agree with you gutfei

The government had held three meetings with four professional bodies (Association of Engineering Professionals in Society Ltd. (AES); Conservancy Association (CA); Hong Kong Institute of Architects (HKIA); and Hong Kong Institution of Engineers (HKIE)) to discuss the methods for preserving the Queen's Pier. A report of proposals has been released by The Housing, Planning and Lands Bureau and the Civil Engineering and Development Department (CEDD). Option D seems to be the most possible one pointed by the government but is not truly a compromise by the groups concerned, some of the professionals are still struggling and working hard on the feasibility of some possible alternatives. Some private meetings were then held and groups were invited in the name of consultation. We went to the private meeting as a learning experience that we had the opportunity to know what happened inside. The other groups all boycotted this kind of small group private meeting and thus the better public form of consultation in happy valley was held last night.

The pseudo private meeting turned out to be an explanation session held by the government to explain their difficulties rather than a closer study to the issues behind. And it seems to me that the government's attitude is quite firm because in stead of answering some technical questions with details asked by students, officials asked us to refer to the PowerPoint/website and continued to explain their difficulties - mainly cost and time (if delayed, compensation to developers is huge) I do understand that the development was planned in the early 90s so contracts are signed and there are limitations if any thing will change in the development plan but should money the most important aspect to consider a development?

I just think if there is any better alternative that could use money to resolve, shall we consider implement it if it is within a limited cost? Shall we consider whether citizens are willing to pay the cost in monetary term for values they consider significant? Have we ever collaborated with the public in decision making concerning cost (are they not money of HK people)? Shall we include values that cannot be calculated in monetary terms into our discussion and try to develop a language to communicate and a consensus between the two? I just wonder what the point for consultation then is. What does consultation mean?

If the department needs consultation concerning issues on historical significant, cultural and spatial relations, why are elements within this area are not included in their mindset? Nothing within the philosophies and theories within this field was discussed because they have little sense in this language and are reluctant to put these issues in an equal grounding with cost and time. 孫明揚 had pointed out some of his views during the meeting: 1) the Pier and the city hall complex are only built in the 50s and he didn't think they are of any important comparing to many other heritages in Hong Kong. 2) Tourist would not go to visit Queen's Pier; Hong Kong has many other attractions. Someone had mentioned elements such as people, events, collective memories, value, and hermeneutics during the meeting, but they were not discussed and passed back for students to think. (But isn’t it responsibility of the government to let people understand all these?) Therefore we better talked within their language.

There are things within the development that doubts me. As far as I know, the underground of the Pier will be reserved to the building of an Overturn Tunnel (AR EOT) and the Protection Preparation for the Northern Island line (NIL), so it is not very possible to relocate the Pier in situ. Actually the NIL is just a rough alignment between the government and the MTRC, it is not yet in contract base and not yet passed through general consultation at this stage, that means the Pier is to be sacrificed to something not yet thoroughly consulted and firmly decided. However, under the contract of the Phase III development, even the potential NIL will likely to be built in 2016 or even will not be built, the underground of the Pier have to be reserved thus removal of the Pier is necessary. (How ridiculous!)

Personally, I think the Airport Railway Extended Overturn Tunnel and the Northern Island line are quite unnecessary. The existing Tung Chun line and the Island line are more than enough for Central and Wai Chai area, comparing to some major cities in Europe and elsewhere. A lot of places in the area are within walkable distance. Predictably, in 2016, the NIL may relieve some interchange movements in the existing Island line, but I don’t think that is very essential (Who would like to sacrifice a heritage with historical significant to just a less than 3 minutes act for an interchange movement?). I wonder if we think the 3 more (unnecessary) stations to be built: Tamar Station (which is just next to Admiralty station), Exhibition Station (which is just close to Wan Chai station), Victoria Park Station (which is close to CWB and Tin Hau station) are for the convenience of the citizens as explained in the document, then we may be wrong. The rationale behind may not be serving convenience but serving a potential business for the MTRC’s property development on top of the stations and underground shopping mall.

I feel a bit disappointed how the whole development plan has belittled and undermined our historical and natural heritage. It's so sad to see how the official rhetoric has distorted our perceptions of looking at the issue. It seems that we are discoursed to believe that it is normal and justifiable to make way for infrastructure and to sacrifice something for a 'better future' with convenience, civilized prestige, and economic benefits (to whom?). There are certainly things which cannot be calculated in monetary value such as memory, space, community, people and democracy. What I have learned from the meeting is that mistakes were made and things were hard to be changed at this stage but in future planning, there are important issues to consider. 1) The consultation process has to be more transparent and if possible collaboration rather than consultation. 2) Evaluation of public opinions should be researched, documented and published. 3) Civic education is important and the government has the responsibility to equip the public with knowledge to understand planning and development not just in a superficial way. 4) A better election system should be developed.

