A few questions for Donald (Tsang)
With the opening of Disneyland in early September, there will be much hype about the 'magic' it will bring Hong Kong in terms of economic and tourism growth. But there is also unfinished business at the theme park.
Cheoy Lee Shipyard's liability - if any - for dioxin contamination at the site has yet to be ascertained. The operator pocketed $1.5 billion for the land and was not asked to clean up the 30,000 cubic metres of dioxin discovered on site, making a mockery of the 'polluter-pays' principle. It was also a slap in the face of good governance when officials who failed to carry out a full risk assessment were not held accountable. Five years after the scandal was exposed, the government is still seeking legal advice and Cheoy Lee is still operating.
Disneyland is a joint venture between the government and a corporation. As such, the administration is an investor and a regulator, which creates an obvious conflict of interest. Officials were appointed to the Disney board to oversee the theme park's construction. Should this arrangement be reviewed and enhanced after it opens? Who should be appointed to the board besides officials? How transparent should this be? Disneyland is more than a tourism money-spinner; it will have a significant impact on local culture, education, consumption and core values. Why has Disney been given a free hand to devise whatever programmes and entertainment it wants? Why was there no consultation with educators and cultural opinion leaders?
Promotion and marketing have gone into overdrive. Hong Kong officials have been drafted in as 'Mickey salesmen'. The government's publicity machinery is in top gear. Is there a conflict of interest here? It seems to contradict the laissez-faire principle that the government embraces, which stipulates that it should not bestow favours on a specific business operator or industry sector. (The administration has refused, for instance, to lend its wholehearted support to the recycling industry). In a recent promotion to Beijing and Guangzhou, there was mention of future expansion, although there were no details of plans or any justification. Will the public be consulted? What is the criteria to justify expansion? We need a full cost-benefit analysis of the ecological, environmental, cultural and traffic impact.
The park was built on Lantau, which has great ecological significance for Hong Kong. Due to the reclamation and construction, road building, rail connection, and the sewage- and waste-disposal infrastructure, there has been a significant environmental impact. Yet, there was no compensation for this loss of the public's right to free enjoyment of the countryside. Now, people must pay to enter the park.
An ecological and heritage compensation scheme should be set up, with a percentage of the revenue from Disneyland going towards nature and heritage conservation. More urgent consideration should be given to the enhancement and management of Hong Kong's countryside, the extension of the North Lantau Country Park and the preservation of antiquities, indigenous habitats and culture.
Donald Tsang Yam-kuen was financial secretary during the planning and negotiation stages of the theme park. He owes Hong Kong people a clear explanation about this unfinished business. He also needs to make a pledge to sustain our ecology, culture and education.
Is the chief-executive-in-waiting willing to redeem our core values?
Mei Ng Fong Siu-mei is director of Friends of the Earth (HK)
