Why Choose Tamar? - 8 Mar, 2006

Tsang’s political capital pinned on government offices?
Problem with Tamar …

Dear Subscribers & Friends

Why Donald Tsang (DT) wants to put so much political capital behind building a new government office complex at Tamar is baffling.

In Beijing last Saturday, he said: “… I have very good justifications for proceeding with this project simply from the point of view of additional employment for the construction industry”.

DT has so far failed to impress legislators who have to vote HK$4.5 billion for Tamar and the more they look at the “justifications”, the more they find them wanting. Win or lose, what does Tamar mean for Tsang?


A. I want Tamar justifications

1. State of play: Since October, LegCo passed 3 motions demanding information - the latest motion passed yesterday regretted the lack of relevant information despite over 220 pages of “stuff” being provided.

2. Justifications:

(a) Government needs more space.
(b) Government needs new space for “technologically-advanced facilities”.
(c) Government needs space quickly.
(d) Government can save money by moving bureaucrats in rented office space to a government-owned space.
(e) Government should have “a respectable government building to signify their status” and to provide “civic pride”.
(f) Government can create 2,700 jobs for the construction industry.

3. LegCo and questions from public:

(a) Why more space when number of officials since 2000 has decreased by 33,000?
(b) What facilities are needed to justify a “new” building i.e why in situ expansion of current space not workable?
(c) Why Tamar is needed when site has been rezoned twice (commercial to GIC and back) since 1994?
(d) What are the cost comparisons?
(e) Why would Tamar make the government more respectable?
(f) Will construction jobs be created with in situ expansion or building on other locations?

4. Government responses so far …

(a) Tamar will have GFA of about 1.2 million sq ft for 3,000 policy-making officials.
(b) Can’t say right now.
(c) Can’t answer.
(d) Will provide.
(e) No answer.
(f) Waffle.

Re (a), 1.2 million sq ft equates to Exchange Square I+II combined, and each officer will enjoy 400 sq ft, or 4 times more space than private sector office employees. On being asked to verify this calculation, there was also no meaningful response.

B. Observations - win or lose

1. DT wants Tamar: Comments of self-glorification are surfacing since the government cannot justify taking the largest and best piece of land for offices when there are other ways to add space. Government refused to release a 1990s report on in situ expansion. Legislators want it because they can then assess whether spending HK$4.5 billion is truly necessary.

2. Other criticisms emerging: No responsible organisation moves offices without an intensive review of existing space and needs, which has not been done.

3. Is it worth it?: Having lost West Kowloon, is it worth having another punch-up on another poorly thought out project? Some commentators say DT cannot afford to lose Tamar because he already lost West Kowloon, which is strange logic.

4. Express strong government: Does DT think “strong government” needs to be expressed through a large expensive complex?

5. History lessons: Ancient rulers (pharaohs/emperors) built amazing structures to glorify their reigns. Outstanding modern political leaders give their people freedom, equality, democracy, far-sighted policies etc. DT has a choice.

CHRISTINE LOH
Civic Exchange - HK’s independent think tank
www.civic-exchange.org