How would the Singaporean government react if it were confronted with the opportunity to resume 32 hectares of a private golf course for public use, as will be the case at Fanling this September?
Well, last month the Singaporean government announced that in 2027 it will resume the land currently occupied by the Singapore Turf Club, following its earlier decisions to resume the land of two golf clubs, namely the Jurong Country Club in 2015 and the Keppel Club in 2022. All these decisions were made on the principle of prioritizing basic public needs, in this case, to address Singapore’s public housing shortage.
Such is the resolve of the Singaporean government to act in the wider public interest, disregarding the privileges of its elite. Little wonder that the Singapore government is widely deemed to be ahead of its Hong Kong counterpart in many respects.
No one disputes that Hong Kong is suffering from a serious housing shortage, with the waiting time for public housing having risen to six years from the special administrative region government’s promised three years. Most university graduates in Hong Kong know that it will take their lifetime earnings to buy a “nano” flat. The central government has identified unaffordable housing as a major factor leading to public discontent in Hong Kong and has named it the most pressing issue for the government to tackle.
When Hong Kong conducted a major public consultation in 2018 to address the housing problem, there were strong views that the entire 172 hectares which constituted the Fanling golf course should be reallocated. Yet, the government eventually compromised by agreeing to resume only 32 hectares, or less than one-sixth of the land, for public housing and public amenities. The government also undertook to review the future use of the golf course. The decision was acceptable to the community at the time.
Now the tide has turned. There is a strong view now, as reported in the media, that the government should abandon the resumption altogether. The opponents still seem to be intent on putting up obstacles against resumption.
First, the Advisory Council on the Environment caused an unprecedented delay in approving the Environmental Impact Assessment because of the alleged need to assess the activities of birds flying near the golf course and to ascertain any environmental hazard.
Next came the Town Planning Board stage, which elicited 6,788 responses from the public, with an overwhelming 99.6 percent against the proposal.
During the public hearings of the Town Planning Board, the golf club lined up a star-studded list of opponents, including heavyweight politicians, prominent businesspeople, professors and former senior government officials. A foreign consul general also appeared at the hearing to support the opposition to the resumption plan without regard for diplomatic niceties.
A former board member of the Town Planning Board reportedly addressed its members, warning them of the “hidden pressure” they would face. It seems the golf club has pulled out all the stops in lobbying against the resumption. It should disclose how much it has spent on its public relations campaign.
In the interest of transparency, all those who support the club should declare their interest, including whether they are members, or are applying for club membership for themselves or their close relatives. It’s said that the entrance fee for new members runs as high as HK$17 million ($2.17 million), with a long waiting list to boot. Hence, the temptation to do the club’s bidding is huge.
Some messages from the opposition campaign have clearly been misleading. First, the claim that the Fanling golf course can no longer hold any international tournaments following any resumption is simply ridiculous. As Chief Executive John Lee Ka-chiu has made clear, the Hong Kong Golf Club would still have two complete 18-hole courses plus 10 holes on a third course. Just how many holes do you need for a tournament?
Second, it’s alleged that any resumption would severely impact the development of local golf. The truth is that only nine out of the 54 holes course would be taken away. There are still three full public courses at Kau Sai Chau, two private courses at Clearwater Bay, one at Shek O, and another in Deep Water Bay. Most golf enthusiasts don’t really care about the resumption as it is too expensive and too difficult to book courses at Fanling anyway. What the government can promise is to undertake a full review of how many golf courses Hong Kong needs as an international city and seek to provide land on Lantau Island to fill the gap. Alternatively, there is room for better cooperation for development with the many golf clubs in Shenzhen and other cities in the Greater Bay Area.
Third, as an example of the club’s misleading PR exercise, it claimed a wide public usage rate, with 46.2 percent of total rounds played by nonmembers. What it did not disclose is how many of these “public golfers” are actually guests of the members and how many are genuine public walk-ins who are only allowed to use the course on weekdays.
One prominent businessman claimed that it would be a “joke around the world” and a bad story to tell if Hong Kong lost its 112-year-old golf course. A better story to tell is that Hong Kong, as a caring community, has come together to build public housing for thousands of its poorest families on a small piece of the underused corner of a golf club. It shows that Hong Kong takes good care of its people so that they can take better care of foreign investors and visitors.
The story of the Fanling golf course is similar to that of the Hong Kong Cricket Club pitch, which was located right in the middle of the central business district in the British era. Residents were amazed to see a few privileged expats playing on the pitch in the middle of the city. At least the British Hong Kong government had the political wisdom to relocate the cricket club to Tai Tam in 1975, and the original cricket pitch was converted into Queensway public park.
Indeed, the Fanling golf course is nothing but an anachronistic symbol of the British-ruled era for the superprivileged. Why would it be so difficult to relocate the golf course to Lantau Island, perhaps next to Hong Kong Disneyland, to make it a perfect holiday resort island similar to Santosa in Singapore? The available land can contribute to solving the housing problem, which the central government expects the SAR government to tackle sooner rather than later, and a public park can accommodate all the old trees and heritage to be preserved for the enjoyment of all residents.
In the meantime, the government should start charging rent at market rate for the land occupied by the golf club. It’s ridiculous that the club has enjoyed a nominal rent for 115 years and yet can charge its members astronomical membership fees and the public golfers exorbitant green fees.
In conclusion, the decision to resume the land at the Fanling golf course for public housing is a long overdue measure to help alleviate the housing shortage in Hong Kong. Despite the opposition campaign’s attempt to mislead the public with its appeals, the government must stay focused on its commitment to act in the best interest of the wider public, especially the underprivileged. It should also investigate potential conflicts of interest among those who oppose the land resumption and ensure that the decision-making process is transparent and fair.
The resumption of this 32-hectare plot is a litmus test to ascertain whether the SAR government has the mettle, like its Singapore counterpart, to make hard decisions that prioritize the greater public good.
The author is an honorary fellow of HKU Space and Metropolitan University.
The views do not necessarily reflect those of China Daily.