Shek O

Country parks being ruined by thoughtless acts of bureaucrats

PUBLISHED : Thursday, 14 June, 2001, 12:00am
UPDATED : Thursday, 14 June, 2001, 12:00am


Related topics

I refer to the letter by K. T. Chan, for the Director of Agriculture, Fisheries and Conservation, headlined 'Footpath constituted potential hazard' (South China Morning Post, May 10) concerning the footpath at Big Wave Bay, which was written in response to my letter (Post, April 7) about eyesores in areas of outstanding natural beauty.

The Agriculture, Fisheries and Conservation Department (AFCD) and Southern and Eastern district offices are the enemies of all those in Hong Kong who would like to see its remaining beauty preserved for future generations.

The reasons given for doing the work in Big Wave Bay to which I referred show up the problem with so many works projects across the territory: they are done without any true thought as to the needs or wishes of the people of Hong Kong. This is why there are unnecessary roadworks everywhere and why our country parks are being ruined.

Regarding the Big Wave Bay path, is Mr Chan saying that this unsightly monolith was built in the middle of an untouched, beautiful area for some elderly morning walkers?

Surely it would have been simpler to maintain the paths through a more passive method. Was it for old people that various government departments have also built concrete monstrosities on other perfectly good paths across the territory? Which elderly citizens did the department consult before desecrating the side of the hill?

The path from a distance looks unsightly, whether viewing it from the tip of the Shek O peninsula, or from the ridge of the Dragon's Back.

It is approximately two metres wide. Was it designed so that each elderly morning hiker, their amah and six dogs can comfortably climb the hill?

There seems to have been no effort whatsoever made to preserve the stunning visual features of the area. The contractors doing the destruction are leaving all sorts of pollution on the hill and in the catchment itself. The path is ugly. I ask that the AFCD and the Southern and Eastern district offices admit they have made a big mistake, and not fob off this gross injustice by saying it was designed for a few old people to walk up the hill. I do not accept that the majority of works in Hong Kong are done for 'strong reasons'.

The paving of footpaths shows no signs of stopping, and officials are guilty of making Hong Kong a less attractive place in which to live.


Shek O