2007年2月17日 星期六

公民社會西九宣言

西九龍文娛藝術區項目即將進入關鍵時刻。政府在公民社會和立法會的廣泛質疑下,表示仍然會按照三個入圍財團的取捨決定如何將「西九」項目進行下去。


 


「西九」的土地資源是全港市民共有的珍貴資產。為了建設香港文化都會的願景,我們代表不同界別,包括專業界、文化界、智庫及參政團體,就此向特區政府作出以下呼籲:


 


★停止變相單一招標,不要將近千億元公共資產的去向押注在兩三個財團的利益計算之上。


 


★停止把文化設施與地產項目的發展捆挷在一起,不要使民眾無法直接參與西九的文化規劃,無法按照香港文化政策的長遠所需,分階段地把公眾資源投放在合適的軟硬體上。


 


★加快以公開透明、尊重持份者的方式制訂文化政策,使「西九」的規劃設計符合香港文化都會的願景及維港整體的可持續發展願景。


 


★加快成立臨時「西九發展管理局」,使各方主要持份者按照公平問責的方式推舉代表進入決策機構,由公民社會及民選議員主導,制定一套可讓民眾接受和公平參與的運作機制,以加強「西九」的民意基礎及公民認同感。


 


我們呼籲特區政府將港人的福祉置於短期政治需要之上,不要把堂堂正正的公共決策程序矮化成為利益交換的考量。


 


我們進一步呼籲關心「西九」的各個界別團體聯署本宣言,壯大公民社會的聲音。


 


 


發起聯署團體:


 


專業界別:   香港建築師學會西九關注組


 


文化界別:   香港當代文化中心      牛棚書院     進念二十面體     社區文化關注組


 


智庫:   新力量網絡


 


參政團體:   公民起動


 


跨界別團體:西九龍民間評審聯席會議        香港可持續發展公民議會


 


 


2007年2月15日 星期四

The Art of Development

Originally Published on 15 February 2007


Development is a buzz word that enjoys universal appeal. That is why is it appears on every single page, often dozens of times, of Mr Donald Tsang’s election platform for the Chief Executive. Mr Tsang goes further in coining a new phrase, the “Progressive View on Development”, to characterise his own brand of development.


This arouses much interest not only because Mr Tsang is not known to be a fan of visions and theories, but because the phrase bears striking similarity to the current theory advocated by Chairman Hu Jintao in the Mainland – the “Scientific View on Development”.


The Scientific View on Development has been adopted since 2003 as the underlying philosophy behind China ’s national strategy. It emphasize a “people-focussed, holistic and coordinated sustainable development. In essence, it reflects the realization by Chinese planners that sheer emphasis on economic growth at the expense of environmental degradation, resource depletion and widening wealth gaps is simply unsustainable. New questions must be asked: For whom should development serve? What constitutes good, or bad development? Singular focus on growth by numbers is simply the wrong path to follow.


Mr Tsang did not back up his “Progressive View” with any theoretical framework. Instead, he listed a long list of large-scale projects which he believed should be accelerated in the next 5-year term: cross-border roads and bridges, express rail links, development of Lantau, East and West Kowloon, border zones and a range of new towns in Hung Shui Kiu, Kwu Tung, Ping Che, and so on.


He went on to say that ‘an appropriate balance should be struck amongst economic, environmental and cultural benefits’ though he seemed too busy to tell us on what basis would such a balance be struck. These are hardly comforting words when the point of balance will ultimately be determined by a candidate who presided over a dire situation of air pollution, who refused to invest in biological treatment for sewage around Victoria harbour, and who oversaw the sorry state of Star Ferry Pier and Former Marine Police Station at Tsimshatsui Hill.


For any reader who cares to flip through Mr Tsang’s election platform, the message cannot be clearer: the “Progressive View on Development” means accelerated construction. Success will be measured by the number of completed projects, not by quality-of-life measures. This is the opposite of what the Central Government seeks to abandon by promoting the “Scientific View on Development”.


Is this conceptual confusion between development and construction deliberate, or a result of Mr Tsang’s overarching desire to look after business interest?


Whatever the reason behind it will not be an easy path to take for Mr Tsang even if he is almost guaranteed a position to govern for the next 5 years. Sooner or later, people will ask some obvious questions: do we need to flatten more land and construct more new towns when our population growth rate is declining? How will a border development zone benefit our workers when the sites are less accessible from Hong Kong than Shenzhen? Will more cross-border roads and bridges generate a reasonable rate of return when social and environmental costs are taken into account?


Mr Tsang’s strongest argument is job creation. His cheerleader who can hardly represent the engineering profession has been quick to jump in with no questions asked. Yet anyone who is familiar with the ‘Broken Window’ fallacy can point out that building a piece of superfluous infrastructure is the same as deliberately breaking a shop window to create jobs.


On the face of it, a broken window puts people to work and increases total output. Since this creates jobs, would we be better off breaking lots of windows and repairing them?


The fallacy lies with "what is seen and what is not seen."


What is seen is the broken window repairing and the workers that get employed, and the money they in turn spend. What is not seen is that these workers and resources would have been employed in something else if not for the broken window. What ultimately benefits society is not jobs but goods.


In the local context, should our public resource not be spent to tackle our biggest challenges – environmental degradation and worsening poverty? Jobs can equally be created by diverting resources to these socially desirable projects. Furthermore, as Mr Tsang wishes, these alternative projects can proceed faster because they will enjoy wide community support.


Many of these projects are crying out for investment – Harbour Area Treatment Scheme, integrated waste treatment facilities, Shatin-Central rail link, adaptive reuse of Central Police Station complex, outstanding community facilities promised by the Urban Council many years ago. The list goes on.


Engineers and construction workers alike will benefit from these jobs – more and faster. More important, the output of their work will serve public interest, not stand idle as white elephants.


How progressive is Mr Tsang when his view on development goes against the tide?


 


Albert Lai Kwong-tak is the Chairman of the Hong Kong People’s Council for Sustainable Development and Vice-chairman of the Civic Party