20 Jan 2010
Members' Motions 'Suspending the construction of the Government Headquarters at Tamar’
Regarding the proposals put forward in Mr Paul TSE's motion, I agree with the majority of them, such as increasing job opportunities in various remote districts; promoting the economic development of remote districts; and further tying in with and make the most of the overall development direction and trend of China. However, I find it difficult to agree with Mr TSE's proposal of urging the HKSAR Government to suspend the development project of the Government Headquarters at Tamar.
Mr TSE has called for a halt to the construction of the Government Headquarters at the Tamar site on the premise that the Chief Executive had proposed a series of projects with the aim of transforming the Central District in last year's policy address. These projects include drastically lowering the development intensities of Sites 1 and 2 of the new Central Harbourfront, inviting the Urban Renewal Authority to renovate and revitalize the Central Market, converting the original site of the former Central School and revitalizing it into a hub of creative industries, conserving the Central Police Station Compound, preserving the Central Government Offices, converting Murray Building into a hotel, revitalizing the former French Mission Building, and preserving the Hong Kong Sheng Kung Hui building cluster. I agree with the direction of these developments.
However, I believe many colleagues of this Council know that the process of constructing the Government Headquarters at Tamar had involved many twists and turns. At one point, the project was put on hold, and then re-launched. Meanwhile, a Subcommittee to Review the Planning for the Central Waterfront (including the Tamar Site) was formed to study whether there was a need to relocate the Government Secretariat at Central Government Offices and Murray Building, as well as the possible site for relocation. The funding application for the construction of a new Central Government Complex (CGC) and a new Legislative Council Complex was eventually approved by the Legislative Council in mid-2006.
In fact, I am referring to history in a bid to point out that the decision of constructing the Government Headquarters at Tamar was the result of discussions in society and this Council. The Government had also taken into account the economic situation at that time for consideration, including proposing deferring the project during the SARS outbreak in Hong Kong in 2003. In 2005, the Chief Executive proposed that the project be re-launched. If we call a halt to the project today, it would mean undoing everything discussed previously. Of course, there is a need to continuously review and update the planning and development of Hong Kong. But I have doubts as to whether we should, without any consultation and when no drastic or major changes have taken place, rigidly undo a launched project, even though five stories of the building have been built and the project is supported by the community and this Council. Just now, Dr Raymond HO has also advanced some arguments including legal claims to compensation. I think they are relevant factors and should be taken into consideration.
However, just as I mentioned at the beginning of my speech, I agree with the majority of proposals put forward in the original motion, particularly the part that involves the Government's planning for the long-term development of Hong Kong. In 2007, the Chief Executive put forward the concept of "Progressive Development", which advocates the need to strike a balance between three aspects, namely environmental protection, sustainable development, and heritage conservation. Subsequently, the Development Bureau introduced in the Final Report of "Hong Kong 2030: Planning Vision and Strategy" the concept of "New Development Areas". Under this concept, not only will lower-density buildings be developed in designated New Development Areas, there will also be convenient mass transit systems and community facilities, so that additional employment opportunities can be provided for local residents in the course of planning.
I very much hope that this concept of "New Development Areas" put forward by the authorities concerned will not become just a concept. We must learn from the experience in developing New Development Areas, and ensure that these New Development Areas after being developed, will not give people the impression that they are being abandoned and forgotten. In identifying the future New Development Areas, the Government must consider in detail the ancillary facilities and policies and make genuine efforts in providing employment opportunities for residents who have moved to live in these areas in such a way that they will not have to spend a large amount of money and time on travelling to and from their workplace in urban areas.
President, residents currently living in remote districts are now facing the problem of having "difficulties of going to work" due to high transportation expenses. Just as I have always emphasized, the Government should be more generous by extending the Transport Support Scheme to cover every part of Hong Kong and further relaxing eligibility, so that more residents living in remote districts need not worry about high travelling expenses, as this might result in dampening their desire to go to work.
President, I so submit.
