Land reclamation a logical option

The New People’s Party on Wednesday came up with 43 suggestions for Chief Executive Carrie Lam Cheng Yuet-ngor to consider when she prepares her second Policy Address, which will be delivered in October. Understandably, measures to increase land supply account for a large portion of the proposed measures. Among the nine land supply measures is the eye-catching idea of Hong Kong reclaiming land in the mainland’s waters after securing approval from the central government. For its originality, the idea is laudable, although whether it will work or not will need further study.

NPP also supports the idea of reclaiming land in Hong Kong’s waters — outside Victoria Harbour, of course. Indeed, most major political parties in the city — except those from the opposition camp, who have been naysayers without fail in all major government initiatives or policies — have voiced their support for land reclamation as a solution to the city’s wrenching problem of land and housing shortages.

The social consensus for land reclamation shouldn’t be hard to come by. Home prices and rents have skyrocketed to way beyond what ordinary families can afford, forcing many less affluent households to cram into inhumane living spaces. All the supply-side and demand-side housing measures this and the previous administrations adopted have failed, as has been proven by the uninterrupted rise of housing prices over the past 27 months. This is simply because all those measures were merely piecemeal or stopgap ones rather than fundamental solutions.

The political leaders, including the chief executive, and many citizens in the city have come to realize reclamation is unavoidable for Hong Kong to satisfy its need for land for both housing and economic development.

Environmentalist groups, who have been vocal in opposing almost every major infrastructure or development project in the city, are believed to be among the strongest opponents of reclamation. They have every right to express their concerns about the possible environmental impact. But for their arguments to be taken seriously, they need to raise objections based on scientific studies rather than shooting off any reclamation suggestion by way of a knee-jerk reaction before any environmental impact assessment is actually done.

For genuine environmentalists who champion a truly noble cause, it is not difficult for them to act rationally; they should realize the city has had great success in building new towns on large tracts of reclaimed land over the years. The success of new towns like Tseung Kwan O, Sha Tin and Tuen Mun, which now accommodate more than 1 million residents, should have assured them of the city’s ability to reclaim a large swathe of land and build a new town on it without causing an environmental disaster.

Had those new town projects been derailed and never come into existence, where would more than 1 million residents reside today? The argument that Hong Kong, with a much bigger population and economy now, doesn’t need to build new towns is self-deceiving.

It is hoped that environmentalists will have the wisdom to strike a balance between the needs for development and environmental preservation. But more importantly, we must beware of fake environmentalists who try to protect vested interests under the guise of environmental preservation.