The Legislative Council recently voted to allow the Government to spend a billion dollars of taxpayers' money specifically on infrastructure for the cyberport development. I understand the Liberal vote was key to this approval. Another 'nail in the coffin' for the Liberal Party. The fiasco surrounding the cyberport continues. In its haste to construct this project, the Government is cutting so many corners that many questions still remain unanswered and the administration fails to ensure the public is kept informed of the numerous controversial issues surrounding this development. According to the draft Pokfulam outline zoning plan published in April, the cyberport area is governed by the Pokfulam moratorium which prohibits land sale and lease modification for more 'intensive development'. The cyberport development which contains plans to build a hotel, residential and commercial property plus the cyberport building, must surely be considered an 'intensive development'. The Pokfulam moratorium was imposed on traffic grounds to prohibit excessive development in the area until there is an overall improvement in the transport network services. Despite this, the Government wants to abolish the moratorium, so it can 'submerge' this small district with redevelopment to accommodate a population increase of up to 40 per cent; without any substantial traffic improvements or significant infrastructure, because of the practical difficulty in making such changes. It is well understood that the construction of the cyberport in Pokfulam will bring environmental chaos to the district. Traffic congestion, deterioration in quality of life and excessive noise levels will be the major environmental problems. So, it can only be viable with the construction of route seven which the Government has proposed to build as a western harbour corridor to Aberdeen. But there seems to be a deafening silence from the Government on this subject. Officials should give the public a progress report. Without route seven, it is a clear example that the administration intends to contravene the present development restrictions at the expense of quality of life for thousands of people. On May 14, district board members from the Central and Western District Board unanimously rejected the Government's proposals to lift development restrictions in Pokfulam, basically because the traffic situation in the district is already at serious levels and the future of route seven needs to be clarified. At least it represents the public's views and does not want to see Pokfulam turned into one large building site and traffic jam. However, I understand that as far as the cyberport is concerned, the Government does not expect these restrictions to affect its plans. With no route seven, it will construct access roads from Victoria Road and Sha Wan Drive to the cyberport site, which of course is guaranteed to create further traffic congestion around the Pokfulam Road network. Is there one rule for the cyberport and one rule for the rest of Pokfulam? Surely there is a legal obligation for the Government to act 'within its powers' in this issue. Moreover, construction work has already started on the cyberport boundary which seems to encroach upon the historic waterfall site. The first landings in Hong Kong from the West were at this location. Lord Amhurst, going to Peking to open diplomatic relations with China in 1816, discovered fresh water was available in Hong Kong, at this location. Clipper ships anchored here and China traders met to collect fresh water and exchange information. The settlement of Hong Kong 25 years later by Westerners originated from these early contacts. This area would be an ideal landmark for the new Commissioner for Tourism to develop as a tourist attraction. The Antiquities and Monuments Board, Asiatic Society and environmentalists should take a closer look before another historical part of Hong Kong is destroyed. NAME AND ADDRESS SUPPLIED
