China-Hong Kong bridge to unity, or tentacle of Beijing control?

[webfact]

China-Hong Kong bridge to unity, or tentacle of Beijing control?

By James Pomfret

REUTERS

 

A worker stands on the Hong Kong-Zhuhai-Macau bridge under construction in Zhuhai, China May 17, 2017. Picture taken May 17, 2017. REUTERS/James Pomfret

 

PEARL RIVER ESTUARY, China (Reuters) - As a 30-km (19-mile) bridge between Hong Kong and China across the Pearl River estuary nears completion, Chinese officials are hoping it will bring more than economic integration at a time of growing tension between the two sides.

 

The bridge that snakes out over the blue estuary with soaring pylons, viaducts and towers using more steel than 60 Eiffel Towers, was first proposed in the late 1980s.

 

But it was opposed at the time by Hong Kong's British colonial government, which was wary of development that might draw the city closer to Communist China.

 

Since Hong Kong returned to Chinese rule in 1997, however, there has been a flurry of projects integrating the port city with the Pearl River Delta's manufacturing and urban sprawl, and stoking some unease in Hong Kong.

 

Wei Dongqing, a Chinese Party official and the executive director of the Hong Kong Zhuhai Macau bridge Authority, one of the leaders of the project, sees the bridge, linking the former European colonies of Hong Kong and Macau with Zhuhai city, as promoting unity, both physically and mentally.

 

"It's psychological. It joins three places," Wei told Reuters on a media-trip bus speeding along the half-finished, six-lane bridge, with the facades of Macau's casinos glimmering in the distance.

 

"We have confidence for the future ... a united market, a united people ... that's the dream."

 

After nearly eight years of construction, the cost of the bridge and tunnel project has ballooned to some $19 billion, at the last estimate.

 

Critics see it as a white elephant, that will struggle to become viable and be unlikely to draw the 40,000 or so vehicles a day as forecast.

 

While most construction is expected to be finished by year-end to allow the first vehicles to cross, Wei said he "wasn't sure" when full operations - including toll booths, customs and immigration facilities - would be ready.

 

"We are facing new challenges after the bridge is completed ... how to operate it, make it efficient, and really benefit the whole area," he said.

 

The Hong Kong Transport Bureau, which oversees the Hong Kong end of the project, gave no specific response to questions on whether more delays and cost-overruns were expected, but said it was confident construction could be completed by the end of the year.

 

Final arrangements were being decided by the three sides, it said in an email.

 

'BLUR THE BORDER'

 

Mainland and Hong Kong officials have long stressed the bridge's economic importance at a time when tension in Hong Kong has escalated, with protests in 2014 over Beijing's refusal to allow full democracy, and suspicion of creeping mainland interference despite a guarantee of autonomy.

 

Some in Hong Kong, apart from questioning the huge sums that could have gone into health, housing and education, are worried about what they see as an erosion of Hong Kong's independent identity in China's increasingly extensive embrace.

 

"You see a kind of network trying to blur the border between Hong Kong and China," said pro-democracy lawmaker Kwok Ka-ki.

 

"In the coming 10 to 15 years, when all these infrastructure projects are completed, you will see Hong Kong is only part of China because you cannot see a clear border."

 

Another project - a multi-billion dollar high-speed rail link - sparked an outcry over plans to allow Chinese immigration facilities to operate on Hong Kong soil.

 

Critics say that undermines Hong Kong's autonomy under a "one country, two systems" formula, under which the city returned to Chinese rule.

 

"I don't think many Hong Kong people mind to be integrated ... but what we want is to do it democratically," said Eddie Chu, who led protests against the rail link and is now an elected lawmaker.

 

"Behind all the protests in the last 10 to 15 years, the core idea is democracy and it's an extension of the democratic movement, whether we have popular control over the direction of economic development and town planning."

 

But project leader Wei, dressed in grey overalls and a white hard-hat, celebrates the integration that the critics decry.

