In an investigation report on the Mirror concert incident at Hong Kong Coliseum, the Culture, Sports and Tourism Bureau proposed various safety measures to prevent similar mishaps from recurring, such as “specifying roles” in checking the safety mechanism. It suggested setting up a higher-level regulatory body to conduct another round of cross-checking on top of the current structural checks conducted primarily by certified engineers. Although specifying roles in the team and introducing a double-checking mechanism might work in averting similar misfortune in the future, the core problem in the Mirror concert case remains unsolved.
The main cause of the accident lies in the lack of safety awareness of the venue management team on site. The team should have strictly followed the protocol that demands full accountability of all parties involved, as well as close monitoring by technical supervisors. Hong Kong Coliseum was initially affiliated with the Leisure and Cultural Services Department and supervised by the Performing Arts Division. Supervision of the coliseum was handed to the Libraries and Development Division without the public being informed. Frankly speaking, it’s odd, if not ridiculous, allowing library staff to oversee a sector that organizes major performing arts events. It would be more reasonable for supervision of the coliseum to be transferred back to the department’s Sports and Recreation Division. The Mirror concert mishap was the corollary of the twisted supervising system, which has proved to be ineffective and disastrous. Putting Hong Kong Coliseum under the Library and Development Division, as well as abolishing the longstanding resident tech manager’s post, are the crux of the issue. What led to the mishap? Both the contractor and the venue management had failed to make the structural checks on the coliseum during the review process.
The bureau’s investigation report, therefore, suggested engaging third parties to conduct further reviews and verification. Ensuring structural integrity is, in fact, the responsibility of the venue management team. It shouldn’t be that of the concert organizer, who had merely hired a structural engineer to set up the stage, and employed other “registered professionals to confirm that the installations are safe and sound”. Such an arrangement is redundant. The report intends to pass the buck to the organizer, which is irresponsible in essence. The CSTB should not shirk its responsibility by finding excuses, while denying Hong Kong Coliseum’s responsibility as a concert venue.
This report had missed a couple of key issues. It fails to address, first of all, the professionalism of frontline technicians; inadequate supervision; and, last but not least, the report can only serve its purposes for only a short time if Hong Kong were to continue promoting performing arts in the city. The report says the CSTB will review the effectiveness of the measures with the arts performing industry within a year. But, would the industry itself be consulted? It isn't just the production company in the Mirror concert incident that has been affected. Many smaller performing arts groups have been collaterally affected as well. Those that have hired other LCSD small-to-medium-sized venues have become faultless victims. According to the investigation report’s proposals, these groups would have to spend HK$10,000 ($7,800) to HK$20,000 monthly to hire more contractors or subcontractors as their structural consultants to produce more documents than the LCSD needs. The LCSD would have to handle additional paperwork. Such a bureaucratic approach is definitely not the desired solution.
The full responsibility should rest with the CSTB, and a full-scale industry-wide consultation exercise should be conducted systematically. First and foremost, the bureau must put Hong Kong Coliseum under the supervision of the Performing Arts Division. Under the leadership of the LCSD’s tech directors, the coliseum should consider restoring the role of the resident tech manager to optimize and coordinate with all the required technical checking arrangements, and establish an enforcement team to carry out all the verification. This is the only way to ensure the safety of concert goers and the performers themselves, and would contemporaneously boost the development of the performing arts sector.
If Hong Kong were to unleash the integrated development of its culture, sports and tourism industry, and become an East-meets-West center for international cultural exchange, we must acknowledge that the performing arts business is the special administrative region’s forte. But, if the SAR government keeps passing the buck to the organizers when crises arise, investors’ confidence would falter when funding performing arts activities, not to mention making breakthroughs or innovations to improve the industry.
As a result, the CSTB’s one-year timeframe for reviewing the effectiveness of its proposed safety measures demands a real solution to pinpoint the crux of the problem and prospective measures with hindsight. There are five aspects involved in trying to make a real difference. Enhancing training for stage/theater technicians should be considered in the first place, along with setting long-term goals. It would be sensible to standardize local stage management to set and uphold standards for technical safety and production excellence. For instance, the Association of British Theatre Technicians is the epitome of accessing the competence of technicians. Next, constitutional structure and venue management policies must evolve. Officials should consider upgrading Hong Kong Coliseum into an all-purpose venue for a comprehensive range of services. Furthermore, how feasible would it be for Kai Tak Sports Park to be transformed into a venue for concerts once it opens. For instance, if concerts were to be held frequently at London’s The All England Lawn Tennis and Croquet Club, better known as the venue for the Wimbledon Championships, how would it maintain its professionalism? And how many more event venues would Hong Kong need?
It’s essential to put concrete indicators and goals in place. The West Kowloon Cultural District plans to have a venue for 10,000 people. But, since the original plan remains mired in controversies, the SAR government may well lower the audience capacity to 5,000 or 3,000. Fourth, from the perspective of boosting the performing industry, it’s critical for Hong Kong to take a leaf from Tokyo — a metropolis for international performing arts. Last, but not least, considering performing arts as a vital part of the tourism industry, we must think of how to build up a cluster of thriving theaters like the West End of London or New York’s Broadway, and turn West Kowloon into a key tourist spot. Shanghai is spearheading the development of the performing arts sector in a similar way.
Although the CSTB’s report is far from satisfactory and reeks of bureaucracy, it has set a one-year goal to monitor the progress made. Hopefully, the bureau will fully utilize this period to put forward policies that would enhance the safety of the city’s art scenes and performing arts venues.
The author is a member of the Chinese Association of Hong Kong and Macao Studies and artistic director of Zuni Icosahedron
The views do not necessarily reflect those of China Daily