2007-07-29

What Queen's Pier? 反對重置皇后碼頭

想來想去,實在想不出皇后碼頭有甚麼價值。四個平庸的毛筆字,同樣平庸的鐵欄、石柱,為甚麼要浪費我們納稅人的血汗錢來重置?港人對這件事已經越來越不理性,假如皇后碼頭要重置,鵝頸橋公廁是不是也要重置?

即使從歷史的角度來看,有多少人去過皇后碼頭多少次,都去那里干了甚麼事情?就本人了來說,以前游船上落點都是在天星的左邊,到卜公碼頭之間。直到回歸后才在皇后碼頭登了一兩次船。在盲目跟從媒體和所謂保育人士的宣傳之前,是否先想想,自己到底對這個地方有甚麼回憶?

我支持拆卸皇后碼頭,反對浪費納稅人的金錢去重置。

政府應該對人民有信心,就來一次民意調查或公眾投票,看看這是多少人的集體回憶。

要重置可以,政府也應該配合。不過應該由這些希望保留的人出錢買地和重置。畢竟,這是你們的集體回憶。

要進行民意調查也不難,先在此做一個網上投票。


(there was something wrong with the poll java script. it is now redone, please vote again)

相關連接:皇后碼頭的困局

9 comments:

t freak said...

i voted "those who care". But in fact, it is not only those who want to preserve it care, but also those who want to tear it down care because the improved infrastructure as a result will benefit them. But if you include the latter group of people as "those who care", this category would mean many people, probably all HK taxpayers.

Sun Bin said...

i was quite simple minded. :)
by 'those who care' i only meant to refer to those who wanted it resurrected.

葉小姐 said...

在皇后靜坐的朋友其實係支持不拆不重置皇后。因為重置等於要拆爛座碼頭,等於令碼頭變到一座垃圾。所以,佢地係反對清拆和搬個碼頭

Sun Bin said...

葉小姐:

我的(個人)意見其實係支持拆而且不支持重置皇后。

我站在他們的對立面。

瞎子 said...

Your survey question is quite misleading...See what will people vote for if you post the following:

Education Poll
Who should pay for HK children's primary education
1. Those who care
2. All HK taxpayers

Medical Poll
Who should pay for public medical services
1. Those who care
2. All HK taxpayers

應科院 poll
Who should pay for research of 應科院
1. Those who care
2. All HK taxpayers

Simon the Libertarian said...

To 瞎子,

You have got the point! Isn't it unfair for everyone to pay for something that only a few cares about?

Those who care pay for whatever they want - that is exactly the message.

Sun Bin, Good job!

anson said...

if you don't know the value of the pier (which is so much more than it's colonial reference and architecture, pls take a look at this video and this special issue.

video here:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=obEkWf86SGI

dl fre phf file here.
http://www.chonghead.net/files/special_issue.pdf

i hope people can know and read more before making a comment.

thanks.
anson
http://beyondthestars.wordpress.com

Sun Bin said...

anson,

ok, i read your pdf link.
i think you guys need to be more objective if you really want people to buy your argument. what i read is something more like CCP propaganda, with a lot of twisted logics, partisan tones and misleading facts. This document is doing a disservice to those who want to preserve the Pier.

e.g.
1) what do they mean by Chris Patten left Queen's Pier with a Perfect Seal? This is a rather absurd statement.
2) 2 concerts for a charity in Taiwan makes the premise a historic site? are you kidding me?
3) The PLA Pier/Port is a different issue. No one is saying one should preserve or remove the PLA site. To bring this into the Queen's Pier discussion just muddle the matter.
4) The Star Ferry issue as well. Yes, I totally disagree with how/where the government moved the Star Ferry Pier. But that does not make me disagree with the QP issue. So what is the point of muddle the QP with the SFP issues?

Discrediting your opponent is okay in a debate. But it is not an argument to support your cause.

Sun Bin said...

i didnt notice this (xiazi's) comment until now.

here is my response (esp from Simon's (apple daily's) angle

1) Education Poll
Who should pay for HK children's primary education
1. Those who care
2. All HK taxpayers
-- compulsory/free education is a specific issue passed as a 'law', if i understand. yes, i think everyone should pay for one's own education. the society have agreed that they are willing to share the cost. this is a decision by discretion, not something taken for granted. e.g. how about replacing "primary education" with "university education" as your example?


Medical Poll
Who should pay for public medical services
1. Those who care
2. All HK taxpayers

yes, i think apple daily believes the medical services should be determined by free market.

應科院 poll
Who should pay for research of 應科院
1. Those who care
2. All HK taxpayers

this institute shouldn't even have been set up! to this i fully agree with Apple Daily. this is a white elephant of Tung Cheehua.

maybe i misunderstood you, maybe you are taking a side that is opposite to the apple daily and try to be sarcastic. apologies in advance.