A Hong Kong-based consulting engineer, I agree with Richard Ko of the Association of Hong Kong Consulting Engineers that attention 'should be directed to the government's short-sighted measures to stem the budget deficit' rather than our profession ('Hong Kong needs infrastructure to stay world class', August 6.)
But Mr Ko gave no details of his insight. It concerns me that the profession, and its representatives, do not post strong views against questionable infrastructure planning targeted by the public and media. I am sure our engineering colleagues in government would also like to participate in what could be 'world class' planning, and the profession should voice its opinion on the alternatives to what we see before us. We must be concerned about the current public debate.
The profession should speak out on the quality of the annual expenditure of $29 billion on Hong Kong's infrastructure. For example, is it short-sighted that reclamation at the central harbourfront will be used to create saleable land when we are told that it is needed for transport infrastructure? Are there not minimum reclamation alternatives which would be in accordance with the harbour preservation ordinance? What of the super-prison proposed for pristine Hei Ling Chau - to free up other urban prison sites for redevelopment when separate government-sponsored studies promote island-based recreation, leisure and tourism uses? Or Sir Norman Foster's excessive glass shroud-atrium planned for West Kowloon, which may not represent the cultural, waterfront and land use aspirations of Hong Kong's people?
Let the profession be recognised as one which is boldly supportive of the community's aspirations.
N. J. EASTERBROOK, Lantau
Hong Kong's choice