Motion Debate on Development of the West Kowloon Cultural District

Mr Deputy, concerning this topic of the West Kowloon Cultural District development (the WKCD development), it was actually discussed in a similar motion debate on 26 November 2003, and I had also spoken on that occasion.

That was one year or so ago and when I read what I had said back then, I can see that the projections I made then are actually happening now. At that time, I said that if the single-tender approach was adopted, there might be only two or three tenders at the most that could meet the specified requirements. I said then that if the plot ratio was not specifically set, the ratio of 1.8 might be increased to 3.5 by other people. Now, the plot ratio proposed in some proposals is actually as high as 4. At that time, I asked these questions. If we have to build such a huge canopy, how should it be handled? What should we do if there is a fire? Should it be a canopy that covers not the entire area, but only part of the area? Will there be proposals suggesting the construction of a canopy to cover the entire area, whereas in other proposals, the canopy is proposed to cover only half of the area or perhaps even to have many holes in it? In fact, from the three screened-in proposals under consideration, we can see that none of them has proposed the construction of a canopy covering the entire 20 hectares of the site. Perhaps this is due to the concern about how the smoke can be dispersed in case of a fire. At that time, I also asked how such a canopy should be repaired (a question also asked by architects, surveyors, and so on, who came to us to express their views). Can those robots move around both inside and outside the area?

Today, we can see that the several proposals all envisage some difficulties in dealing with this problem. One proposal has even suggested that the canopy be made up of 100 small canopies, rather than constructing just one large canopy, so that rainwater can drip through the gaps between these 100 canopies. It is true that the canopy will be a very appealing icon. But its long-term repairs and maintenance will involve not only a one-off investment of billions of dollars or whether or not the developer has the ability to construct the canopy. Rather, it involves long-term repairs and maintenance work for three, five and 10 years. Therefore, is this project truly practicable? Certainly, this is just estimation, and as technology will continue to advance, perhaps its maintenance could become viable in the next few years. But there is no solution yet. Certainly, all these do give cause for concern.

Back to today's motion and the many amendments to it. Mr Tommy CHEUNG has expressed our views on behalf of the Liberal Party. Perhaps I should further elaborate one of the points made by him about the proposals submitted by the bidders. All the details submitted by them, including the information on financial arrangement, will enable the public to fully grasp their development proposals during the consultation period. On this point, the Liberal Party and the business community used to think that with regard to any agreement or contract concluded with the Government, if details were to be disclosed, we would think that some details, especially those concerning financial arrangements, should be kept confidential. But under this special circumstance, we consider it necessary to handle it in a special way, and this, we think, is more appropriate. Why? Because in the normal auction of property projects, property developers will only have to go to the auction hall and put up their hands, and all they have to do is to pay the deposit. It is unnecessary for them to provide any proposal containing such information as the financial arrangements. In short, everything is based on what is written in the documents for the auction, such as how many hundreds of millions of dollars the site will cost, and a developer will put up his hand if he is interested. So, there is no financial proposal whatsoever. A company can take part in the auction after paying the deposit.

Nevertheless, this proposal now is, in fact, more complicated. A canopy is proposed to be built, and so many cultural and recreational facilities have to be built too, as 2 million-odd sq ft of cultural and recreational facilities will be included. Moreover, regarding the plot ratio for commercial buildings, is it 1.8 or can it be increased to 3.5 or over 4? All these cannot be decided by raising hands or by offering a figure and saying that we agree to allocate $30 billion or $50 billion to the Government.

Speaking of financial arrangements, in fact, the several proposals now only set out part of the financial arrangements. They do not set out the financial arrangements in full. Nor do they provide all the financial arrangements that Members would like to know. For example, in respect of the museums, is equity injection necessary for purchasing worthwhile antiquities for exhibition? Where will these antiquities come from? Are we going to rely only on donations by enthusiasts in the territory? I think collectors in Hong Kong do have some valuable collections, but their quantity will not be enough to enable our museums to reach the world-class standard. We may have to borrow from the Mainland or other countries exhibits for exhibition in the museums. It is difficult for all these financial arrangements to be set out in detail in the proposal. So, I think if some information can be disclosed to some extent, the Government should discuss this with them, so that they will know that it is unnecessary to excessively keep this type of arrangements confidential.

Besides, the Liberal Party already knew this in 2003. Regarding the proposed establishment of a statutory body in the amendment proposed by Mr Albert HO at that time, which, I think, is broadly in line with the concept of item (f) in the amendment proposed by Mr James TO today, we consider that the establishment of a statutory body to restart the planning work is a feasible proposal.

Certainly, I have noticed that as at today, many people are involved in the WKCD development. But I wonder if it is possible for the Government to expressly set the plot ratio at 1.8. With a plot ratio of 1.8, buildings measuring 7.6 million sq ft in floor area can be constructed. Deducting the 2.5 million sq ft for cultural and recreational facilities, we can work out that commercial or residential buildings measuring 5 million sq ft can be built. From this we can work out the relevant benefits, that is, how much the site should worth, and then make a decision. If the single-tender approach is adopted, it should apply only to this site. As for the other sites, they should be put to auction in batches, disregarding whether the plot ratio should be reduced from 3.5 to 1.8, or from 4 to 1.8. I believe this can generate more revenue for the Treasury and also facilitate participation by other property developers or even by a large number of architects and surveyors indirectly in the many projects so derived.

Another point which is more important is that in the future (although we do not know how many years later), when the various projects on the site have completed, the developments there would not be sold as one single property project under one occupation permit. From the angle of land supply, this will enable more property developers to put their flats on sale in the market at different times. To both the sellers and the buyers, this, I think, will enable property developers to play a more positive role in stabilizing property prices.

So, generally speaking, I think it is appropriate to extend the consultation period to six months. I also hope that the Government will consider withdrawing this proposal. We support Mr James TO's amendment.