雄濤廣播計劃坪洲興建發射站

http://www.rthk.org.hk/rthk/radio1/openline_openview/20081114.html

綠衡者前晚做了一個網上電台訪問，見：http://www.bhkr.org/replay.php?prog=hkexit

敬啟者：

反對雄濤廣播有限公局在坪洲興建發射設施

本人居於香港島，由於方便，各個離島是本人假期常去的地方。最近得悉雄濤公局將在坪洲手指山建廣播發射設施，對此本人深感憂慮和不滿。

離島是香港地理的一大特色，在急促城市化的環境中，離島成為香港罕有的綠色地帶。另外，離島也保留了不少傳統村落的文物和農耕文化，加上不少有心人士在離島推動的另類旅遊、有機耕種等，為香港的多元發展提供了不可多得的空間。近年政府多番強調保育環境和文物的重要，但可惜具體施政上往往反其道而行。

以坪洲為例，這個小島面積不大，人口不多，可能正因為它小，不具「發展價值」而得以保留閒適的生活氣息，令訪客享受到有別於「大眾旅遊」(mass tourism)的樂趣。政府本該盡力保育這樣的小島，但政府沒有這樣做，相反批准雄濤公司在坪洲最重要的休憩地帶建廣播發射設施，今人失望。

據知坪洲北面已有一座廣播塔。在坪洲這樣一個小島上設立兩座廣播塔，居民的健康很可能受到影響。居民應有權獲得更多資訊，並且參與決定是否應在島上興建第二座廣播發射設施。可惜政府根本不重視居民的權利，事前並未認真諮詢居民的意見，而只是悄悄在準備興建發射設施的地點附近張貼諮詢告示，而諮詢期更只有14天。雖然這種「公眾諮詢」任誰都看得出是門面功夫，可惜政府樂此不疲。對於這倒行逆施的施政手法，市民不能不感到憤慨。

本人在此呼籲有關當局立即停止有關計劃，並廣泛諮詢坪洲居民的意見。作為香港市民一員，我深切希望當局認真保育坪洲這個小島，停止對坪洲環境的任何破壞舉動。為了我們下一代，為了香港的未來，我們應該努力保育香港所有離島和郊野，同時減少全港各區不必要的和破壞環境的設施。此致

離島民政事務專員林聖傑先生

副本寄：
民政事務總署署長陳甘美華女士
署理離島地政專員李妙蘭女士
地政總署署長譚贛蘭女士
電訊管理局總監黎陳芷娟女士
梁耀忠議員

特區政府官員，再次蒙騙市民。廣管局在本年二月二十六日對雄濤廣播有限公司之咨詢文件 (WaveMediaNotice_c.pdf) 列明

附件第五頁，第3項技術資料 : 以 ”多路傳輸” 方式廣播，並利用現有的中頻線作傳輸之用。
附件第五頁，第4項其他資料 : 雄濤廣播計劃採用”多路傳輸”系統和共用發射天線方式傳送服務，避免建造一座新的發射站的需要。因此，雄濤廣播預計沒有進行建築工程的需要。

但是, 在政府檔案編號：CTB(CR)9/2/27 (08) Pt.2有關雄濤廣播有限公司提出的聲音廣播牌照申請，記錄如下

附件第三頁：申請人建議在坪洲興建一個新的發射站，並採用 AM 810 千赫頻道提供覆蓋全港的廣播服務。

附件第八頁：雄濤廣播的發射站將位於坪洲，與現時供香港電台，香港商業廣播有限公司(商台)及新城廣播有限公司共用的發射站相距 800 米。

約10多個街坊出來，招呼我地的軍裝都有７﹑８個，仲有一個警民關係科的阿蛇。有兩三個相信係政府的女士受命落嚟聽和 take note（口稱嚟做野）。已「邀請」楊立門１１月８號下午入坪洲。到場記者好似得星島。

There are approx. 1,500 objection recieved in one day 

 

Key points:

• Significant response in objection to the proposed development
• Poor publicity and insufficient notice
• Environmental and lifestyle concerns
• Poor representation of public opinion on the proposed development
• Health concerns
• The property market and negative attitude towards transmission sites

 
 

• Significant response in objection to the proposed development

 

On just one day between 1,400 and 1,500 signatures were obtained in a petition against the development: a remarkable feat considering that Sunday is a quiet day in Peng Chau. Had there been enough time to prepare for the weekend (see below), Saturday would surely have brought in the same amount if not more signatures. If the Government does not believe that this number of objections is enough to cancel the proposed development then we would ask, at least, given the manner in which this has been dealt with thus far, that they provide the Peng Chau public with at least one more weekend to object.  
 

• Poor publicity and insufficient notice

 

The District Lands Office issued a letter on 24 October 2008 that was not been sufficiently publicised to the people of Peng Chau, who ultimately will be affected, nor did it give a clear explanation as to why Peng Chau has been chosen for the proposed development i.e., what other sites were looked at and why they were not suitable?  

