2016-06-08

Land Grabbing in Ma Shi Po Farmland

The farmland in Ma Shi Po stands as an important foreground facing the urban sprawl. On the 27th May I was standing outside the Ma Po Po Community Farm and the surrounding farmland in Ma Shi Po as Michael, a resident of Hong Kong, explained the farmlands significance. Farmland residents, locals and activists are in a heated confrontation with Henderson Land, a land developer, and what appears to be its partner, the Hong Kong government. Henderson plans to annex the Ma Shi Po farmland by the end of the year for the development of apartment buildings. As the South China Morning Post reported on 2nd June, development of Hong Kong’s satellite cities are critical to the region’s economic and human progress. They aren’t wrong. Housing is needed to service a large population sandwiched in between the seaside and vast mountain ranges. But the critical lesson to come out of the Ma Shi Po case is not so much the land grabbing itself, but rather how Henderson has chosen to conduct itself. The absolutist approach taken by the developers and the government throws into perspective the asymmetrical relationship Hong Kong citizens, in this case farmers, have with both government and developer; farmers and activists are protesting as much against the arcane methods of subversion used by the developers, as they are against the actual land grabbing. Spending a bit of time with the protestors allowed me to understand their perspective. Food security, tradition, community, consultation time and government bullying are the issues farmers want attended to along with the attempts developers have made to acquire their land. But it is how they are attended to that’s needed to solve the bigger dispute at the centre of this land grabbing incident: the asymmetrical relationship between the authorities and the people. The authorities claim the acquisition is for development purposes, whilst activists believe it to be just another example of the government and the developers desire to control everything. However, we may find that at the end of this standoff, the real lose was in the two parties’ inability to sit down and chat.

Food security is very important for those campaigning to stop the development of farmland in Ma Shi Po. What one can feel comfortable saying is that no matter where you are, odds on one much prefers eating local produce farmed by locals. The feeling is no different in Hong Kong. According to Michael, about 1.8% of the food eaten by Hong Kongers is grown in Hong Kong. Land grabbing, not just in Ma Shi Po, in Hong Kong is likely to reduce that number to 1.2%. This practice is unsustainable and is highly neglectful of tradition and histories, say in agriculture and home grown produce. Relying on produce from Mainland, Thailand or other Asian countries does not support locals in their bid to raise a living through the production of agricultural products, nor does it propel Hong Kong in a sustainable direction.

The final frontier: one of the few farms that have escaped the fences of Henderson.

Community and tradition, both in the practical sense as well as the abstract, are important entities farmers hope to save along with their farm land. Hong Kong is a tough city to live comfortably in. Cost of living is high and families often have to stay together in the same house to pay the rent. To some, living in Hong Kong could be likened to living in a ‘shoebox’, as Michael puts it. Due to limited space in Hong Kong, the only way to build is up, and so people have little choice but to live in small apartment flats. Farmers see their land as an escape from this life. In 2010, Ma Po Po Community farm was started by farmers wanting to instil a sense of community. Workshops, cooking classes, farm tours and food markets were all important factors that contributed to this community lifestyle. Overall the aim was to feed local people with local produce, and at the same time teach them about it. In Ma Shi Po, farmers have been there for three generations and the lessons they have learned about the fertility of the soil, composting and the type of farming that the land complements are all lessons learned and passed down. Only now, fences prevent farmers from actually doing any of this. Michael said it would have been better if farmers were still allowed to till the land whilst they were fighting their case against Henderson, but the absoluteness of the authorities prevented this from happening. Instead, Henderson should have welcomed activists for a meeting at his office. Negotiations could have been held, farmers would have been able to work the land, Henderson would have been able to learn of the farms significance and the farmers would have been able to learn of Henderson’s plans in full. Collaboration was something the protestors and Henderson could have extolled. This would not have been a victory for just the two parties, but for the city as a whole; collaboration has been wanning for some time.

A troubling aspect of the standoff is the lack of consultation time the farmers are receiving from Henderson. For some time, activists have been trying to hold meetings with the Development Bureau and the head of Henderson, Lee Shau- kee. They have even tried going to IFC to protest in the lobby of Henderson. However, they are never able to meet the chairman, and are constantly dealing with the middleman. Usually it is an office worker from IFC with a pre-recorded message on a megaphone; saving face in front of the media is more important than actual progress. Speaking of the media, it’s usually journalists that alert protestors that a representative from the IFC is on the way! If they were to enter into some sort of sit- down dialogue as equals then both parties would be better informed of the others plans. An example Michael gave me was when Carrie Lam had a televised, sit down interview with students during Occupy Central. Something like that would have been appreciated. Understanding could have been the first step in a resolution compiled by both parties. Instead of a balanced approach, Henderson took the absolutist one. A court injunction was implemented and anybody found on the property farming is liable to being fined or arrested. On the 26th April people were actually arrested. Instead of holding meetings that aimed to work the aims of both parties into the end result, Henderson chose to implement a business flavoured ‘Shock and Awe’ strategy that aimed to tip the balance of power in their favour. CCTV, security guards, fences and a close- minded approach meant the two were unable to approach the problem on an equal footing. This strategy is likely to intensify as developers only have to the end of the year to prove to the government that they have acquired the necessary allotment of land to develop.

Enough said…

Another point of concern that is troubling to farmers, but also applicable to the general public, is the “structural violence”, as Michael puts it, implemented by the authorities. The farming community is surrounded by guards, with the total reaching 70 at one point, according to Michael. In the past they have been heavy handed, but in recent times they have actually been quite civilised, saying hello and occasionally making light conversation with activists. The guards are just one example, but the coupling of them with a court injunction and CCTV surveillance paints an Orwellian picture. Michael also informs me that the developers have in the past sent in people to conduct ‘surveys’. However, what they are really doing is encouraging farmers to sell, coaxing them with lines like “you don’t want to be the last ones on this land.” Apparently this has been happening on and off for the past 20 years by developers just to maintain a presence on the land. On site I was told of a secret agenda between the government and developers, but this is hard to prove. To the activists, who are aware of the favourable stance taken by the government over Henderson’s land grabbing, these are just examples of people wanting to wrest control of land ripe for economic development. There are probably many that would argue that Henderson is allowed to do this. A contributor to the SCMP argued on June 5 that legally speaking, the developer could do what they wanted. This may or may not be so, but within the confines of this article, that is neither here nor there. What matters is how Henderson is going about their business. Just because the law says you can do something, doesn’t mean it has to be done without considering the other side at the same time. Henderson would do well to not only take into account the legal standpoints of this case, but the human ones also. A Henderson that listens, includes and consults the farmers is likely to defuse this problem more efficiently than through its current strategy.

An undercover area in the Ma Po Po Community Farm. This would normally be used for workshops and for selling produce. The area would also have served as a community area for socialising.

Food security, tradition, consultation time and oppression are all points of concern that the events in Ma Shi Po has aroused. These farms represent a way of life that is receding into the background and fast becoming a part of Hong Kong history. Land grabbing has actually awoken and made more clear a bipolar vision of how the future of Hong Kong could be played out: those who view Hong Kong’s traditional and environmental landscape as significant, and those who see it as subordinate to development and economic growth. Protestors face an uphill battle.

Ben Walsh - Student from summer internship programme 2016

Comments