DISNEYLAND? Here? Oh my, oh my, oh my, as Pooh would say. Actually this is not good news for Pooh, because I do not doubt that the Obscene Articles Tribunal will swiftly veto any attempt to import a character surnamed Bare, especially if he does not wear trousers.
Still it is a thought to set the mind racing. That certainly seems to be the effect it had on David (Shanghai) Tang Wing-cheung, who leapt into print recently to denounce the proposal. Getting his opposition to the Lantau Disneyland in early, Mr Tang said scarce land and resources would be better used on something 'uniquely Hong Kong'.
Here is an interesting question indeed. What is uniquely Hong Kong? We cannot, after all, build a theme park around cage hostels, student suicides, dysfunctional airports, the Legco voting arrangements, parking spaces once worth $2 million, 20th-century buildings with 18th-century sewage systems, the Rugby Sevens or the Small House Policy.
The Hong Kong Jockey Club has some claims to being unique, but that is a theme park already.
Mr Tang, it turned out, was using Hong Kong in the broad sense. 'We should use our resources on something which has more of a Chinese flavour,' he said. He then went on to make a rather ill-judged reference, I thought, to the possibility of building 'some fifth-rate theme park that is supposed to be like Disneyland in Los Angeles'.
Now this is unfair to the Disney organisation. I have visited three of the existing cultural Chernobyls and I do not doubt that for a man of Mr Tang's refined tastes they are hotbeds of vulgarity. But theme parks are supposed to be vulgar. Fifth-rate they are not. And the Disneylands are not just 'supposed to be' like the one in Los Angeles. They are like the one in Los Angeles. Considering the varying ages of the parks the product is remarkably predictable.
There are some differences. Everything seems a bit smaller in Tokyo; in Paris you can get decent food and - ahem - wine. But the Disney organisation is nothing if not consistent.