Hong Kong needs a long-term vision for responsible water use
Su Liu says Hong Kong could learn from Singapore how to manage and develop its water resources for responsible, sustainable use
When compared with Singapore, what's missing in Hong Kong's water policy is not water resources, but a long-term vision and determination to become a more responsible and self-reliant city. Why?
In the early years, as population growth increased demand for water, both cities responded by expanding their water catchment capacities.
In the 1950s, Hong Kong also developed a highly innovative seawater flushing system that would make it the only place in the world that uses a dual-water supply system extensively. In the 1960s, severe droughts forced both cities into bouts of extreme water rationing, and both needed long-term solutions to their water problems.
The year 1965 was a watershed for both cities.
For Hong Kong, it marked the start of an arrangement that has fostered water dependency ever since. The Guangdong-Hong Kong water supply agreement of 1960 secured the delivery of water from Shenzhen reservoir to ease the drought, and the opening of supplies from the Dongjiang in 1965.
For the pragmatic colonial government, this arrangement was a simple commercial transaction. For mainland policymakers, solving Hong Kong's long-term water supply problem helped to safeguard the Chinese Communist Party's need for stability. So when supply through to 2030 was virtually guaranteed, incentives to innovate no longer existed and both sides fully embraced water dependency.
Since the handover, the cross-border water relationship has continued in the same vein.
In contrast, Singapore's political independence in 1965 moved the city-state away from water dependency. Fresh water was cheap, plentiful and constitutionally guaranteed under a pre-independence agreement for as long as 100 years from Malaysia's Johor State.
Post 1965, water has become no mere commodity but a national security issue. This was reinforced over the years by Malaysian politicians' veiled threats to cut off the water supply during times of bilateral disputes. It has made Singapore more determined to achieve total water independence.
While Hong Kong wound down its self-sufficiency projects in the late 1980s, Singapore continued its forward march towards an integrated, holistic system of reduced vulnerability. Innovations that Hong Kong overlooked or rejected, such as water reclamation and desalination, have blossomed to become pillar industries of Singapore's water economy.
Singapore also has one government agency, the PUB, charting its water master plan and investing for the city's sustainable development. By contrast, different departments are responsible for different aspects of Hong Kong's water affairs, overseen by the financial secretary. This fragmentation works against the development of cohesive, holistic plans.
Hong Kong is an administrative region while Singapore is an independent city-state, but being part of China does not mean that Hong Kong should totally embrace dependency. One way or another, Hong Kong will eventually be forced to become more self-reliant, if only in order to take more responsibility as a regional partner and be an even stronger contributor to China's development.
