With reference to “ Why reclaim land for Hong Kong when we can just move to Greater Bay Area? ” (November 28), your correspondent’s argument does not take into account the stark contrasts in the comparison between Hong Kong and Greater Bay Area cities. The promise of decent housing on reclaimed land provided an incentive for colonial-era Hongkongers caught in a dilemma over the city’s future to stay behind, along with recognition of the many quality values planted here, such as our judicial system, our top-class medical and educational services, and open and free banking system. These sophisticated pillars of society and the economy have been providing stability and sustaining Hong Kong’s viability. I would not say every Hongkonger has a golden parachute, but everyone here knows how to make a turn to escape a cul de sac. Despite the rapid progress in cities like Shenzhen, there are many drawbacks to life in the Greater Bay Area, with its many restrictions and deficiencies, such as currency and information restrictions, and an education system not on a par with Hong Kong’s. This reduces the viability for Hongkongers to move there. Also, those expecting to engage in property speculation like in Hong Kong should be aware of any laws and policies that tilt towards locals. Hongkongers may have to pay the same levies and taxes but be less free to buy and sell. Obviously, our government knows how Hongkongers think, and that the majority would definitely not move to the Greater Bay Area easily. Thus, reclaiming land is not a contingency plan but a priority project to improve the lot of those forced to live in deplorable conditions in Hong Kong’s subdivided flats. Edmond Pang, Fanling
