Can Hong Kong ever devise a publicly funded project – especially of the ‘hub’ variety – that doesn’t end up with a real-estate play? RTHK says…
The West Kowloon Cultural District Authority will be allowed to sell residential developments within Zone 2 of the site and keep all proceeds received from tenders to private developers.
This means the development of hotels, offices and residential blocks in the zone will no longer be restricted by the “Build-Operate-Transfer (BOT) only” model adopted since 2016.
…”Instead of having a constant stream of income in the many years in future, we are now cashing in for a lump sum upfront, which could help release the financial challenges or the requirement at present.”
The authority will have to meet certain requirements, including a triennial cap on operating deficits and a cap on the percentage of staff costs in relation to the total annual operating expenditure.
The body’s chairman, Henry Tang, said they can now avoid “drastic” cost-cutting measures such as reducing the number of days each week that the M+ museum is open.
The Standard gushes about the ‘exclusive community’ that will take shape amid the cultural treasures.
Does Hong Kong want a showcase or not? If you’ve ever been to the amazing range of museums and galleries on the Mall in Washington DC, or the British Museum, or the Louvre, or even the tiny but horrifying Museum of Parasitology in Tokyo, you will notice that they don’t survive by amputating parts of ‘Zone 2’ of their property for developers to build luxury apartment blocks. If it serves the public good to use taxpayers’ money to keep such facilities running (and we happily fund public schools and libraries), then just do it. Why fetishize ‘not straining the public coffers’?
(And why is Henry Tang the poor schmuck heading this up? The guy should be on display in a museum, not figurehead-running the things.)
In its editorials, the Wall Street Journal comes across as a stern critic of authoritarian regimes and a defender of individual liberty. But in real life, it seems it’s as ready to do a pre-emptive kowtow as any multinational bank or German trade minister. The paper fires Selina Cheng for taking part in the election for chair of the HK Journalists Association.
A statement from her is here. According to Xinqi Su, WSJ sees a conflict of interest if an employee is promoting press freedom in her personal life while potentially writing about press freedom in her professional one. OK – so you can sort of see the point, though it’s close to saying a reporter can’t write about breathing or eating if she breathes or eats. We couldn’t think of a better argument.
The obvious context: the HKJA has recently been denounced by Hong Kong officials and Beijing’s Global Times.
Nothing unexpected here.
Calm down dear!
You must have known that anything Henry does turns into a Horlicks.
Inbreeding is not confined to horses and other animals.
WSJ = Murdoch. Nuff said.
Given the HKJA will soon surely be outlawed, the WSJ probably doesn’t want another one of their journalists in jail, like their reporter currently in jail in Russia. So they fired her first.
I thought that the Consumer Council was being very brave in publishing its less than flattering review of Nongfu Spring ‘natural’ water. The boss is China’s wealthiest individual.
So not surprised at groveling retraction.
“Following discussions with Nongfu Spring representatives and a detailed review of the product’s labelling and production standards, it was determined that the water should have been classified as ‘drinking natural water’ according to mainland Chinese regulations. This distinction is crucial, as it significantly alters the applicable safety standards and the interpretation of the test results.
The Consumer Council’s approach to testing, while well-intentioned, revealed the complexities of applying uniform standards to products from diverse global origins. In an attempt to provide consumers with a comprehensive comparison, the council had applied broader international standards to a range of bottled waters from various countries. This one-size-fits-all approach, however, failed to account for the nuances of regional regulations and product classifications.”
Draw your own conclusions …………………………
As someone who has bought one bottle of water in the last decade, and that because water supply to building was cut and might not have been restored until morning, it was restored a few hours later so the bottle is under the sink for emergency use, I cannot fathom why folk spend good money and pollute the earth with billions of plastic water bottles when in many places the local water supply is as good, or often better than the bottled products.
The genius behind this demand creation formula unleashed a demon.
@Mary Melville
A rare disagreement with you. Not sure about “many places”:
https://bigthink.com/strange-maps/drink-tap-water-50-countries/
And I wonder how many people in HK don’t drink tap water if they can avoid it because they simply don’t trust the government. Exhibit A: The cringing apology you quoted above.
I wouldn’t drink HK tap water straight if you paid me. The water we cook with is filtered and boiled, and the stuff we drink comes in 5-litre containers. No guilty feelings, though, as I never had kids or owned a car, and the water containers get put in the plastic recycling bin.
But plastic doesn’t really get recycled though. It’s too difficult, too expansive and virgin plastic is too cheap. You might feel good putting it into the recycling bin, but it goes straight to landfill.
About 5% of the plastic set out for recycling is ever actually reused.
That’s apart from the issues of safe drinking water and trusting the government to provide it.
I have been drinking unfiltered “Hong Kong gin” for 45 years. Maybe that’s why I never caught Covid.
@reductio – even if they trust the government, how many people trust the plumbing system in the building they live in? The water may be as pure as the government claims when it enters the building, but does it then go straight to their tap, or via a rusty rarely-cleaned roof tank before it reaches them? And if Hong Kong’s water is so clean, how come a pristine white water filter turns a murky brown after a few weeks of use?
But the bottled water purveyors are flogging is the same water that is piped into our homes. Giving it a fancy name and flashy label does not transform it in a wedding in Cana moment into sparkling spring water.
So same water but with the added negative of generating plastic pollution.
Re the rusty roof tanks, unfortunately here home owners who do not pay the management fees face no penalites so many buildings are badly maintained.
HK water seems fine to me; never had a problem.
“But plastic doesn’t really get recycled though. It’s too difficult, too expansive and virgin plastic is too cheap. You might feel good putting it into the recycling bin, but it goes straight to landfill.”
I know. I don’t feel good, it just keeps the wife happy.
(My tap water smells weird; bottled water doesn’t. That’s evidence enough for me.)
“Re the rusty roof tanks, unfortunately here home owners who do not pay the management fees face no penalites so many buildings are badly maintained.”
Seems like an endless cycle then.
@Young Winston
@ Chinese Netizen
Yes, the problem seems to lie in the pipes and tanks, not the water itself.