IT was with some surprise that we read the letter from Ms Stephanie Borland (South China Morning Post, August 19), concerning Stanley Market.
As we agree completely with her sentiments in urging that the utmost possible be done to preserve the character of Stanley Market, we are puzzled by her statement, ''As the Hong Kong Tourist Association - whose stance on this issue is frankly inexplicable - ought to know, tourism is Hong Kong's second-largest earner of foreign exchange.'' First, we at the Hong Kong Tourist Association (HKTA), of course know how much the tourism industry contributes to the socio-economic well-being of Hong Kong, and take every opportunity to point this out.
We also know how popular Stanley is with our visitors.
Our annual visitor survey showed that 14 per cent of the 8.9 million visitors we welcomed in Hong Kong last year visited Stanley.
One of the roles of the HKTA is to ensure that as much of our tourism product - of which Stanley is an important part - is as attractive to visitors as possible.
In fact, the Association of Retail and Tourism Services (ARTS), a body originally set up by the HKTA, wrote to the Planning Department last month, to voice support for most of the re-zoning and other parts of the plan, but also to express concern about the nature of the new Urban Council development which, ARTS feels, should be of a more rural character.
The fact that some of the areas have been re-zoned does not necessarily equate with rampant re-development.