Write a forum entry to share your views about the building of artificial islands on Lantau.

0



      Everyone knows that intense debates over the best solution to the current dire land shortage have
been around every corner of our city for years. And not long ago, the government has FINALLY given out its
answer in the policy address of the Chief Executive Carrie Lam — to build an artificial island on Lantau.
Despite the vocal citywide opposition against the plan, I totally support this move.

      To begin with, the massive reclamation project is the best way to tackle our persisting starvation for
land in a long run. While critics argue there’re other less costly and more appropriate alternatives like
developing brownfield sites and the Fanling golf court, these are just short-term solutions with which the
problem can relapse after 30 years when the already-dense population grows denser. Don’t you think so?
With the apparently overflowing government’s reserves of 1 trillion dollars, allocating half of it for the
betterment of the city is acceptable when Hong Kong’s economic development is assumably going to thrive
under the ‘Greater Bay Area” scheme. Plus, Shatin and Tung Chung accommodating thousands of residents
are the land from reclaiming sea, proving that ‘Lantau Tomorrow Vision’ can also be successful. With 1,700
hectares more land being the home for 1.1 million people, the thorny problem of land shortage and even
the infamously appalling housing crisis can be alleviated, can’t they?

 

Not only can the reclaimed land be used to relieve the headache of inadequate land supply, it can
also facilitate Hong Kong’s technological development. Global communities have been putting more and
more emphasis on developing technology and so has, and SHOULD Hong Kong. However, the progress can
hardly be fostered further no matter how hard the government has been luring talents around the globe
and subsidizing the sector, owing to a lack of technological infrastructure. With more land, more
infrastructure can be built and research on tech be facilitated, being in line with the progressive
development of, again, the Greater Bay Area underway.
Some of you may be overwhelmed by the potential irreversible nuisance inflicted on the
environment as well as the safety concerns amid more frequent super typhoons in the future. However, it
will be TOO cautious and premature to be so, as the details have yet to be laid out. We should rather wait
for an in-depth environmental assessment report and a comprehensive blueprint with preventive
measures, such as building taller wave breakers, protecting the island from being severely wrecked by
natural disasters, before casting these currently groundless doubts. Supporting the plan, I still believe the
government can convince all of us as long as it provides more cogent, concrete and compelling figures and
details regarding this mega, effective yet controversial proposal.
Before Lam reveals her plan, some people blamed the government officials for sitting on the
substantial, enormous and abundant wealth, not addressing any issues faced by the city, and that they
refuse to think out of the box. Yet, critics remain critical when it eventually utilizes the money to remove
the long-lasting ‘tumor’. Doesn’t it sound ironic? There’s no silver bullet and reclamation is no doubt a
contentious decision, but so are other measures! So, hopefully, we waste no more time struggling with the
government, holding back the social and economic development of Hong Kong. At the end of the day, I
don’t believe the government is THAT silly and incompetent to shoot itself in the foot and put Hong Kong
at stake, right?