Only two notices were found, one amongst rubble and one pasted behind other posters 

One notice was found amongst construction rubble under an unlocked community message board at the bottom of Shing Ka Road. A second notice at the community notice board on Wing On side-street had partially been covered by another notice stuck on top of the glass. There was no notice on the community message board by the pier – the most visible notice board that Peng Chau residents are most likely to take an interest in. There were however some six pages of small-print hand-written pages posted near the pier, without the District Lands Office’s letter and without the map illustrating where the development would be located.

Residents learnt of the proposed development “by accident” 

Some residents learnt of the Proposed Development on Friday 31 October when a local took a walk to the site and asked why construction workers were digging. Construction workers could not give him a clear answer, so he decided to investigate further.  

Proposed development a “foregone conclusion?” 

Residents believe that the fact that excavation has already begun despite a objection deadline being set, is insensitive and gives no regard to their opinions. It suggests that the Government and Wave Media (whose board of directors include Legislator and ex-Commercial Radio broadcaster Albert Cheng King-hon, Chinese People’s Political Consultative Conference member Wong Cho-bau, and former education chief Arthur Li Kwok-Cheung, Executive Counselor Ronald Arculli, David Li, the banker and former executive counsellor, and media executives) are not interested in their views. 

Poor Safety Standards 

No fence was erected around the perimeter of the digging where neighbourhood children often play.  
 

• Environmental and lifestyle concerns

 

An area of natural beauty 

The proposed development site is green belt land and is one of the few if not the only ‘natural’ and open area remaining in Peng Chau that residents are able to enjoy during their leisure time that is not concreted over. The fact that the proposed development is proposed on Peng Chau at all is in sharp contradiction to a December 15 2006 Government press release stating that the Chief Executive had approved the Draft Peng Chau Outline Zone Plan S/I-PC/8 (OZP) and that: 

“The planning intention for the Area is primarily to protect the natural landscape, the rural character and car-free environment of the [Peng Chau and Tai Lei] islands.” Just as the updated plan of S/I-PC/9 allows for additional services “so as to provide convenient services to passengers, local visitors and tourists using the Peng Chau Pier.” Most Peng Chau residents believe that the area of the proposed development is an area of natural beauty with sweeping views of the Hong Kong harbour. Indeed it is enjoyed by locals, as well as other Hong Kong residents and tourists visiting the island. The Green Peng Chau Association, for example, writes on their site: 

“Along the walk from Finger Hill to the pumping station, a side path leads towards the nearby seacoast and the pavilion at the end of the earth. Here as beautiful as a painting, one gets a wonderful view of the natural rugged seacoast and in the distance a view of Hong Kong Island and Kowloon.” 
 

• Poor representation of public opinion on the proposed development

 

The response to the Broadcasting Authority’s press release inviting the public to express their views on Wave Media’s application, yielded only 57, only five of which were from members of the Hong Kong public. Are five responses from the public representative of our active endorsement of the proposed development? Indeed, of the HK$140 million that will be injected into Wave Media what are the benefits to the Peng Chau public in relation to the damage to their lifestyle and environment, coupled with the potential health issues that may effect them? 
 

• Health concerns

 

Peng Chau Public should be given more than 14 days to form opinions as to how the proposed development might effect their health 

OFTA’s pamphlet on Radiofrequency Electromagnetic Radiation (RFR) states that “no definite conclusions can be drawn” as to whether “radiofrequency radiation brings hazards to health.” In addition, while OFTA states that they have “adopted international standards for the protection of […] the public against non-ionising radiation hazards,” there have been numerous studies that show potentially serious biological effects from RFR exposure far below the current safety standards in the US and UK [1].  

In his article, “Sins Of Transmission?,” Alexander Hellemans writes that “whether the focus is on cellular changes or statistical anomalies found in connection with radio transmitters, high-power lines, or mobile telephony […] research should continue, because RF radiation is so ubiquitous.” He quotes quotes Anders Ahlbom of the Karolinska Institute in Stockholm, Sweden: “So many people are exposed. I think it makes sense to try to investigate as much as possible whether there might be any risks.” 
 

• The property market and negative attitude towards transmission sites

 

Whether or not health concerns are real, negative attitudes towards transmission sites remain and will have an adverse effect on rental and real estate prices on the island.  

Peng Chau is home to some of the most affordable properties in Hong Kong. Many residents may not have the means to move to another part of Hong Kong should they wish to. For example,an owner is allegedly having difficulty selling his apartment because it is next to a block that has a large amount of receivers belonging to a telecommunication company on its roof. Several prospective buyers have rejected the property because of its close proximity to the equipment. The owner moved out of the apartment after just two months because he was not aware of the receivers at the time he bought the property.  
 

1 Studies Matrix compiled by Sage Associates and published in http://www.wave-guide.org/library/studies.html