MR CHAN KIN-POR (in Cantonese): President, even though the views of Mr CHU Hoi-dick and I are poles apart in many areas, I fully support him when he said just now that he has changed his mind. I think the Government really has to deal with the matter seriously.
President, I now return to this script which I have spent several days to prepare. I have been a Legislative Council Member for 10 years. At first I was very passionate, but now I gradually realize that it is very difficult to take things forward. At one time I was dispirited, but I have regained my vitality now. I realize that when some policies that will bring fundamental changes and substantial advantages to Hong Kong society and people’s livelihood, but the Government and the public have been hesitant for various reasons, politicians have to set their honour and disgrace aside and step forward courageously to state the pros and cons, so that members of the public will understand the true facts and move towards the right direction. In this way, Hong Kong’s deep-rooted problems will be solved for the benefits of the public. Only by so doing will my political career of over 10 years not run to waste.
President, I will use the remaining time to analyse the “mega-reclamation” project, in the hope that members of the public, government officials, fellow Members and the media can see the issue from an array of perspectives. I believe this is an issue of personal concern to the public, particularly many young media workers here in the Legislative Council Complex.
Most of the deep-rooted problems in Hong Kong are related to housing. I would say that “housing tops all evils”. The problems include costly property prices, high rentals, young people having to live in a tiny flat together with their family without their own space are discouraged to get marry and have children. The inadequacy of land also leads to expensive rental of commercial properties, high operation cost and adverse business environment, especially for emerging industries. Foreign talents are also unwilling to come here for career development. In view of the current situation, if we still adopt the so-called alternative options advocated by the opposition camp, i.e. policies targeting brownfield sites, agricultural lands and military sites which have been implemented for some 10 years but not quite effective, we cannot change the situation at all.
In fact, the present population density of Hong Kong is rather scary as 27 400 people now live in 1 sq km of developed land. The number is even higher than that of Mumbai, India. In Singapore, the figure is just half of ours, which is 10 700; and in Shenzhen, the figure is only 7 000. Therefore, if we do not step up effort to increase land, we simply cannot solve the problem. At present, the coverage of country parks is not allowed to change, so we can only keep constructing standalone buildings. If Hong Kong people want to have better and bigger homes, we must increase our area of land. Reclamation is our hope to this end.
If people of Hong Kong have no clue about what to do, they should take a look at the practices in other places. In the past 10 years, not much reclamation has been done in Hong Kong; but do you know that Shenzhen has already reclaimed 5 300 hectares of land, and Singapore has reclaimed 2 500 hectares of land? We may continue to oppose reclamation in the future, but it is expected that Shenzhen will further reclaim 5 500 hectares of land, and Singapore 4 700 hectares. With an increase in land supply, residents in other places can of course live in better and bigger flats. These places will have better town planning with more open spaces and green belt zones, and will thus become cities more suitable for living and doing business.
In contrast, in Hong Kong, we still have to resume fragmentary agricultural lands. Brownfield sites are even more difficult to resume, as we just move the operations on brownfield sites to another place. In fact, relocating brownfield operations into multi-storey buildings is very often not feasible. As a comparison, in Shenzhen and Singapore, land is reclaimed for building inexpensive and quality flats; whereas in Hong Kong, we only redevelop old buildings. Negotiating for repossession of flats and dealing with lawsuits alone are already very troublesome, the process is long and the chance of success is uncertain. How then how we have a good fortune? If things go on like this, Shenzhen and Singapore will surely outrun Hong Kong and lag us farther and farther behind. We can but only take their dust!
Moreover, we should consider the ageing problem of buildings. Studies have revealed that there are now 1 100 buildings aged over 70 years in Hong Kong, and the number of such buildings will surge to some 300 000 in 2046. Massive redevelopment will be required then, which will call for a huge quantity of new buildings to temporarily rehouse residents from old buildings. If we do not reclaim now, we definitely will not have sufficient land. Frankly speaking, a decade or two will pass in a flash. Should we not speed up with reclamation, we will indeed be doing a disservice to our next generation. If we do not take action today, we will regret tomorrow.
