When the dream becomes a nightmare
The making of Hong Kong Disneyland is a classic tale of bad governance, a tragic case of environmental trade-offs and a lamentable case of cultural dilution. A lack of transparency during the negotiation stage, lack of accountability and monitoring during construction and, above all, the failure to uphold environmental laws, principles and corporate responsibility have left a legacy of environmental degradation and bureaucratic incompetence.
Fast-tracking a four-month Environmental Impact Assessment to get approval for site selection set a bad precedent. Reclamation and dredging destroyed coastlines, coral, sea walls and fish spawning grounds - not to mention the Tang dynasty antiques found on the seabed of Penny's Bay, which was reclaimed for the park.
A failure to detect 30,000 cubic metres of dioxin in the soil of the disused shipyard used to build Disney's man-made lake landed taxpayers with a $450 million clean-up bill. The shipyard owner, meanwhile, pocketed $1.5 billion for selling off the land, with no liability demanded.
The illegal removal of rocks from the Tung Chung River damaged the natural habitat. The rock remover was penalised, but not the project developer and procurer - namely the contractors, the government and Disney. The refusal to use low-smoke, low-pollution technology for fireworks, to ease air pollution concerns, showed disrespect for public opinion and ignored corporate social responsibility. The government provided concessions for land, investment, low-interest loans, management fees and the souvenir franchise to the Walt Disney Company, making a mockery of its own non-intervention policy - designed to maintain a level playing field for business and investments.
The government, as regulator and an investor, has a clear conflict of interest on the board of the Hong Kong International Theme Park joint venture company.
Should officials alone be appointed to the board? Why have independent monitors, such as legislators, not been appointed? As $2.24 billion of public money was invested in the park, why were board meeting minutes not released? Where was the transparency?
Chief Executive Donald Tsang Yam-kuen owes the public an answer. As financial secretary, he was responsible for the negotiations and planning of the park from 1999. During his election campaign for chief executive, he pledged to enhance governance and transparency. It is time to deliver. Disneyland's opening will hasten local cultural dilution because there is now no money to sustain local historical, cultural and ecological conservation.
It is tragic to witness the disappearance and neglect of ancestral halls, historical buildings, fishing villages, rural communities, wetlands and marine habitats. It is striking that the government is willing to pledge a meagre $5 million for nature conservation projects.
It is lamentable that policymakers, legislators and the media have failed to recognise the real hidden costs of the project.
And it is worrying to witness the trend of replacing historical heritage and cultural legacy with artificial replicas and fantasies. The West Kowloon cultural development is another classic example of this practice.
It is time for our policymakers to get over their obsession with Mickey & Co. Diversity means stability and sustainability. Cultural tourism, eco-tourism and sports tourism offer diversity and global appeal. When will Hong Kong have a sustainable tourism strategy?
Mei Ng Fong Siu-mei is director of Friends of the Earth (HK)
