It seems that nowadays whatever proposal put forward by the Hong Kong government is bound to meet opposition. Environmental protection groups have become the biggest stumbling blocks to the city's effective governance as well as development, just in the name of preserving the environment. More unsettling, it becomes ever more prevalent that many development projects are brought to a standstill as a result of the warfare fanned by environmental activists and the opposition camp.

It is therefore unsurprising that when the latest controversies take center stage in this political wrangling, namely a proposed artificial beach at Lung Mei in Tai Po and the redevelopment of the West Wing of the old Central Government Office, one cannot help but ask whether the SAR government should continue to bow to populist pressure at the peril of the city's development and effective governance. Where should the demarcation line be drawn in the balance of conservation and development, as well as in the art of making political compromise? When should the government stand firm or back down? This is the question.

That said, I am not a big fan of the government's plan to turn the existing stone beach into an artificial sandy beach at Lung Mei nor do I have any arguments about preserving this natural and lovely environment with high ecological value. I even concur with the opponents' view that it is not a necessary thing to destroy the natural habitat for endangered species such as seahorses, starfish and hermit crabs, in exchange for something artificial. But this does not mean that I agree with those green activists launching their last-minute challenge to this plan without regard to due process when the project is now open for public tender after going through all the required scrutiny and procedures.

I do not doubt that the green groups have their own justified grounds for opposing the HK$208 million ($26.84 million) project for the construction of the 200-meter-long beach along the existing 3-kilometer-long rocky coast. They raise concerns about the relocation of marine life to the Ting Kok coast, southwest of Lung Mei, as well as the poor water quality at Lung Mei deemed to be unfit for swimming. The relocation plan, as they put it, might not work as the marine species might die in the process. They also branded the environmental impact assessment of the area approved by the Advisory Council on the Environment (ACE) as a "flawed" study which misled the public.

For whatever justifications they think gives them licence to demand a re-start or even an overturning of the government's decision, we have to bear in mind that Lung Mei is not a new project. It had been on the table of the Tai Po District Council for consultations for more than a decade and gained a final approval from the Legislative Council. The plan has also been revised with a relocation plan and a new sewage network to tackle the conservation of the marine life as well as the pollution there.

All the more, why they did not raise a judicial review when the Environmental Protection Department granted a work permit in November 2008? Why wasn't the disagreement voiced when the related funding requests were tabled at the LegCo's Finance Committee for approval in July. They chose to wait until after the planning stage. Are all the marine species and pollution problems new discoveries to them? If any development projects should be put to a halt any time, only through their wielding of the "imperial sword" under the name of environmental protection, how can the government push for the city's development? How can effective governance be feasible and what is the point of going through all the statutory procedures?

The other issue raising my eyebrows is the government's reported U-turn on the redevelopment plan of the West Wing of the old government headquarters into a 32-storey financial and legal-based tower. As opposed to the grade-two rating given in June, the Antiquities Advisory Board is likely to give the West wing the highest historic grading at a board meeting next month. It was reported that the change of heart of the board is a response to public opinion.

Actually I find this reasoning baffling. I would see this a political compromise more than anything else. Shouldn't board members grade this building according to its historical, architectural and sentimental value based on their respective expertise? If the government easily yields to political pressure and scraps the plan simply because of a change of public opinion, how can it find enough land to cater to the growing demand for the city's development?

This city is in dire need of more supply of Grade A offices, especially in Central. Because of the acute shortage of top-grade offices, the rent for commercial premises is sky-rocketing, driving small and medium businesses out of the street. Without sufficient land for more housing supply, how can people's livelihoods be made sustainable? If every development project should make way for conservation, will there be any hope for the city's development?

The author is a current affairs commentator.