As regard the technical issues which Members are always concerned about, I agree that we should have a good understanding, but as pointed out in many current reports, many problems concerning engineering and environmental issues can be resolved. The selected site has taken into consideration climatic and ecological changes. Moreover, as reclamation works take more than 10 years, with the continuous advancement of technology, there must be better ways to solve the problems in the future.
On financial aspects, many people are very exaggerated in saying that reclamation is tantamount to dumping money into the sea and depleting all the reserves of the Government. In fact, such remarks intend to scare people off. Members of the public ought to know the truth. As a matter of fact, some people estimate that an investment of $500 billion to $1,000 billion is needed for reclamation, but if the revenue from land sale is included, ranging between $1,000 billion to $1,300 billion as estimated in the community (including my estimation), reclamation might easily make profits, dumping sand to make money. Moreover, the future economic benefits and other advantages to society brought by reclamation have not been taken into account. As the payments for reclamation will be phased over 10-odd years, how will there be problems? Hence, recently fewer people have now put forward the argument of depleting the public coffers, because even kids are not convinced.
Recently, someone said to me that if reclamation will bankrupt a government, will Singapore and Shenzhen still be reclaiming thousands of hectares of land in the long run? Are they stupid or are we fools? Moreover, there is a saying that the new buildings built on reclaimed land will only benefit the new immigrants. First of all, this is a discriminatory remark. While we have to address the problems concerning new immigrants, new immigrants also bring new labour force to Hong Kong and promote economic development. I agree that a significant increase in the number of grass-roots immigrants will bring tremendous pressure on society. Therefore, when making demographic planning, the Government must address this problem squarely and dare to negotiate with the Central Authorities. However, this is not a reason for opposing reclamation. Should we slacken our pace when we have yet to settle the matter with the Central Authorities and yet to formulate a new population policy? There are currently 270 000 applicants waiting for public rental housing (“PRH”), 250 000 people wishing to buy Home Ownership Scheme (“HOS”) flats, and 250 000 residents of subdivided units. They are all Hong Kong residents in need of public housing, and they should be the first batches of people to be taken care of. Even if PRH buildings are built on reclaimed land, these people should be given priority for public housing allocation, new immigrants will only come next. How come only new immigrants will be benefited? I hope people will no longer instigate hatred.
Some Members said that the current estimated price of the reclaimed land will be $9,000 per square foot, meaning that property prices will be so high that young people can hardly afford. Again, I urge Members not to make misleading remarks. We are now talking about of $9,000 after more than 10 years. By then, the economy will improve, wages will increase substantially, and most important of all, with more land in the hands of the Government, land prices will be stable, as it will be difficult for land owners and real estate developers to hoard land any more. Furthermore, 70% of the flats to be built under Lantau Tomorrow are PRH and subsidized housing, including a huge number of HOS flats. Let us not forget that at present, prices of HOS flats are no longer pegged to market prices but pegged to people’s affordability. As HOS flats are priced at 52% of the market prices, young people can definitely afford to buy their first property. After settling in HOS flats and subsidized housing, young people may save money to buy private flats in the future. Therefore, HOS is a very good home ownership ladder. This is a good news to young people because Lantau Tomorrow can definitely provide them with a better chance for home ownership.
Some Members queried why we have to build so many flats when population will start declining in 2044. It is known to all that Hong Kong is the most crowded city in the world, hence even if our population will decline slightly―I welcome the decline if that happens―as anticipated, we can also seize such an opportunity to improve the living conditions for the public. It is definitely good for overcrowded households to live more spaciously in better conditions. For the sake of opposing reclamation, the opposition camp even sacrifices the chance for people to improve their overcrowded living conditions. This is lamentable.
