Chief Executive Donald Tsang Yam-kuen's determination to go ahead with the central government offices and Legislative Council building on the Tamar site puts paid to any thought that he means what he says about 'listening to the people'.
In recent months, the people, including Legco members, have said loudly and clearly 'no'. Yet Mr Tsang has brushed aside all these views in pressing ahead with his dreadful conceit. Aside from his failure to take any account of public concern, there are other ways that his proposal conflicts with government promises and his own policy address:
His predecessor vowed in 2000 to 'give the harbour back to the people' and to make it a vibrant, beautiful foreshore accessible to all. Clearly this concept has gone out of the window, with a high-rise government shrine on this key site - no doubt with all the security aspects of today's 'war on terror' in place, so that the public will have no easy access.
Mr Tsang said that 'Hong Kong has undergone significant changes' since the last policy address. Indeed it has, including on the issue of the government headquarters - with changes of view at Legco, harbour protection bodies, town planning organisations, environmental groups and within the public. Why does he not acknowledge these and demand a new look at the project?
On the environment and health, Mr Tsang says that 'we will step up efforts to ... make Hong Kong a green city', and then proceeds to drown the green with concrete at Tamar. He says the fundamental principle is 'polluter pays' - in which case the government should pay for pollution that will stem from its Tamar complex.
Regarding transparency, he says that 'a strong government does not work behind closed doors. Rather it heeds public opinion'. Yet on the Tamar proposal, he and officials have refused to provide the feasibility studies relating to selection of the site, and the consideration of other possibilities.
The government has a philosophy of 'big market, small government', says Mr Tsang. In that case, why engage in blatant employment-creating projects such as Tamar, even if for 'thousands of badly needed jobs in the construction industry'. Employment in construction has indeed dropped, by 2.5 per cent last year. But then so have jobs in manufacturing (by 3.7 per cent). Why not, on his logic, set up manufacturing facilities and make large government orders for textiles or electronic goods? The economy has done fine by itself in determining where jobs should be: the 200,000 created in service and higher value-added areas in the last two years.
