Over recent months, the government has sought to justify Phase III of the Central reclamation plan by embarking on a publicity campaign seldom seen in Hong Kong. It has spent $780,000 of public funds and distributed 300,000 colour pamphlets to convince the public that it is acting in accordance with the spirit of the rule of law and in the public interest.
It is therefore necessary to bring the following hard truths to the public's attention. These statements of fact are beyond dispute, no matter what arguments the government may put forward. The public should examine them objectively and judge for themselves whether the government is conducting itself properly, reasonably, honourably and in the public interest. Our Society for Protection of the Harbour has certainly tried our best to do so.
Fact one. The Central reclamation plan was based on the wrong interpretation of the Protection of the Harbour Ordinance. The government misinformed the public on the correct meaning of the Ordinance and, thereby, misled the whole community into accepting the plan.
Fact two. The Court of Final Appeal ruled that its judgment applied to all reclamation plans and referred the Wan Chai scheme to the Town Planning Board for review with public participation, but the government has refused to refer the Central reclamation scheme to the board for review. The result is that neither the board, the Legislative Council nor the public has ever been given the opportunity to review the Central plan based on the correct legal interpretation and a proper understanding of the law.
Fact three. The government seeks to justify the Central reclamation for building the Central-Wan Chai bypass to relieve traffic congestion, yet it is attracting more traffic into Central by proposing to sell 5.1 hectares of land for millions of square feet of commercial development.
Fact four. The plan, even on the face of it, does not satisfy the 'overriding public need' test ordered by the Court of Final Appeal. One million square feet of reclamation is not needed for the bypass, and does not satisfy the court judgment that reclamation must be kept to a minimum.
Fact five. The recent High Court judgment did not decide that the plan complied with the Court of Final Appeal test. The judgment simply ruled that, although 'it may well have been preferable for the Chief Executive-in-Council to remit the plan [to the Board], at least regarding the extent of reclamation', the court did not have the power to order the Executive Council to do so.