| 回應 : 0 | |||||||||||
(原文發表於2013年10月14日)
本文刊登於2013年9月25日南華早報，以英文發表，實在太忙，無暇翻譯，惟有原文照登，供大家參考。 Afew days ago, the Hong KongTrail, which crosses fivecountry parks on the island,was named by Lonely Planetas one of the top 10 city hikesin the world. It confirms that our countryparks are a world-class treasure,particularly since they are so accessiblefrom the busy city centre.
Some 40 per cent of Hong Kong iscountry-park land; no other major citycan match that. These parks are Hongkongers’great escape; where city folkscan head for fresh air, nature and tranquilscenes. When severe acute respiratorysyndrome struck in 2003, thousandsflocked to country parks, a safehaven away from the virus-infectedcity, leading to enhanced appreciationof the parks’ great value to our wellbeing. In 2011, they had 13 million recordedvisitors. They are the jewel in thecrown of Hong Kong, and we mustspare no effort to safeguard them.
To many people, specially lowwageearners, making a living in the cityis suffocating, debilitating and hardlybearable. But our spacious countryparks welcome all, irrespective ofmeans. There, we can relax; breathe innature’s fragrances; hike in the midst ofbeautiful landscapes; see plants, birds,butterflies and bugs, all the while nourishingthe seeds of happiness in ourhearts. Simply put, we get recharged. Feeling good, we then head back towork for another productive time. Seenin this light, country parks serve us wellas Hong Kong’s eternal spring of energyand happiness.
Unfortunately, suddenly, the wholecity is talking about building houses inthe country parks. It is portrayed as aquick fix to our chronic housing shortage. Anyone speaking up against theidea is relegated to the rank of bird-brained“environmentalist”, or denigratedfor a lack of sympathy for thosein dire need of housing.
Population projections of bygoneyears clearly indicated the growingdemand for housing. But the last governmentsat on its hands for a decade or so. Officials were the apathetic ones, not“environmentalists”.
The argument for turning countryparkland into sites for housing is basically:“It’s a vast area with few people –what a waste!” The idea also works wellas a distraction, taking our gaze awayfrom the core issue – the optimal use ofall types of land in Hong Kong, includingthat in the New Territories.
In town, people are looking at mapsand doing their homework. There areso many specific suggestions: use 1 percent of the country-park area; pushback the country-park boundaryby 30 metres; develop WongNai Chung Gap and theKowloon reservoirs for low- risehomes (for the rich?); a“great wall” of buildingsalong the coast of southernLantau (again, for the rich?).
Within a week, potentialcountry-park invaders areturning up everywhere. It’slike the emergence andspread of cancerous cells. Ittakes only one mutation tocreate an army of cancerouscells. In this case, that mutationwas Development SecretaryPaul Chan Mo-po’sblog article on 8 September.
It is disappointing thatkey government officials cannotgrasp the fundamentalvalues embedded in thecountry-park concept. Onceone piece of country-park landis surrendered, there may wellbe no end to the attrition.
As the proverb says: givethem an inch and they’ll takeamile. And so it would go on. To conserve our countryparks, we have to preventthe first inch being givenup. Thus, the first line ofdefense is effectively the last line; wehave to fight the battle fiercely.
Those in power need to recognisethat the vast country parks are there forgood reason. They provide preciousand invaluable services: giving familieshappy times together; enabling youngpeople to build their character withhikes among the hills; energising tiredsouls; uplifting the depressed; providinga stage for people to enjoy groupactivities and develop collectivestrength through social interactions. Icould go on.
Suffice to say that there is muchmore to our country parks than meetsthe eye. The space is not empty; it is fullof meaning and its value to people issubtle but profound.
Just think of the billions of dollarspeople spend on fitness and trainingclasses every year. Country parks contributeto our well-being at least asmuch, free of charge. They are a greatnatural resource for all, and should notbe depleted permanently in favour ofthe one-off gains for a select few. Thatwould be very poor economics.
The sad fact is that those who workin air-conditioned offices and neverventure into country parks are unableto appreciate their aesthetic and spiritualvalue. They merely see the parks indollar terms, as valuable land lyingempty and a wasted resource. It’s easy,using their logic, to seek to push thegovernment to release this “wasted”land for building housing, thus bringingenormous profits.
But this push runs against the wishesof ordinary people who treasurecountry parks as somewhere wheretheir spirit can be recharged.
For the man in the street, presseddown by the burden of working for a living,country parks offer a gasp of air. They will not let cancerous cells eat intothe parks.
|
Copyright © Easy Property Co., Limited. All Rights Reserved.
