bodyType

customContents

entityId

entityUuid

articlePageQuery

filter

article

articleBaseAdvertisingInfoArticle

articleListArticle

articleSeoArticle

hooksArticleAcknowledgementGateOverlayArticle

hooksTrackPageViewArticle

hooksContentInterestArticle

articleLinkingDataContent

hooksAmpRedirectArticle

articleSchemaContent

liveArticle

advertZone

sentiment

contentLock

topics

types

sections

paywallTypes

createdDate

publishedDate

sponsorType

urlAlias

moreOnThisArticles

commentCount

authorLocations

authors

corrections

displaySlideShow

multimediaEmbed

printHeadline

seriesContainer

articleSpeeches

socialHeadline

headline

images

flag

firstTopic

glossary

flattenTypeIds

image

relatedLinks

relatedNewsletters

__typename

sponsor

pdfFiles

seriesReverseOrder

series

disableOffPlatformContent

published

updatedDate

summary

subHeadline

body

keywords

readingTime

customTimezone

liveContents

Frank Ching

While Chief Executive Donald Tsang Yam-kuen ostensibly set out to discuss measures to improve Hong Kong's air quality on Monday,  he ended up defending the quality of our air.

Instead of helping to provide a solution, Mr Tsang ended up making himself very much part of the problem in his speech at the Business for Clean Air conference.

True, he did say that 'our air quality is not acceptable'. But considering what else he said, the conclusion is inescapable that Mr Tsang considers our air quality to be extremely good indeed.

He went out of his way to ridicule the idea that our air quality is poor, saying it 'is not as pristine pure' as it is at the  north and south poles.  But, he concluded: 'We have the most environmentally friendly place for people, for executives, for Hong Kong people, to live.'

Is this a plea for action or inaction? If Mr Tsang really wanted the business community to cut pollution, he was totally unconvincing. His was an argument for complacency, not change. His was a call for business as usual.

He pooh-poohed 'dramatic media reports' about people at big companies 'fleeing Hong Kong's nasty air for cleaner cities', and displayed no sense of urgency about the need to take action.

When the government has that attitude, is it any wonder that only 500 of more than 300,000 enterprises have signed the Hong Kong General Chamber of Commerce's Clean Air Charter? If the government does not think there is a serious problem, why should the private sector do anything?

Mr Tsang should stop thinking and sounding like a Hong Kong salesman.  His  job is to look after the welfare of the 7 million people who call Hong Kong home, and whose health is in jeopardy because of the worsening air pollution.

It is strange that, in a talk to businesspeople, Mr Tsang did not mention the economic costs of pollution to business - such as the conclusion reached by three local universities that the health costs incurred by air pollution amounted to HK$2 billion a year.

Instead of saying that poor air quality resulted in 1,600 premature deaths a year, he declared that men in Hong Kong lived to 78.8 years - the longest in the world - while women lived for 84.4 years, second in the world after Japan.

Mr Tsang also criticised those who are calling for the adoption of the latest World Health Organisation guidelines on air quality, which are far tougher than those followed by Hong Kong today. Those guidelines reflect the latest scientific knowledge.  There appears little need for Hong Kong to spend 18 months studying them, beginning next year, before replacing grossly outdated, 20-year-old air-quality objectives.

Perhaps Mr Tsang's complacency reflects a lack of knowledge. If so, he should really study the latest WHO position. Last month, he rather foolishly said that small particulates in the air affect visibility but do not affect our health.

Well, the WHO tells us that 'particulate matter is considered to be the main air-pollution risk factor for human health'.  In the European Union, it says, 'the smallest particulate matter alone  causes an estimated loss of statistical life expectancy of 8.6 months'.

By coincidence, the day before Mr Tsang's speech, Alan Leong Kah-kit,  an aspiring  candidate for chief executive, unveiled a multi-year plan to clean the air. He called  pollution an  urgent issue that  poses a health crisis for Hong Kong.

As the challenger,  Mr Leong must carve out a position that is different from  the incumbent's. But if Mr Tsang is interested in serving a second term, he must show that he is attuned to the feelings of the people and show care for their welfare. Taking the attitude that all is well is not the way to win votes.

In due course, Mr Leong will announce other aspects of his election platform. This will put pressure on Mr Tsang to do the same, and allow the public to decide who will work harder for their welfare.

The debate on how best to clean the air has been launched. Other debates will follow. In this lies the value of a contested election.

Frank Ching is a Hong Kong-based writer and commentator.



Pollution? What pollution?