Hong Kong now has a historic opportunity to create an environmentally friendly harbourfront that will improve the quality of people's life for generations to come. The government has promised that there will be no further reclamation and, therefore, the decisions made now will create the city's harbourfront for the rest of time. The choice should not be based on personal prestige, self-interest or party politics. Instead, the leaders of our community should show wisdom and integrity. They must also consider three fundamental issues. First, who should enjoy this unique and valuable piece of land? Should it be the public? Should property developers, enjoy the benefits of Tamar, as proposed by the government five years ago? Or should it be officials who benefit, as the Tsang administration is now proposing? Tamar is a piece of public land reclaimed from the harbour using public funds. Therefore, logically, it should be enjoyed by the public - unless the administration can show there is a greater need that overrides the public interest. The second issue is: has the government demonstrated that there is an urgent and overwhelming need to build its offices on the Tamar site, and nowhere else? The documents it has produced up to now do not support this. In fact, the administration has failed to answer a few important questions. For example, why are millions of square feet of new offices needed when civil-service numbers have been shrinking since 2001 - from 190,000 to 160,000? And why must the new government offices be located at Tamar, when additional offices could be built anywhere, for example, at the old Kai Tak airport site? Finally, why must more than 3,000 administration staff move at all? Can't the existing government premises - which are relatively new - continue to be used, albeit with some modifications or renovation work? The only argument the government has been able to put forward is that the development will generate employment for 2,500 people. Of course, spending $5 billion of public money could generate a considerable number of jobs. But the same $5 billion could be put to better use, by building 10,000 badly needed public housing units, which would create 10,000 jobs for the construction industry. The third issue to consider is: will the public benefit from or suffer as a result of the proposal? The Tamar project will attract more traffic, thereby aggravating congestion, and air and noise pollution. It will sterilise the harbourfront, and will block harbour and mountain views. As a result, we will lose the chance to gain some badly needed open space in Central - as well as a green harbourfront. As the government has just said it will review the plans for the Central harbourfront, to consider the impact of the proposed developments on the environment, there is no reason why the Tamar project should not be included. After all, we are talking about one harbourfront, and the government should demonstrate some urgency. Before legislators surrender this invaluable public asset and $5 billion in public funds to the government for the sole enjoyment of officials, they must be sure that they are making the right decision, based on their conscience rather than political considerations. They need to put the public's interest above all others. For the first and only time, we have the chance to create a people-friendly and green harbourfront. This opportunity should not be missed. Winston Chu Ka-sun, visiting professor at Bartlett School of Planning of the University College London, is an adviser to the Society for Protection of the Harbour
