Public reaction was mixed and the message confused when the Secretary for Commerce and Economic Development announced last week that Ocean Park would be transformed into a park and leisure resort for the Hong Kong people. There will be retail and entertainment facilities, restaurants and food courts at the waterfront section where admission will be free. Visitors will need to pay when they visit an exhibition or take a ride to the park’s summit. Yet he said the park’s prime mission was still education and conservation. The model proposed is typical of using commercial revenues to subsidise loss-making core activities, but for Ocean Park, it is a lost cause. Turning part of the park into an open-air shopping centre will not help its branding. Why would businesses want to be there in the first place? What kind of consumption experience does it want to promote? Even if the commercial facilities were properly managed, at best, the park would resemble a shopping centre in any of the city’s middle-class housing estates. At the summit, facilities are dilapidated. Many of those rides will be obsolete by the time the transformation is completed and should be taken down. I doubt anyone will be keen to operate those rides with a view to making a profit. If the government is serious about education and conservation, and making the park a popular attraction, the rides must give way to new exhibition halls, aquariums and research facilities. The Grand Aquarium is far too crowded and will need a facelift, and the park would benefit from a new and more attractive shark aquarium. Newly constructed exhibition facilities will host permanent exhibitions using state-of-the-art virtual reality and covering diverse themes: from controlling ocean pollution to mysterious sea monsters, and great sea voyages to the mysteries of the Bermuda Triangle, catering to both serious intellectuals and the general public. The park can host international conferences on conservation and the ocean with an aim to becoming a top conservation centre. The reality is that it will be difficult to convince the public and the Legislative Council to continue another round of funding which could cost HK$2 billion each year, based on a lacklustre proposal. The park will need to come up with a visionary and innovative proposal to protect its brand and, more importantly, to survive . Kenneth Leung, chartered tax adviser; former member, Legislative Council