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