Our Right to the City 宜居城市

Our Right to the City 宜居城市

You can’t just hang banners everywhere (通街亂放易拉架), or play loud music (嘈吵的音樂), or keep bright lights on (招牌的光污染) and keep people awake. It is common sense. People have a right to a peaceful home. People have a right to enjoy pleasant streets. These are universal values.

In Amsterdam, the city known for its many freedom, these laws are enforced with great efficiency by the authorities. Banners would have been cleared from Sai Yeung Choi Street; designated spots would have been identified for buskers to apply for; and strict limits on the use of amplifiers. While buildings like Sogo would have its external lights switched off overnight.

So why is it that in Hong Kong our Police and FEHD (食物環境衛生署) fail to enforce the laws we do have? Why is the Government waiting for a miraculous consensus to decide on light pollution laws (while it does not wait for a consensus when deciding on the Express Rail or Palace Museum)? (為何光污染立法要等共識？興建高鐵及故宮博物館就不需要共識？)

The difference is that people in Amsterdam believe that democracy works. They participate in active discussions over the right and wrong of minute details, and derive at sensitive solutions which place the people, the residents, and the livability of the city, at the core. That trust created an opportunity to decide that prostitution makes the street safer; and that the availability of soft drugs keeps the pushers of hard drugs off the street. But in Hong Kong, we can’t even rule on simple things like light and noise pollution. It is time to put our residents and livability at the core. (我們需要以市民利益出發，令香港成為宜居城市)。

Above was first published in AM730 on 2 November 2017.