Tinja Tsang's useful article on development plans for Hong Kong and related pollution problems (Sunday Morning Post Magazine, March 2) deserves further comment.
First, the entire development strategy is apparently based on the idea of a Hong Kong in isolation. This is unrealistic, as a proportion of our future growth will surely involve Shenzhen and other areas of southern China. Housing, container terminals and rail links are matters which require regional, rather than merely local thinking. A development strategy which overlooks regional implications lacks validity, as do the budgetary assumptions which underlie it. Everyone understands that construction creates noise. The issue is how to eliminate avoidable noise.
Percussive piling, for example, is illegal or severely restricted in most developed countries (since there are other means of piling there is little justification for percussive pilers). Likewise old-style percussive breakers (jackhammers) and pneumatic rock drills have long since been replaced with quieter equipment, even in far less prosperous places than Hong Kong.
Developers should only be permitted to use this outmoded equipment when it can be demonstrated that no other device can do the job - and the Environmental Protection Department (EPD) and police must have the clout and legislative backing needed to enforce these restrictions.
Finally, the suggestion from John Boxall (of the EPD) that conferring with contractors will solve environmental problems is somewhat disingenuous. Responsibility rests with the government departments, firms and individuals who hire the contractors and here is where enforcement should be directed. A bit of adverse publicity, such as a half-yearly report of developers who arouse the largest number of environmental complaints, might be a step in the right direction.
HARRISON RYLER New Territories
