bodyType

customContents

entityId

entityUuid

articlePageQuery

filter

article

articleBaseAdvertisingInfoArticle

articleListArticle

articleSeoArticle

helpersCheckIsPostiesArticle

hooksArticleAcknowledgementGateOverlayArticle

hooksTrackPageViewArticle

hooksContentInterestArticle

articleLinkingDataContent

hooksAmpRedirectArticle

articleSchemaContent

liveArticle

advertZone

sentiment

contentLock

topics

types

sections

moreOnThisArticles

urlAlias

commentCount

authorLocations

authors

paywallTypes

corrections

sponsorType

displaySlideShow

multimediaEmbed

printHeadline

seriesContainer

socialHeadline

headline

flag

firstTopic

glossary

flattenTypeIds

publishedDate

additionalInfoBoxes

images

image

relatedLinks

relatedNewsletters

__typename

createdDate

sponsor

pdfFiles

seriesReverseOrder

series

disableOffPlatformContent

published

updatedDate

summary

subHeadline

body

keywords

readingTime

customTimezone

liveContents

Jake Van Der Kamp

'Hong Kong and Shenzhen information technology professionals have proposed that the Lok Ma Chau Loop - a former security zone coveted for development - become a Silicon Valley-style special permit zone.'

SCMP, October 17

'Further assessment of the feasibility of the LMC Loop also needs to address the decontamination cost which should be included as part of the development cost. Decontamination of the site is expected to be grossly expensive and may render development of the site financially not viable.'

Working paper No32, Strategy 2030 study

INFORMATION TECHNOLOGY professionals, my a***. The undeclared owners of the Lok Ma Chau Loop keep trying a different line to cash in on it, technology this time, a 'trade expo' last time, but they always ignore that it is utterly unsuitable for development. The loop is a 96-hectare wasteland site that was created by a straightening of the Shenzhen River. It was previously part of Shenzhen but was transferred to Hong Kong jurisdiction after the straightening.

The Shenzhen municipal government reportedly assigned it to a company called Shum Yip Holdings in 1997.

But when last asked about  the site in the Legislative Council in 1998, a government official could only say: 'We are seeking clarification with the Central People's Government over matters relating to any title to this land.' I have heard no further word about this clarification and my suspicion is that the owners are Shenzhen municipal officials acting in their private capacities.

I think they expected a windfall from transferring the land to Hong Kong and then developing it after we in Hong Kong had coughed up massive amounts of money for the infrastructure to serve it.

Does anyone wish to refute this? I am all ears.

The problems start with the fact that the loop was used as a dumping ground for contaminated mud from the river. Before it can be used for anything, a total of 4.5 million cubic metres of mud must be removed and major engineering work conducted to strengthen the banks of the river and the site foundation.

But there is no place to move the mud. The Environmental Protection Department has said that it cannot be dumped in either a landfill or a marine disposal ground.

Disposal by landfill is not an option because of the quantity of mud involved while marine disposal would contravene the London Convention, a 1972 international treaty that  limits the disposal at sea of wastes generated on land.

There is more. Aside from the fact that only one single-lane carriageway serves the loop, it has no water connections and the existing water supply systems in that part of the New Territories cannot cope with major development of the site. Upgrading would be vastly expensive.

There are also no sewage connections and this is particularly relevant because the loop lies only three kilometres upriver from the Mai Po Nature Reserve. No sewage infrastructure is planned for the area and, without it, water quality could seriously deteriorate at Mai Po and in Deep Bay.

But while development of the loop is obviously a non-starter, our government has nonetheless proved pliable to the undeclared interests who own it and who insist on development.

A public consultation meeting on developing it was held in January 2004 and subsequent government reports said 'non-development ... was the mainstream of views expressed at the meeting' and 'public views are diverse on the use of the river-loop area'.

Mainstream only? Diverse views? This is nonsense.

A friend of mine attended that meeting. There was unanimous agreement among all the members of the public who participated that any development should be prohibited.

If our government wants to substitute public consultations for the ballot box then it should at least be honest about the views it gets at these consultations. Watering them down with words like 'mainstream' and 'diverse' makes a mockery of the whole process.

But the hidden clique behind development of the loop is obviously not giving up yet and the suggestion of using the site for a new Silicon Valley is clearly a pitch aimed at our Executive Council's soft spot for high-technology dreams.

The clique doesn't really care what it will be. It just wants buildings on the site so that it can cash in and it is just probing for the weak spot. We have had two costly hi-tech flops already in Cyberport and Science Park. Get set for the next one.



Hidden clique bent on making toxic border tract our next hi-tech flop