Reclamation is a public matter. Through the Protection of the Harbour Ordinance, the harbour belongs to the people of Hong Kong. The Court of Final Appeal judgment requires an 'over-riding public need' test to justify reclamation. Simply paying lip service to it is not enough. The need must be demonstrated by 'cogent and convincing material' so that the public will be convinced. People must be given the chance to say whether there is such a need that is more important than the harbour itself.
The Society for Protection of the Harbour, through its recently announced appeal, is trying to enforce the spirit of the judgment - that is, that the Central reclamation project should be reviewed by the Town Planning Board, just as the courts have ordered the Wan Chai project to be reviewed. They are, after all, two phases of the same scheme.
We feel committed to test the legality of the unilateral decision by the Chief Executive-in-Council of the Executive Council to proceed with the Central reclamation without referring it to the board for review. Such an approach defeats the purpose and effect of the Court of Final Appeal judgment because, once the Central scheme is implemented, there can be no genuine and meaningful review of the Wan Chai project. It also means that Exco may refuse to refer to the board the Southeast Kowloon reclamation scheme, which involves 138 hectares.
Exco is the proposer of reclamation work and has an interest in the sale of the reclaimed land. It is the head of the government, and its decision-making is secretive and does not involve the public.
The board, on the other hand, is empowered and charged by law to promote the 'health, safety, convenience and general welfare of the community'. It has a legal duty to consult the public, consider objections, hold hearings and make public all relevant papers. Therefore, it is fundamentally wrong not to give the public the opportunity to be consulted, to review relevant reports and documents, to raise objections and generally participate in the decision-making process. After all, the decision will damage part of the people's natural heritage, which according to the Court of Final Appeal judgment, should be passed from generation to generation. The High Court judgment did say that: 'It may well have been preferable for the Chief Executive-in-Council to remit the [Central reclamation] plan [to the board], at least regarding the extent of reclamation.'
It is unfortunate that the government prematurely signed a deal with the contractor, on February 10 last year, despite being fully aware of the pending judicial review.
As early as November 29, 2002, we revealed our intentions at a Town Planning Board hearing, attended by six senior government officials. Such knowledge seemed to galvanise the government into urgent action to forestall our efforts. Eleven days later, Exco approved the Draft Central Reclamation Outline Zoning Plan and the approved plan was gazetted on December 27.