Letters | Hong Kong’s waste-charging scheme should not be politicised

Readers discuss attempts to get the government to scrap its scheme for waste reduction, and plans for the Hong Kong Sevens to move to a new stadium

Hong Kong environmental issues

Letters

Published: 11:30am, 17 Apr 2024

Why you can trust SCMP

Feel strongly about these letters, or any other aspects of the news? Share your views by emailing us your Letter to the Editor at [email protected] or filling in this Google form. Submissions should not exceed 400 words, and must include your full name and address, plus a phone number for verification

Amid heated debate over the challenges of implementing the waste-charging scheme, there have been attempts to sideline it as a policy that could be seized on to deepen social division. But a careful examination of the historical context of the scheme and its objectives will reveal the hollowness of these criticisms.

The scheme for charging Hongkongers for waste disposal has been in the making for more than two decades. It is neither a whimsical policy nor one concocted by the radical opposition camp as a political heavyweight suggested. The “polluter pays” idea for waste disposal goes as far back as 1998, when Hong Kong released its Waste Reduction Framework Plan. A scheme was then proposed in a 2005 policy framework for the management of municipal solid waste.

That it took this long to come to fruition shows the government’s determination to overcome the challenges involved.

Some argue that the scheme will burden residents and businesses. While it’s true there will be costs associated with waste disposal, the extent of the effect on people’s livelihoods is debatable. There is room for improvement in the scheme’s details, but the government’s good intentions should be appreciated.

It is also worth noting that the waste-charging scheme aligns with the central government’s green vision, as evidenced by the endorsement of similar policies on the mainland. It is ironic that some pro-establishment figures are trying to undermine the long-term policy objective of a government that seeks to achieve environmental sustainability and contribute towards the nation’s overall goals.

Those who carelessly criticise the waste-charging scheme, as well as the Fanling golf course development plan, instead of engaging in meaningful dialogue only hinder progress. The worry is that such baseless criticisms are sowing the seeds of social unrest.

Stanley Ip, Sai Wan Ho

Newer stadium doesn’t mean a better Sevens

In the wake of the successful rugby Sevens held here in Hong Kong earlier this month, we should reconsider moving the event next year to the new venue in Kai Tak. Fresh and custom-built that venue might well be, but Hong Kong Stadium, known for decades as Government Stadium, where the Sevens tournament has been held for years, is regarded by many as an institution, a monument to and of the event.

The renowned South Stand which has played host to so many flamboyant and outrageously dressed fans will be difficult to recreate at the new venue.

Consideration should be given to the question of continuing to stage the Sevens at Hong Kong Stadium so it remains a location where nostalgia can be enjoyed and the old days remembered and relived. Newer does not necessarily equal better.

James A. Elms, Wan Chai