Association accuses officials of keeping public in dark over management of plants
The Leisure and Cultural Services Department has come under fire again for keeping the public in the dark about the recent removal of at least two registered old and valuable trees.
The Conservancy Association said the removals showed the department's lack of transparency in managing registered trees.
The department was criticised after university student Kitty Chong Chung-yin was killed when part of a tree collapsed on her while she was walking along Stanley Main Street last week. The department had said the tree was in an acceptable state when it carried out a detailed inspection one month earlier.
The association recently discovered that a 15-metre Sydney blue gum in Victoria Park had been cut down after it was suspected of being uprooted during Typhoon Nuri last month. Leaves of the tree were sparse, indicating the plant was in bad health.
A shrubby woodfordia at Chater Garden in Central had also been removed after it had been ailing for some time. The tree was simply a bare trunk with no leaves.
Neither removal was made public nor explained by the department.
Last night, the department revealed there were actually seven old and valuable trees blown over by storms this year, and two were chopped down as they were in danger of collapse.
Peter Li Siu-man, public affairs manager of the Conservancy Association, said it had written to the Development Bureau and Home Affairs Bureau demanding a review on the urban tree-protection mechanism.
"The real issue is not about professionalism of tree officers but what is actually being done to protect the trees. The public has the right to know if the issue is related to public safety," Mr Li said.
So Kwok-yin, a tree expert with the association who has been assisting police with the inquiry into the Stanley fatality, said he had found the department unwilling to release and share information about trees at risk.
As part of the four-member expert group advising the department on registered trees, Mr So said he was never systematically briefed about the tree-inspection procedures.
In response to the criticism, the department only said the two trees were "blown down".
"Currently, having taken into account the public safety, we have accorded priority to field work on inspection of trees, the updating of the registry has to be accorded lower priority," it said.
The department said yesterday that it had sent its condolences to the family of Kitty Chong but did not provide more details.
Meanwhile, government workers yesterday cut down an 18-metre tree from near the junction of Stanley Village Road and Carmel Road. The action was prompted by complaints that the tree, believed to be a big-leaved fig, was diseased and in danger of collapse.
Discussion question: Recently, the action of LCSD to remove old trees with potential danger was criticized for keeping the public in the dark. Do you think it is right for the LCSD to remove the old trees without the approval from the citizens? (Please leave your comment of not less than 150 words)
Posts
7 comments:
I think it is unnecessary for the LCSD to get the approval from citizens though the action of LCSD was really criticized for keeping the public in the dark.
Actually, the department was criticized is due to the insufficient of transparency, to solve this problem, LCSD can just increase their transparency, such as notify the general public before they remove the old trees and with clear explanation. Moreover, they can publish report which about the detail of the inspection of those trees.
In addition, if the LCSD need to get the approval from public, it will be more danger. As the process that getting approval from public is time consuming, if the trees are too old or are in danger of collapse, our safety will be affect and the chance of people get hurt and have accident will increase during the period that having consultation.
As a result, I think the LCSD has the right to remove the old trees without getting the approval from public especially when there have typhoon or other disaster.
::Yenzi::
I do think that it's right for the LCSD to remove the old trees without the approval from the citizens.
As LCSD is a government department, I think there should be some sort of serious examines system for them to check weather a tree is dangerous or not. I think those system adopted by LCSD should be reliable and efficacious.
If every movement of the LCSD has to be observed by the public, it may result in several problems.
Firstly, there are always people against for no reason. They think that every act by the government is aimed to rob things from them. They never think why the government has to do that.
Secondly, public's opinion is easily affected by the mass media. When the journalist found mistake from the government, although it may be a small problem, they will highly blame on it with "proof" that makes things look serious. So the public would follow the mass media's opinion.
Someone may ask, if the public could not supervise the government, who could? The councilor could. Or else, why should we elect those councilors to represent us? They are elected to supervise and give advice to the government, we should
To sum up, there is not a must for the approval of the public when LCSD tries to remove trees they think are dangerous. Otherwise, more and more “Trees killing someone” topics came up and LCSD would be blamed by the public again and again.
Teddy 6A2
The issue of environmental conservation has been forever in high priority. Therefore, the dissatisfaction expressed by the public is understandable. As important as creating a green city is, ensuring the safety of citizens is even more crucial. Thus, this decision made by the government is reasonable.
The pollution problem has been worsening, and since Hong Kong is such a small place, we tend to protect every tree possible, especially those with historical values. Though it is pitiful and unfair for the removal of these trees without our consent, the government was just trying to protect us. Time matters, if these trees were not cut down immediately, our lives maybe at risk. That is why even we were put in the dark, they have done right.
If every removal of a tree needs the agreement of the public, the project will never be accomplished. Every individual has their own point of view, thus, it will take a long time before a tree could be cut down. By then, it might be too late.
Besides, the government has done other measures to protect our environment. Like plantation, investigating in renewable resources and controlling pollution index in factories. As Hong Kong citizens, we should understand the actions made by the government and their sworn responsibility towards us.
Dear Yenzi,
The rationale you came up with to support the LCSD is compelling and to the point. In terms of language, no major structural errors can be found.
Mr. Fu
Dear Teddy,
There are some errors:
1. "serious examines system" -> serious inspection system
2. "weather" -> whether
These are minor mistakes only. I really appreciate the rationale you came up with and the sense of current affair you have got.
Mr. Fu
Dear HC,
I think you have given us a balanced viewpoint first and your opinion afterwards. People in Hong Kong are demanding more from the government departments. They can sometimes be unreasonable. Your way of rebuking their point of view is quite remarkable. Good work!
Mr. Fu
Where from the news article could you get the idea that the green groups or citizens were demanding prior approval from the public?
Please do not mislead your students.
Post a Comment