As I did not need to work on the Labour Day holiday, I went jogging in the morning to enjoy the refreshing cool breeze. Nonetheless, during these precious moments of solitude and reflection, fragments of my daily work came to mind.
In the last couples of months, my workload has been heavy and I have been under considerable pressure. I am glad that my team is able to keep up high spirits. They know that their work is both meaningful and important to the future of Hong Kong. Everyone works very hard without complaint. Nonetheless, our work became more difficult recently when some groups attacked us by exploiting the current mechanism and procedures on a number of issues, intending to paralyze or even undo our work. I deeply regret to see this happening.
The technical amendment to the Central District (Extension) Outline Zoning Plan (“OZP”) regarding the military dock, which I mentioned in “My Blog” previously, is one such example. In 2000, the OZP was approved by the Executive Council after public consultation under the Town Planning Ordinance. Thereafter, the Government made known to the public the location, area, design and associated facilities of the dock through the Legislative Council in 2002, the Urban Design Study for the New Central Harbourfront in 2008 , and the Central and Western District Council and the Harbourfront Commission in 2010 respectively. Earlier this year, as the detailed design and delineation of the dock were confirmed, the Planning Department (“PlanD”) proposed technical amendments to the OZP to the Town Planning Board (“TPB”).
The OZP was gazetted on February 15, under which the public were entitled to make representations during the following two months. PlanD consulted the Central and Western District Council and the Harbourfront Commission on February 21 and March 21 respectively. The amendments were reported in different newspapers. By the morning of the last date for making representations, the TPB received less than 10 written representations.
But on that day a newspaper made inaccurate reports under the headlines “People’s Liberation Army to ‘occupy’ Central” and “Dock turned into building blocks”. Some groups disseminated the news through the Internet with “added-on information”, suggesting that three-storey buildings with a total floor area of 30,000 square metres, which is equivalent to half the size of the IFC, could be built on the dock. In fact, the dock site will only occupy 3,000 square metres of space with four single-storey buildings having total floor area of 200 square metres. Some reports also suggested that the military dock, the design of which has already integrated with the open waterfront promenade, would be double-fenced and closed by the PLA all the time preventing public enjoyment of the harbourfront. These unsubstantiated accusations misled the public and caused panic. Some groups invited members of the public to voice opposition to the TPB through emails and provided an opposition letter template on the social media platform. On the last day for making representations to the TPB, people who read those inaccurate statements but without immediate access to the full facts were inclined to respond to this appeal for opposition. As a result, the TPB received almost 10,000 written representations by the time the public exhibition period ended.
The provision for and construction of the military dock has gone through public consultation and engagement exercises over the years. We should ponder why these groups have exploited the mechanism and procedures to undo the plan at the final stage.
I have explained the background of the issue of military dock in a previous blog, but some groups have still repeated their clichéd and unsubstantiated accusations. I would like to make further clarifications on two points.
(1) The Garrison has, on the request of the HKSAR Government, agreed to open the area of the military dock site as part of the promenade when it is not in military use. This is a solemn undertaking. As compared with the waterfront of the Tamar site before reunification, the current arrangement and design is much more open.
(2) Setting out only the building height restriction of the military dock on the OZP is a common practice and it is not a special case at all. Many other OZPs have similar arrangement. The SAR Government has maintained communications with the Garrison over the provision of the military dock. The Garrison understands that our community treasures the promenade. I do not see any reason why the Garrison would build massive structures on the site purposely to block the harbourfront view.
So, why should we remain to view the whole issue with mistrust, suspicion and hostility?
5 May, 2013
Back