There is the question of whether any new overall plan for the 40-hectare site will be drawn up, as suggested by the Legco subcommittee.

Such a plan would enable the different components to be built or developed according to a carefully considered schedule. This would permit greater flexibility, and different options could be considered. For example, some of the land for private development could be sold by auction first, and the proceeds used to establish a fund for the construction and maintenance of the cultural facilities. Alternatively, some or all of the facilities could be built first, to set the character of the entire project.

Then, one should make sure that the consultative bodies Mr Hui said he would set up will meet the public's expectations. Arts and culture groups complained that the government had made up its mind about the buildings to be erected without consulting the cultural community: it had, in short, not ensured that the facilities would meet the needs of that community, or support a vision of future development in accord with an overall cultural policy.

Further, the building and planning professions were concerned that the government had paid little regard to fundamental design and financing principles, ignoring the professions' warning and advice.

The Legco subcommittee has thus recommended that a statutory authority be established as soon as possible to supervise and take overall control of the project. In the meantime, it said, at least two consultative panels should be set up: one on the cultural development aspect, and the other on the design, building and finance.

The three committees proposed by Mr Hui appear similar to the subcommittee's recommendations. It is crucial that these panels or committees be broadly based, inclusive and organised systematically - to ensure that they are consulted on all issues in a timely fashion, and that their views are seriously considered.

These committees should not be one-off devices. After completing their initial report in September, they should be retained as standing committees. They should be able to meet and hold discussions, and offer views to the government, on any issues they perceive to be important.

It should be clearly stated in their terms of reference - and later also in the legislation establishing the statutory authority - that where their views are rejected, reasons must be given by the authority concerned. Perhaps most important of all is the government's pet idea of developing the project by public-private partnership. Mr Hui did not elaborate on what he has in mind.

The subcommittee favours a kind of autonomous funding and management, exemplified by the Hong Kong Arts Centre - where Mr Hui has experience as an active participant.

Instead of treating all cultural facilities as one collective pool to be centrally managed by the government, each facility or cluster of facilities should be responsible for its own operation. This idea is a form of public-private partnership that is already commonplace elsewhere, but still relatively new to Hong Kong.

The Hong Kong government is not short of cash. It does not need to give away land in order to attract developers to finance the building and operating of cultural facilities. Mr Hui should make it clear this is not the kind of public-private partnership he has in mind.

Margaret Ng Ngoi-yee is a legislator representing the legal profession