities and obligations among, both lawfully and morally, the SAR Government, the citizens and the proprietors, owners and management persons of the relevant heritage. To effectively carry out Macao’s cultural protection work, all sectors of the community should share the responsibilities and take part in such work. They should strengthen communication and collaboration among themselves, concern and protect the cultural heritage of Macao jointly in order that it can be passed down from generation to generation.
The CCAC has already notified the Chief Executive on the result of investigation and reflected the opinions to relevant competent departments according to the Organic Law of the Commission Against Corruption.