Does the appearance of government buildings reflect the nature of its occupants? The Special Administrative Region (SAR) Government obviously does not think so. Only recently, Hong Kong officials decided to replace the low perimeter fence at the Central Government Offices (CGO) with high metal railings to prepare for Chief Executive Tung Chee-hwa's imminent move into the office compound. Officials are adamant the new metal grilles are meant to strengthen CGO security and there is no reason to take it as a sign the SAR Government is becoming less open and accountable. But just across the border in Guangzhou the city government recently knocked down the perimeter wall of its office compound and substituted it with iron railings. Reportedly, the move was meant to give Guangzhou residents the impression that the officials there are more accessible and the administration is more transparent. Guangzhou officials were also quoted as saying they were only following the good example set by their counterparts in Dalian. While it is true that the Guangzhou government still considers a perimeter fence necessary, the fact that it has decided to knock down the concrete wall to improve the local government's image should give Hong Kong officials some food for thought. Yes, the Government may have genuine concerns about security for the chief Executive's Office. Officials may also say that their security arrangements are no tighter than those at the former Government House. But what practical value does the new metal fence serve if it will, as officials said, not impede public access to the CGO compound? By saying the fence will be closed only while there are very serious security problems, officials are sending an even more disturbing message - that they are preparing for a siege. This is pathetic. Is the Government expecting riots or what? Who is going to raid CGO? The April 5 Action Group? Nonsense. With or without the higher metal railings, police would arrest activists before they could gain entry. Hong Kong people, especially protesters and petitioners, are used to the openness of the CGO. For many years, scores of rallies have been held, and petitions presented, there and thousands have gathered to voice grievances against government policies. But they have never posed any threat to occupants' security. As was rightly pointed out by the watchman there, protests - apart from being a bit noisy - were always orderly. Even back in 1995 when then chief secretary Anson Chan Fang On-sang was given extra security protection after receiving a threatening note, the Government saw no need to erect a higher perimeter fence to protect her. By allowing some to accuse it of trying to shut itself off from the public, the Government has created a public relations disaster. Others will say the extra protection reflects the office occupants' exaggerated sense of insecurity. Let us keep in mind: Hong Kong is not under threat from terrorists and, even if we were, two-metre-high iron railings would simply not be strong enough. If the Government genuinely wants to do something to improve security for Mr Tung's office, it might step up checks in the foyer of the CGO's main wing and install extra security counters on the fifth floor where Mr Tung's office will be located. Such measures would prove more practical and effective than the raising of a metal perimeter fence that is really there just for show.