bodyType

customContents

entityId

entityUuid

articlePageQuery

filter

article

articleBaseAdvertisingInfoArticle

articleListArticle

articleSeoArticle

helpersCheckIsPostiesArticle

hooksArticleAcknowledgementGateOverlayArticle

hooksTrackPageViewArticle

hooksContentInterestArticle

articleLinkingDataContent

articleSchemaContent

liveArticle

advertZone

sentiment

contentLock

topics

types

sections

moreOnThisArticles

urlAlias

commentCount

sponsorType

authorLocations

authors

paywallTypes

corrections

displaySlideShow

multimediaEmbed

printHeadline

seriesContainer

socialHeadline

headline

flag

firstTopic

glossary

flattenTypeIds

publishedDate

additionalInfoBoxes

images

image

relatedLinks

relatedNewsletters

__typename

createdDate

sponsor

factSheets

series

disableOffPlatformContent

published

updatedDate

summary

subHeadline

body

keywords

copyrighted

customTimezone

liveContents

SCMP Reporter

The E-mail forum

Q What do you think of the decision to allow the Central reclamation to resume?

It seems that most letters to your newspaper concerning the Central and Wan Chai reclamation strongly oppose any further work in Victoria Harbour and condemn even filling another square foot. Here is an alternative viewpoint: a well-designed reclamation can have a positive impact on our harbour.

Anyone who has taken the cross-harbour ferry would have experienced turbulent waters, especially as one gets closer to shore. This is a result of the transformation of the natural shoreline over the years through misguided reclamation and construction.

Through  hydrodynamics studies, the shoreline can be reshaped to control water flow and return the harbour to its calmer days, which would have a positive effect on  marine ecology around the harbour. Furthermore, a carefully sculpted shoreline with proper coastal engineering  may also prevent undesirable buildup of contaminants in our harbour.

However, while parts of past and present reclamation would be taken out as a result of the above studies, certain parts of the harbour would inevitably have to be filled in to smooth out the shoreline.

Coastal engineers and marine scientists can work together with architects, landscape architects and urban designers to generate proposals that not only solve some of the technical problems our harbour is suffering from at present, but also create a pleasant waterfront for the public to enjoy the harbour. Only a multidisciplinary approach can achieve these objectives.

We all agree our harbour is in poor shape. But blindly opposing all further reclamation is like diagnosing a person with a serious illness and not doing anything about it.

Joseph Wong, City University, Kowloon Tong

How ironic and cynical it is that the government plans to make a killing out of the Harbour Fest, while  actively working to destroy the harbour. That the harbour can be exploited is the bottom line, I suppose.

The basic problem is the same as with the Article 23 issue: lack of accountability and legitimacy in Hong Kong's structure of government. People in the city should be just as angry over the reclamation issue as they were with Article 23. Both show that we have no effective say in official decision-making, especially in those decisions which crucially affect us and the physical and political environments we live in.

On the plus side, we do have unofficial ways to influence decision-making - as 500,000 people proved in July.

Pranjal Tiwari, North Point

I think the government's decision to resume the reclamation of the harbour was not a wise one. The harbour is one of Hong Kong's main tourist attractions, and continually removing it bit by bit will only hinder the tourism industry.

Hong Kong is recovering from the economic slump caused by Sars and it is now building up its  economy in which tourism plays a large role. In order to make Hong Kong a better place we cannot take it apart, cement it, and call it a beautiful city; we must work with the beauty that has always been part of Hong Kong.

The damage that the dredging may cause to the harbour cannot be predicted, but the stirring up of toxic chemicals that will take place is not a promising thought. Do we really want to destroy such a beautiful part of Hong Kong? The reclamation needs to stop before we find ourselves with no more  Star Ferry,  and most of all, no harbour.

Karin Mowlem, Repulse Bay

The events around the harbour reclamation issue again bring to light the rather irrational attitude prevailing in today's Hong Kong.

While clearly the harbour needs  protection, not only from reclamation but also continuing pollution, one can only wonder:

Why did the public and the Society for the Protection of the Harbour wait so long to raise their concern, as there was information available and public consultation done before the project started?

Why is there support - or at least no objection - to the Central-Wan Chai bypass itself? No sensible decision-maker would allow a road to be  built along a coastal area in the 21st century, so what is the motivation here - besides gross ignorance and creating additional air pollution?

Why is the government blamed and not the legislators, who approved the massive expenditure without asking a question?

How can one seriously suggest the establishment of another entity like a harbour authority, which would no doubt complicate matters even further?

There can be no proper town planning, if a multitude of organisations can make their own decisions - for instance, the Highways Department building the roads or the railway companies constructing their tracks. There must be a unified organisation responsible for all planning matters, ensuring sustainable and environmentally friendly development.

Name and address supplied

I think the government was wrong to begin work again on the harbour. As the environmentalists have explained, the toxins in the seabed will cause problems to the environment  if they are  stirred up.  Eventually the toxins may even get into our food chain and we will be the ones to suffer in the end. The government should find an alternative answer, so fewer problems will be created.

Patrick Wong, Tsuen Wan

Resuming the reclamation is not a bad thing. After Sars, the economy of Hong Kong went into decline. The government is considering a lot of ideas to improve our standard of living and is making an effort in  difficult times.

Citizens may not have confidence in the government's decision-making and assume the government  is brain-dead.

But reclamation is needed. The government has its reasons to carry out this work.

We must give up something to build our future. Support our government.

Name and address supplied

Winston Chu has a problem. His legal battle has produced a narrower interpretation of the Harbour Protection Ordinance. He also wants to reclaim a hunk of the harbour for a public promenade. The promenade is a fine idea, and should put an end to further reclamation work, but is it legal?

Will it 'fit' the new legal restrictions? Mr Chu may now have to prove that it does. Perhaps Exco will come to the rescue and declare the promenade 'essential', as required under the interpretation. As things now seem to stand, if any part of a government's design falls within the new legal limits, then it is not illegal for them to proceed with that section of the design.

Mr Chu seemed to have acknowledged that the bypass was essential and would fit the interpretation. I see nothing wrong with getting the through traffic to bypass Central. The authorities can then manage the traffic that wants to stop in Central, for example by road pricing.

But it would be the last bite of the cherry. No more major road schemes in Central, unless they fly over the flyovers.

The debate over how much the contractor should be paid in compensation is getting silly. The contract was awarded by competition. The rules are: the lowest conforming price wins. Any suggestion that government should not pay what the contractor can prove it is owed under a binding contract is arrant nonsense, and attacks the very basis of how we operate in Hong Kong.

The government does not know what the contractor's losses will be - the government is trying to manage Legco's expectations. If the contractor's loss turns out to be under $1 million per day, they hope to have looked like good negotiators.

However, I am sure the contractor is pleased to know that government has accepted that it should be paid on the basis of work omitted from the contract because it is now illegal.

Very nice of them. I just hope that we are not losing sight of the fact that whatever happens, it is the taxpayers  who will pay for it. I would really like to know who in the government pushed for the contracts to be awarded in such haste.

Name and address supplied



talkback