 

"It's actually one bridge, three systems. It's about the law, policy, transportation policy, customs policy," said Wei.

"The bridge is becoming a new icon."

 

 

 

(Additional reporting by Venus Wu; Editing by Robert Birsel)

 

-- © Copyright Reuters 2017-05-19

[elgordo38]

I think the answer is pretty obvious. Not rocket science involved. 

[Stargeezr]

In Canada there is a bridge to PEI and at 46 CDN dollars toll,  you can drive over the bridge, it cost 1 billion to

build. In Quebec there is a bridge that is newish , at 4 billion, there will be no toll, for the Montrealers to pay.   How is this possible,

Quebec corruption, or a PM who made a political promise, to the Quebec premier , at the cost of all Canadian tax payers.

Also there is a bridge getting built from Canada to the USA and it will have a toll of course because it cost

4.8 Billion to build and someone has to pay for it. So in Canada , Yes indeed there is corruption!

Edited May 21, 2017 by Stargrazer9889
mispell

[ilostmypassword]

22 minutes ago, Stargrazer9889 said:

In Canada there is a bridge to PEI and at 46 CDN dollars toll,  you can drive over the bridge, it cost 1 billion to

build. In Quebec there is a bridge that is newish , at 4 billion, there will be no toll, for the Montrealers to pay.   How is this possible,

Quebec corruption, or a PM who made a political promise, to the Quebec premier , at the cost of all Canadian tax payers.

Also there is a bridge getting built from Canada to the USA and it will have a toll of course because it cost

4.8 Billion to build and someone has to pay for it. So in Canada , Yes indeed there is corruption!

What exactly is the corruption here?

[boomerangutang]

                        Any Hong Kongian with any sense, split when it was announced (along with Brit's Pewter Lady Thatcher) that the UK was giving the colony to China.   Thatcher didn't have to do it, but she and Brit authorities had soft spines that year.  The signed treaty between China (royals) and UK, includes the word, "in perpetuity."   What about the phrase 'in perpetuity' do Brit leaders not understand?   

 

Note: the 'in perpetuity' part specified the entire region south of Boundary Road, which runs E/W thru the north part of Kowloon. 

[Scott]

I lived in HK from the late 80's through part of the 90's.   The people with money did leave, or sent a family member to try and establish citizenship (where the spouse & family could follow).   Most of these people sent the wife and maybe the kids.   The US was popular for a time, but then people realized they had to pay tax once citizenship was granted, even on overseas income.  

 

Canada became a prime destination for many. 

 

Many had no real intention of leaving HK, but saw a passport from a 3rd country as an insurance policy.  

 

The 'in perpetuity'  was for HK Island only (and I believe the portion of the mainland up to Boundary Road)  It did not include the New Territories, which was  the biggest portion of HK.   The reasoning of Thatcher was that HK Island alone was not economically viable.   The lease on the New Territories was up in 1997 and thus the decision to return the entire colony.  

 

 

[thaihome]

Though I'm on the side of the HK democracy/independence movement,  this article is really grasping at straws to make that a reason to be against the bridge. All it takes is a quick look at the map and you can see the bridge is about connecting Zuhai and Macao to the HK airport, something that is sorely missing at this point. Was it worth a $18 billion bridge to shorten the trip by likely an hour or more, who knows. 

TH 

[Thakkar]

16 minutes ago, boomerangutang said:

                        Any Hong Kongian with any sense, split when it was announced (along with Brit's Pewter Lady Thatcher) that the UK was giving the colony to China.   Thatcher didn't have to do it, but she and Brit authorities had soft spines that year.  The signed treaty between China (royals) and UK, includes the word, "in perpetuity."   What about the phrase 'in perpetuity' do Brit leaders not understand?   

 

Note: the 'in perpetuity' part specified the entire region south of Boundary Road, which runs E/W thru the north part of Kowloon. 

 

First of all that treaty was signed by China under duress after a brief war started by Britain with a most shameful and flimsiest of excuses. Any self-respecting modern Brit should be glad to see the end of that shameful saga.

