Visibly wrong

The government has got itself stuck in the same old rut; it can't decide between 'economic development' and public health. This is why there is a deafening silence on revising the air quality objectives.

This conundrum of 'development versus health' involves a range of infrastructure projects, including roads, a bridge and an air strip. Put simply, Hong Kong is already not meeting its current extremely lax air quality standards, which the government knows cannot protect public health. If these are tightened even slightly, the large construction projects will have to be revised because they will not pass the new environmental impact assessment processes.

The traditional thinking is that if Hong Kong does not push on with these projects, the city and its people will fall behind because others are racing ahead with all sorts of construction. Those who think this way prefer to revise the air standards only after the major projects have been approved.

The inconvenience is the regular public bleating about bad air. Moreover, the international media is rapping Hong Kong over air pollution because multinational companies are having difficulty retaining and relocating talent to work here. Worse, Singapore's better air quality is being touted as a reason for international talent to go there instead.

The government's own data attests to high pollution, particularly at roadsides. Doctors and health experts are so fed up with the slow response on what they see as a health crisis that they are getting organised to voice their complaints publicly. For example, the Hedley Environmental Index, created by public health experts at the University of Hong Kong and Civic Exchange, is a real-time online tool showing the health costs of air pollution. University experts have now worked out another way of looking at the daily health impact of air pollution: visibility. This means anyone can learn to do it.

Everyone can find a convenient spot to look out at the city each day, to read the visibility level and know what it means in terms of our health. This is great; it's so simple and gives an accurate assessment. Once people get the hang of it, the outcry for the government to act will become louder still.

Will reassessing construction projects be detrimental to Hong Kong's future? The government may have to do this for the Hong Kong-Macau-Zhuhai bridge, given that a judicial review is hanging over the project on the basis that the impact on public health from emissions has not been considered. The case is expected to go to court in March.

The usual argument is that even a short delay on projects will have a negative impact on jobs. No government official seems to have the confidence to argue that public health matters, too. This is where the mental disconnect lies. Construction projects are seen as good for society; public health is not seen as important enough to be taken into account and given a high priority. How much longer will this mindset persist?

Experience also shows that the city's international brand doesn't matter much when it comes to public health. While government officials tout Hong Kong's recent top rank in economic freedom, they ignore the fact that multinationals are having recruitment problems.

Public opinion surveys conducted by Civic Exchange and the Hong Kong Transition Project show that local residents are also bothered by air pollution, and the best-educated professionals are the ones preparing to leave, or thinking of doing so. No wonder the government is often accused of siding with some sectors and neglecting the public interest. While officials will argue for construction projects, they are not arguing for the need to protect the public health of all residents. This is very unfortunate.

In fact, the way forward is clear: Hong Kong's liveability depends on making sure that new infrastructure meets tight health and environmental standards.

Christine Loh Kung-wai is chief executive of the think tank Civic Exchange