The bill’s proposal to lower the compulsory sale threshold for both “designated” and “non-designated” areas for buildings aged 60 and above is particularly concerning. Designated areas are those with 300 or more buildings aged 50 or older, and with 200 or more buildings issued with mandatory inspection notices.
Not all districts may warrant such drastic measures, and reducing the threshold in non-designated areas could lead to the unnecessary displacement of long-established communities.
We must remember that many residents in these ageing districts, often elderly and vulnerable, have invested their life savings into their homes. Lowering the threshold could disadvantage them in negotiations with developers, potentially forcing them to sell below market value and uprooting them from their communities.
In response to these concerns, I have formally proposed an amendment to remove the provision for lowering the compulsory sale threshold in non-designated areas. This is not an attempt to obstruct development, but rather an effort to protect the rights of our city’s most vulnerable groups.
As legislators, we have a solemn duty to safeguard the public’s interests and ensure fair, equitable legislation. I urge my fellow policymakers, especially those attuned to the needs of grass-roots communities, to carefully consider this amendment.
I propose the following. First, maintain the existing 80 per cent threshold for non-designated areas. Second, strengthen protection measures for small property owners. Third, develop a more comprehensive building maintenance support programme. Fourth, consider establishing a compensation fund for affected small property owners.
These ageing buildings are not mere structures, but the very homes, memories and lifetimes of hard work that have shaped our city. Let us not prioritise progress at the expense of the people, but seek a solution that balances the need for development with the imperative to protect our most vulnerable citizens. Together, we can build a Hong Kong that truly serves all its residents.
Tik Chi-yuen, Legislative Council member
To keep our streets safe, ban cryptocurrency trading
The demand that the ransom be paid in Tether shows how cryptocurrencies, by nature and design, are an ideal tool for criminals. Cryptocurrency transactions are not regulated by any central authority and transactions are difficult to trace.
The central government has recognised this problem and banned cryptocurrency trading platforms on the mainland. It is worth considering whether the Hong Kong government should follow suit. Banning such trading could help combat crime, particularly extortion, as well as strengthen the regulatory environment and thus protect investors in general.
If Hong Kong had banned cryptocurrency trading, this case might not have occurred at all, or at the very least, the means available to the criminals would have been significantly restricted.
David Chan, Yau Ma Tei
Hong Kong airport mustn’t let down visitors at hello
The airport is where a visitor’s first impression of the city is formed, and so mistakes must be avoided at all costs.
The timing of the incidents could not have been worse. They came as the government launched the “Let’s Go the Extra Mile” campaign, aimed at reminding frontline workers to be more hospitable to tourists. Some have questioned the focus of the campaign though, given that visitors are now more interested in in-depth tourism instead of shopping.
While disruptions are sometimes impossible to predict or prevent, I hope the incidents will inspire the Airport Authority to regularly test its backup systems. Regular drills could also be held to prepare for similar incidents.
Furthermore, I wonder who is being held responsible for the breakdown in the display system.
Lucas Lee, Sha Tin