1  Planners cry foul over Queen's Pier survey
Olga Wong, SCMP 2 July 2008

A row among planners over their government-dominated professional body's stance on the future of Queen's Pier has intensified after a survey of members' opinions that some have attacked as loaded towards the official view.

Members of the Hong Kong Institute of Planners have also pointed to a possible conflict of interest in the role of institute president Ling Kar-kan, who is also a principal assistant secretary in the Development Bureau, although Mr Ling says his job has nothing to do with the pier.

The survey was launched last month by the institute's governing council - 11 of the 18 members of which work for government bodies - in response to criticism that it had made a U-turn on preservation of the pier without properly consulting its members.

The row broke out in May when the institute, which had earlier supported preservation of the pier at its original site, submitted a position paper to the government favouring relocation to a new waterfront site on the Central reclamation. It was accused of reaching that decision on the basis of two poorly attended meetings, and was urged to conduct a full survey of members.

But some members are now  angry that the electronic survey was accompanied by a revised position paper reiterating that a majority of members support rebuilding the pier at a new waterfront location rather than at its original, soon-to-be-landlocked, site.

"The council has already drafted the paper and made the conclusion - what is the point of conducting the survey?" former institute vice-president Pong Yuen-yee said.

She asked whether the institute had become an ally of the government, which says leaving the pier at its original site would delay construction of the new P2 road that it says is needed to cut congestion on the Central waterfront.

Although it reiterated the earlier view, the revised paper added, "Reassembling Queen's Pier at its original location would also represent a strong request by some in the community and should be carefully considered."

In a complaint letter to Mr Ling, a council member who is also a senior civil servant said Mr Ling had hijacked discussion at a meeting on pier preservation.

In the letter, seen by the South China Morning Post, the member - who refused to comment directly to the Post - said the president had backed relocation during the meeting, adding: "I am amazed at the [level of] the president's integrity."

In a reply to the Post, Mr Ling denied any conflict of interest, saying he was a professional planning officer of the Planning Department and had been seconded to work in the Development Bureau on cross-boundary planning polices.

He said the paper was drafted for members' comments, and that survey findings would be incorporated into the paper.