There are 2 aspect of this issue: First, why are we so angry about it? Because we have the concept of property and we all hate rich people to occupy "our" property. Second, it's about the environment, another hot area of these days. Anything remotely relates to it will be debated or opposed.
But, I don't see there are strong reasons to forbid such action.
Because: 1st, we are living the world of capitalism, protection of private property is the golden rule of this system. You can't stop someone from doing something just because he is rich. Try to imagine, if some poor family will be relocated from the city into Sai Wan, there wouldn't be such a fuzz about it. Indeed, look at Long Ke, the beach just next to Sai Wan, there's this drug rehabilitation center, which is bigger than the site in Sai Wan, I think nobody said anything when it's built, and nobody is saying anything that it destroyed their view right now. Look at the dams all over Hong Kong, has anyone said anything about them? All of the water reservation facilities occupy park sites, and destroy some environment. Anyone mentioned it? And You can have a look at other locations near Sai Wan area, government facilities like Chong Hing Water Sports Center, and other fishing outposts, all occupy sites, but nobody would argue if they destroys the environment.
So, I think the biggest reason for so many people aroused to this issue is: we hate the rich!
And talk about environment. I've been to Sai Wan for countless times, the site is not as big as most others think. The area was marshland/sand beach before(not many trees), just like the drug rehabilitation center. And it does not cut or occupy the river (Actually the small river is seasonal river, currently it's very big and wide, and I guess it won't disappear for a long time). I am not saying the construction won't affect the environment, but from my point of view, the effect can be minimum.
The fishing village is almost totally abandoned, except several stores which are serving the hikers. The environmental issues are more pressing there. Most bungalows are abandoned, leaving trash and other stuff all around. But of cause, they are private property, we can do nothing either.
I do think the improper treatment of the site and heartless construction can damage the environment. But I think our focus should be to urge the government to legislate the environmental construction regulation, not forbidding the construction. The reason? Not because it's not affecting the environment, but because it's PRIVATE property. Once government got the power to forbid acquiring/selling private property, who knows what else will they do next time.
So, I am not against the construction on the site. But I do have some suggestions to turn the construction into environmental positive:
1, Like I said, there has to be regulations to force environmental friendly construction. The current movement can urge the government to legislate it.
2, Government can tax the new land owner for environment protection, or, I think it's better, force the land owner to protect the environment by themselves, like clean the beach, maintain the river. I think they can do much better than the government, since it's their own land.
3. Tourism is flourishing in Sai Kung area, I believe more and more visitors will come into this area. To be honest, as a hiker, I see more damage done by hikers, tourists and visitors than the locals. As point 2, I believe there should be more protectors than destroyers, or at least with more power. Where to recruit them? I see no volunteers can do better works than shop owners. Like some did in other parts of Hong Kong, modern shops, stores, training centers, surfing schools should be able to contribute more to the environment while keeping the local economy growing.
My point is, unless the government use its power to seize the lands owned by the villagers, and turn them into the country park, we have to deal with how to use these lands. And when outdoor activities continue to be popular, there will be more and more visitors, the environment protecting responsibilities will fall upon the government, and they can not and would not do much good on it. I believe the private owners can actually do much better, as long as we have the law to enforce it.
Posts
3 comments:
You're opinion is typical of Chinese. You are ignorant to the environmental and economic struggles that go on in the rest of the world. You think it's ok to cement over every little piece of this beautiful part of the world just so you can make a few dollars.
You obviously haven't even bothered to find out how far this development has extended into protected government land. Land that has been set aside as a treasure for future generations to enjoy.
You say we hate the rich. That's not exactly true. What we hate is the relationship between the rich and the government that allows the rich to do whatever they want: Destroy heritage buildings, ruin pristine natural environments, etc. Money is the only thing that matters to Chinese people, so they destroy everything around them. Shame on you
I agree. I'm Chinese (living in UK), and I hate coming home because I see how much Hong Kong is being destroyed. I hate to say it, but Hong Kong was better off under colonial rule. At least the law was respected. Hong Kong is doomed to become a stinking parking lot in the next decades, and this blogger is defending it as though 'capitalism' is a divine right. Every country has its problems with development, but Hong Kong is getting out of hand.
Well, the government already marked the border lines, and I believe the land owner wouldn't dare nor has the power to occupy it.
In this post, I merely pointed out the movement against this case has its fanatic side. The enviornment protection is mainly positive to all of us. But when it becomes a mass movement, people do things for it without investigation or even thinking, just like most other social movement. For example, green peace declares that they are against nuclear power plant, I guess if there is going to be one in HK, there will be a LOT of people support them too. The fact is neuclear energy is much greener than most other source. And modern plant design reduces the risk of leaking to nearly 0.
So, the question is not about if we protect environment, but how to protect it. If you read through my post, you can see my suggestions. I believe the protection comes from both legislation, the government and the locals. And the locals can do better than the government, just like most European countries.
Talking about capitalism, only fools treat it as 'devine rule'. My reason of mentioning it is to remind us that the current system protects personal properties, and without this protection, we will be soon living in a place like Orwell described in 1984. And by the way, I think money should play no role in this discussion. Just imagine what will be the public response if the place is used as a surfing school by the locals?
At last, of coz I prefer the place is left alone untouched, but since it's private property, I think it's better to figure out a way to encourage these land owners to proactively protect than attack them blindly.
Post a Comment