The Development Bureau yesterday jointly held the Land Supply Forum with five professional institutes, namely the Hong Kong Institute of Architects, the Hong Kong Institution of Engineers, the Hong Kong Institute of Landscape Architects, the Hong Kong Institute of Planners and the Hong Kong Institute of Surveyors, at Central Government Offices. More than 200 professionals and students closely related to the field of land use planning and development attended the forum. I exchanged views with the participants including the younger generation on land supply and demand, and together we deliberated on the direction of Hong Kong’s future development.

Regarding land demand, currently various indicators, such as the rental index, the price index and the vacancy rates of residential units, offices and commercial shops, all reveal the serious imbalance between supply and demand of floor space in Hong Kong. I have said many times on several occasions that Hong Kong’s land development had been slowing down and lagging behind in the past 10 years or so. According to the latest population projection by the Census and Statistics Department (C&SD), Hong Kong’s population and household number will still increase by about 1 million and 500 000 (equivalent to three and a half times the total number of households in Sha Tin New Town (excluding Ma On Shan)) respectively in the next two to three decades even if the population growth slows down. Often it is argued that there are thousands of hectares of “idle land” in the urban areas and therefore there is no need to create new land if all of the sites are developed. Our colleagues are working hard on land use reviews in order to increase the land supply by rezoning in the short and medium term. However, to think twice and ponder objectively, do we actually have such so-called “idle land” in the urban areas which can accommodate three and a half Sha Tin New Towns? Does this alternative theory really have solid grounding?

Separately, there are discussions that land in Hong Kong cannot be endlessly developed, while the population should be capped. As pointed out by experts at the forum yesterday, however, Hong Kong has an ageing population. According to the C&SD’s latest projection, the situation is worse than expected. The ageing population greatly affects economic vibrancy in society, government revenue and expenditures, and the dependency ratio of citizens. Mature economies such as Singapore and Germany are striving to increase their population in order to cope with problems of the ageing trend. If we imprudently decide to cap our population due to the current land development debates, will we run the risk of having a more severe ageing population? Will that incur even higher costs for our next generation in taking care of their families? We should not avoid the problem.

There was little debate over the challenges in land demand and the ageing population in Hong Kong among representatives from professional bodies and other participants. Yet, various arguments and suggestions on how we can tackle and prioritise land supply initiatives were put forward at yesterday’s forum. While the participants had different concerns based on their respective areas of interest, I believe they do share a common goal of bettering people’s lives. I was particularly struck by the following discussion at the forum: Some considered that we should conserve as much rural land and natural environment as possible for our next generation, while some on the other hand believed that the Government should continue with land development, taking into account the situation of people living in sub-divided units with dilapidated conditions. We can see that the participants were all people-oriented, but they adopted different stances due to varied focuses.

Hence, we have to approach the land development effort more rationally and objectively, with an aim to strike a balance between the needs of development and environmental conservation and to formulate a comprehensive and reasonable land use planning strategy for the long-term development of Hong Kong. Some of the participants offered insights into different methods to increase land supply, for example, developing the rural areas of the New Territories where brownfield sites and squatters are scattered, and exploring new reclamation techniques. My colleagues and I have been listening carefully to their views, and, indeed, we are actually working toward these directions. Nevertheless, as pointed out by the Director of Planning at the forum, a number of factors should be taken into account when developing new land, coupled with the diversified aspirations of the public. It is impossible that a single means of land supply could resolve the current problem of land shortage. We need to adopt a multi-pronged approach that caters for development needs in the short, medium and long term. There are often voices among the public suggesting that the Government should adopt a particular measure to increase land supply (e.g. development of brownfield sites) and forego other land development plans. I am afraid it might not be feasible in coping with the complicated land supply problems that we are facing in reality.

The forum held yesterday was indeed an invaluable opportunity as it served as a starting point for the Government and professional bodies to explore together the serious issues of land use planning and development. I hope that people from different sectors of society can keep seeing things impartially, and jointly balance competing considerations, break through bottlenecks, and resolve the problem of land shortage in the public interest, thereby enhancing Hong Kong as one of the best cities in the world for both living and working.