Besides, some Members said that Lantau Tomorrow is a political mission which will benefit real estate developers and builders. Such remarks have overplayed the matter and I feel sad. Real estate developers or builders are investors who have to gain their returns through lawful and reasonable ways. We should respect them. If they make wrong predictions about the risks, they may go bankrupt. It can be said that they have to take risks to get profits. Enterprises have to take market risks as they may also go bankrupt in case of making wrong investments. This is entrepreneurship as often claimed by the Americans, which has also been recognized in the western world. Certainly, it will be a separate issue if enterprises break the law, such as bribery. Nevertheless, if people make remarks to encourage hostility or gain political capital by creating division amongst different social strata, they should definitely not be tolerated.
Some Members said that as the implementation of Lantau Tomorrow took 20 to 30 years, residents currently waiting for PRH allocation cannot wait that long. As a matter of fact, the Government now adopts a multi-pronged approach to launch short- and medium-term measures concurrently so as to facilitate the allocation of PRH units to people on the waiting list. However, while some people are allocated with PRH units, other people have joined the waiting list. Thus, we must make long-term planning. Furthermore, people do not have to wait 20 to 30 years but merely 10-odd years for PRH. If we really want to force the Government to speed up its efforts, we should argue less and seek better ways to handle the matter. It fact, the first batch of housing can be completed in about 10 years’ time.
As regards the proposal of developing military sites, it requires discussion with the Mainland authorities, and the People’s Liberation Army has already indicated that it has no idle site. Besides, military sites practically serve defence needs. I believe that we should not have high expectations even if a discussion is held. If a consensus can be reached, I will surely welcome options that can increase land supply.
When I was interviewed in a radio programme earlier, I said that experience indicated that the Government was relatively wimpy, and it often backed off when facing resistance. Therefore, we asked the Government not to yield to pressure but should persist with the planning which was beneficial to Hong Kong. During the interview, I also explained the scrutiny procedure of the Finance Committee (“FC”), but many Members criticized me without listening to my argument in detail. I have in hand the verbatim transcript of the radio interview, and I now read it out for you, and I quote “I think FC of today is very different because we have amended the FC Procedure. No matter how complicated the matter is, it can be put to vote in a relatively short period of time. In the past, the process could indeed drag on for 40 to 50 hours. The funding application for the establishment of the Innovation and Technology Bureau had dragged on for three years. Since we have amended the FC Procedure, I trust that when the funding application concerned is submitted to FC, it can definitely be processed within 10-odd hours at the most.” (End of quote)
Please note that in my above remarks, I did not say anything like “drawing a line” or “let the Government get passed” at all; rather, I just objectively explained to members of the public the outcome of amending the FC Procedure. Yet, my remarks have attracted groundless attacks from some Members. Dr KWOK Ka-ki dared say yesterday that I have said “let the Government get passed”. Anyway, he has the habit of slandering others, so I do not find it very surprising. Nevertheless, he should make some improvements despite his habitual slandering. Buddy, please clear the facts first. If he always slanders me, I will go mad someday.
Let me provide some more information to you all. Another newspaper has reported my explanation of the amended FC Procedure. I looked up the report dated 2 March on FC’s amendment of the Procedure on 1 March. I now read it out, and I quote: “After the meeting, CHAN Kin-por joined Ir Dr LO Wai-kwok, Chairman of the Public Works Subcommittee, and Mrs Regina IP, Chairman of the Establishment Subcommittee, for a press conference. CHAN said that before the end of the current legislative session, there were still some 30 livelihood items pending scrutiny. Amongst these items, five are more controversial, including the Shatin-Central Link, the Hong Kong-Zhuhai-Macao Bridge, the Lok Ma Chau Loop, etc. It is estimated that it takes 10 hours to scrutinize each controversial item.”
At that time, I estimated the time needed for scrutinizing each item. How come no criticism was raised at that time, but such a strong reaction is raised now and there is even a move to propose a motion of no confidence in me? Certainly, this is because there are Members who do not like my remarks about reclamation, and thus want to suppress me. However, I will not be worried about being suppressed for telling the truth. What I am saying is the truth. I will not be scared by whatever kind of suppression, but I should not be suppressed for telling the truth.