 

Secondly, what Scott said: the part that was given "in perpetuity" was, by itself, non viable. 

 

HK is inexorably becoming part of China, and not in a good way. But that is the arc of history until China itself changes to be more liberal, which may or may not happen in my lifetime.

[Thakkar]

12 minutes ago, thaihome said:

Though I'm on the side of the HK democracy/independence movement,  this article is really grasping at straws to make that a reason to be against the bridge. All it takes is a quick look at the map and you can see the bridge is about connecting Zuhai and Macao to the HK airport, something that is sorely missing at this point. Was it worth a $18 billion bridge to shorten the trip by likely an hour or more, who knows. 

TH 

Since the 1980's the HK government has, sometimes inexplicably, over invested in infrastructure. That proclivity continues. Meanwhile, many elderly in HK, the generation that made HK prosperous, suffer in small rooms with little money to spare even though the government can more than afford to look after them better.

[boomerangutang]

11 hours ago, Scott said:

I lived in HK from the late 80's through part of the 90's.   The people with money did leave, or sent a family member to try and establish citizenship (where the spouse & family could follow).   Most of these people sent the wife and maybe the kids.   The US was popular for a time, but then people realized they had to pay tax once citizenship was granted, even on overseas income.  

Canada became a prime destination for many. 

Many had no real intention of leaving HK, but saw a passport from a 3rd country as an insurance policy.  

The 'in perpetuity'  was for HK Island only (and I believe the portion of the mainland up to Boundary Road)  It did not include the New Territories, which was  the biggest portion of HK.   The reasoning of Thatcher was that HK Island alone was not economically viable.   The lease on the New Territories was up in 1997 and thus the decision to return the entire colony.  

                                   Granted, the New Territories comprise a larger land mass than the lower sections.  Yet, the lower sections are the prized possessions.   You and I don't agree about whether the region south of Boundary Road would have been able to become a viable city-state on its own, like Singapore.  I think it could, physically.   Politically, is another matter, as China would be breathing down its neck, at the least.  However, a signed treaty is a signed treaty.   And 'in perpetuity' means  'in perpetuity.'      

 

                       If treaties can be trashed willy nilly, then perhaps France can take back the Louisiana Purchase, or Russia can take back Alaska, each claiming they were swindled.  

[Scott]

12 minutes ago, boomerangutang said:

                                   Granted, the New Territories comprise a larger land mass than the lower sections.  Yet, the lower sections are the prized possessions.   You and I don't agree about whether the region south of Boundary Road would have been able to become a viable city-state on its own, like Singapore.  I think it could, physically.   Politically, is another matter, as China would be breathing down its neck, at the least.  However, a signed treaty is a signed treaty.   And 'in perpetuity' means  'in perpetuity.'      

 

                       If treaties can be trashed willy nilly, then perhaps France can take back the Louisiana Purchase, or Russia can take back Alaska, each claiming they were swindled.  

I am not arguing, I am just trying to put some historical perspective on the reasoning.   Thatcher was most likely correct that HK Island would not have been viable.   Most of the factories had long before the decision to return, moved to the New Territories and many had had moved to China (Shenzhen), which had been declared a Special Economic Zone.  

 

Whether HK Island was viable is debatable, but while I was there it was a mass of people with services as it's primary business.   It was dependent upon China for water and electricity -- which the Chinese periodically threatened to cut off.

 

HK Island is not very big.   Even Lantau Island is much larger than HK.  

 

But I think we are straying off-topic.  

[Stargeezr]

THhe corrution is that the people of Montreal and Quebec do not have to pay a toll after 4 billion was spent

on a bridge in Montreal City, yet everyone in PEI and users of the other new bridge have to all pay a hefty

toll on the other two bridges. The corruption is with the PM and the Montreal Mayor.

Capish! Khao Jai Mai?

[Chris Lawrence]

I thought it said Testicle?

 

That is probably where they really are anyway. But just a bad itch for the Chinaman.