Policy think tank Liber Research Community has defended its research after Beijing-backed newspaper Wen Wei Po accused the NGO of “soft resistance” through its policy recommendations for Hong Kong’s ecotourism initiatives.
The paper ran a full-page report on Tuesday, accusing the NGO of using “pseudo-science” to challenge the bottom line of national security.
The report also named Greenpeace Hong Kong, which co-hosted a seminar event on ecotourism with Liber and other environmental groups online last month after a local university cancelled their venue booking.
According to the Wen Wei Po report, Liber “has been using pseudo-science as ‘camouflage’ to spread untruthful comments to vilify the government.”
Brian Wong, a researcher at Liber, said he was confident that the think tank’s research was well-founded.
“Our last report was solid, with methodologies, data, and case studies,” Wong told HKFP on Tuesday, adding that the NGO would continue its work.
“If they think what we’re putting out is pseudoscience, more information is needed to substantiate their claim,” he said.
Addressing the “soft resistance” accusation, Wong said: “We are just conducting research and making suggestions for the benefit of Hong Kong’s people and environment.”
‘Done well’
According to Wen Wei Po, Liber’s research is based on the “false premise” that development will always have environmental impacts.
But Wong maintained that Liber was not opposed to the government’s ecotourism initiatives.
“We just want it to be done well. There are always details from which we can derive insights by conducting research,” he said. “The government has itself said that recommendations are welcomed as long as they are based on fact.”
Last month, Liber and Greenpeace published a joint report urging the authorities to set a clear framework for eco-tourism development after discovering that existing arrangements may grant developers more flexibility to build private housing on ecologically sensitive land.
In early July, 10 green groups, including Greenpeace, separately called on the authorities to align ecotourism policies with international standards. They warned that such eco-projects would otherwise endanger local communities and ecosystems if they skewed in favour of property developers’ interests.
On both occasions, the NGOs did not state that they opposed the plan or called for it to be shelved.
Wong also said that the Wen Wei Po report contained inaccuracies.
Contrary to the report’s claims, he said Liber did not attend the press conference held by the Society for Protection of the Harbour, an environmental NGO, which the Development Bureau accused of making “misleading remarks” about a legislative amendment streamlining approval for harbour reclamation works.
Liber also did not draft a template for representation letters regarding the San Tin Technopole, a planned tech park development in the New Territories that has been green-lit despite a 90 per cent opposition rate in a consultation exercise.
The Wen Wei Po report also said that one of Liber’s events, which one of the paper’s reporters attended without revealing their identity, had the makings of an “underground assembly,” quoting a host’s remark that ”what’s said here, stays here.”