President, when someone is seriously ill, he will study various kinds of treatment, including making reference to other people’s treatments for the illness. He will consider the options of injection, medication or even operation when the condition is serious. However, he will find that there is no treatment which is free, causing no pain or side effect. Solving the housing problem of Hong Kong is just the same, as the problem is very serious. Both Shenzhen and Singapore solve their housing problem by reclamation and remarkable effects have been resulted. When taking forward “mega-reclamation” in Hong Kong, there must be pain and side effects, but all the risks, including financial concerns, weather changes and environmental issues, can be controlled and solved. If Members just ignore the huge benefits and effects of “mega-reclamation” on solving Hong Kong’s housing problem, but only exaggerate the difficulties of reclamation for political hypes to suit their own needs, the consequence is that they would mislead members of the public who trust them―members of the public are really innocent as they think those Members are really helping them. As a result, Hong Kong will take the wrong path. Will those Members be blamed by history? They know it fairly well at heart.
President, according to the most basic principle of economics, government investments are most effective in stimulating economic development. “Mega-reclamation” can bring further additional investments, which not only solve the housing problem but also create plenty of jobs. Consequently, Hong Kong will be vibrant with a prosperous economy in the coming 10-odd years; there are jobs for everyone and everyone will live in bigger flats with better conditions. With more revenue, the Government can have more resources to care for the elderly and alleviate poverty, and other problems can be solved smoothly.
Someone describes reclamation as “retrieving a hopeless situation”, and I think this is a true fact. I always say that regardless of what political ideologies Members have, our ultimate hope is that our service clients, i.e. members of the public, can live and work in contentment. Hong Kong has spent too much time on arguments in recent years. Now that the Government is bold enough to propose a genuine solution, we really have to seize the chance and ensure that the Government will take forward the option. We should not let the Government make empty promises without real action, and in the course, we have to monitor the Government to make sure that it handles the risks with thorough consideration.
There is a rather weird phenomenon in FC. Members often say the “white elephant” projects were approved back then by Members so and so. However, I would like to point out, Members approved, by casting one vote each, the funding items based on the information provided by the Government. Should the Government have a greater responsibility if the project is not well implemented? How come the blame would be put on Members who approved the funding items? I cannot figure out why the blame should be put on Members who approved the funding on the assumption that the items would bring substantial benefits to people’s livelihood. This is totally unreasonable. The Government should be responsible for the satisfactory or unsatisfactory performance. Can we blame the Members who approved the funding back then if the Government fails to perform years later? What have Members done wrong when they approve funding for Hong Kong’s development? Even if there are errors and omissions with the Government, that would be the Government’s problem. Therefore, we have to monitor the Government.
As the High Court has pointed out many times, and I have explained the reasons for amending the FC Procedure, what is the point of stalling indefinitely? According to the figures I have in hand, over the years, Members spent some 20 to 30 hours to scrutinize projects such as the Guangzhou-Shenzhen-Hong Kong Express Rail Link or the Hong Kong-Zhuhai-Macao Bridge. However, the actual time spent on debate, i.e. monitoring the Government, was less than 20 hours. Thus, my words are definitely justified and true. I hope fellow Members will no longer pick on me. If I make mistake, the opposition camp can blame me and I will admit my mistake; however, if I tell the truth and they criticize me arbitrarily, they are actually misleading the public.
Some Members claim that they are the democrats, but they actually belong to the opposition camp. They always say that the pro-establishment camp supports the Government blindly. That is actually not true. We are the “constructive camp”, working for the benefit of Hong Kong. They now call us the royalists while claiming themselves the democrats. This name sounds good, but they are actually the opposition camp. What else do they have to say?
As I still have some speaking time left, I wish to give a final remark: My fellow Members, I think it is now time to cast aside our political differences. Let us really do something really great for Hong Kong.
I so submit.