It seems that many people in Hong Kong have little sense in perceiving space and details, and it is dangerous if younger generations are not encouraged to feel the relation of space within our city. I think the development is problematic. The whole space has been distorted and historical significance destroyed. Star Ferry, Queen's Pier, Noon Day Gun and the Floating Tin Hau Temple are something integral to our daily experience and it is important to understand how our interactions with all these things have evolved into our Hong Kong today. I deem if they are relocated to somewhere else or in museums just for the sake of cultural tourism, their meaning will be lost, like corpus without spirit.

The whole development gives me an image of a little boy who is forced by his parents to give up an old living dog for a new high tech electronic robot dog. I am not a professional but as a common citizen, I feel very sad. Every time I passed by the old Star Ferry site, I feel a strong sense of loss and emptiness. It is heart breaking and it hurts. I lived in the soho area when I was young and I love going to the Star Ferry's Pier and the Queen's Pier and found the area a romantic place to spend an afternoon, it's not just a site, but an experience of that space in relation to an individual in a city. Perhaps many practices in HK do not encourage people to think of their social existence in relation to the city, I just feel so suffocated to imagine a future with a lot of similar building complex with the same restaurants, same entertainments, same brand chains inside but without human touch and without sense of community. Something valuable is disappearing, but they are part of us, part of how we feel our place and part of our memory, part of our spiritual journey of growing up.

可否給多一點背景資料？

gutfei，想問一下孫明揚（及眾高官）是在甚麼場合說話的？是你們老師安排了一次面談，讓你們同學跟孫明揚和眾高官面對面討論皇后碼頭的問題嗎？

有關皇后碼頭為甚麼一定要讓路的問題，昨日在民間團體主辦的答問大會上聽完政府高官的解釋，更加讓人疑惑為甚麼非拆不可。之前政府堅稱因為天星和皇后碼頭阻著起公路（P2路),昨日態度上已承認P2路位置可以稍作改動，政府只需要刊憲提出會有改動就成了。換句話說，技術上不存在問題。

政府近日提出的新的問題，包括機鐵預見未來乘客量可能會增加至機鐵要增加車卡，所以要在填海區預留地方，讓機鐵可以建造新的掉頭站。但機鐵乘客量多少大家有眼睇，何時何日機鐵的使用量會飽和根本很成疑問，何況即使飽和也不等如一定要增加機鐵本身的使用，而可以用其他運輸工具，所以政府這個理由根本沒有一點說服力。政府大概有見及此，昨日又說機鐵其實包括埋東涌線的...總之日日有新料。

不過，政府高官昨日戰戰競競的承認，現時已簽署了的涉及機鐵合約的工程只去到皇后碼頭以西的位置，是未到皇后碼頭的。換句話說，政府即使不拆皇后碼頭，也不會因為機鐵合約工程的問題而要對任何人作出賠償。

政府近日提出的另一個新問題是地鐵要起新的北港島線！嘩，作為一名住在港島的普通市民，我真係覺得這個政府好離譜。無端端又話起新的北港島線，我們全部給蒙在鼓裡，都不知道發生甚麼事。我是無車階級，好多時都要乘地鐵，車費實在好貴，每次過海或坐多兩個站都好肉痛。我十分不明白為甚麼我們要將地上路面全部讓給私家車，而我們要被迫乘坐昂貴的地鐵！

政府有沒有問過我們是否要新的北港島線？沒有。

政府有沒有問過我們是否會選擇地鐵以外的其他解決交通擠塞問題的方法呢？沒有。

但現在政府告訴我們因為要起新的北港島線，所以要拆皇后！不是吧！

總之，我完全不能理解政府堅持要拆皇后碼頭的原因是甚麼。唯一的理由是政府是依在它習慣的邏輯辦事：賣地是政府主要的收入。填海是政府最容易獲得新土地（尤其是市區土地）的方法。天星皇后妨礙填海，所以一定要拆。市民要保留更多公眾空間，這思維妨礙政府賣地，一定要根除。所以天星皇后一定要拆！

Mr Sun's soft spot?

It seems the essence of the problem lies in the last paragraph. If you get the info, let's build a stronger case upon it.
By identifying the essence, it should enable us to focus our attention and concentrate our efforts effectively.
Thank you for your effort.

補地價佔政府八成收入是哪裏的資料？

我還以為補地價是買地時一次過給的。

香港獨立媒體 - Comments for "自討沒趣 - 記與孫明揚及眾官面談"

agree with you gutfei

可否給多一點背景資料？

交陀地？

Mr Sun's soft spot?

補地價佔政府八成收入是哪裏的資料？