Fanling Golf Course Can Be a Public Asset

【明報專訊】ACCORDING TO the government's revised new town project

in the northeast New Territories, the Fanling golf course is not to be
taken over for redevelopment. The government is therefore accused of
"favouring the rich at the expense of the man in the street".
To win public support, government propaganda for the new town project
places particular emphasis on the shortage of land for housing,
pointing out at the same time that buildable residential land is more
readily available in the northeast New Territories. However, while the
planned new towns cover a total of about 330 hectares and the land
resumption costs are expected to amount to about $30 billion, the
Fanling golf course nearby occupies about 170 hectares of government
land which, according to the land lease agreement, the government can
repossess without having to make any compensation by giving 12
months' notice. Moreover, the golf course is there only for the
enjoyment of 2,000 or so club members. Popular sentiments being
what they are, it is no wonder that the public is easily convinced that
the government is only serving the interests of the rich.
The past many years have seen the public coming to believe that the
government's land use planning is weighted in favour of those with
vested interests, such as members of private clubs and the indigenous
population of the New Territories, while the interests of those who have
long lived on or tilled a piece of land are consistently ignored. In the
past, most of the underprivileged would meekly put up with unfair
treatment. However, with the development of civil society and the rise
of a local consciousness, the government is finding it more and more
difficult to impose its will on the public.
The new town project, for instance, has immediately met with a strong
reaction. Why, it is asked, is the government "destroying our homes"
when a handful of rich people are allowed to continue enjoying a
beautifully located golf course? Today, conflicts are bound to arise
when the government is perceived to be giving an unfair advantage to
those with vested interests.
There is a real lack of usable land in Hong Kong, and the government's
declared policy is to make good use of every single plot of land.
However, is it advisable to allocate all available land for housing
purposes? No one with any common sense would say yes.
An international metropolis, Hong Kong cannot do without facilities like
golf courses. There are at present six golf courses in Hong Kong,
totalling about 680 hectares as compared with Singapore's 1,500
hectares. While it is true that Singapore has decided to reduce the
number of its golf courses and use the land thus made available for
redevelopment, it is not going to do away with all of them. Are there too
many golf courses in Hong Kong? This is a question open to
discussion. In any case, beautifully located as it is, the Fanling golf
course can be a boon to the new towns if, through government
planning, it is not victimised but is integrated into the development
project.
The Fanling golf course labours under the "original sin" of occupying
170 hectares of valuable land for the enjoyment of 2,000 private club
members only. If the golf course is not demolished but made easily
accessible to the public, it will become an important asset to the new
towns. Hong Kong has no use for the "down with the rich" mentality.
Instead, efforts should be made to have the golf course thrown open to
the use of the public at large, so that it may prove its real value, with
beneficial effects on the entire community.
明報社評 2013.07.11﹕擺脫「鬥地主」心態 讓高球場成新市鎮資產
新界東北新市鎮（下稱新市鎮）規劃方案，政府未有收回粉嶺香港高爾夫球場
發展，被質疑「厚有錢人、薄普通人」。
政府修訂東北新市鎮方案，為爭取支持，宣傳主打缺乏土地興建樓宇，東北新
市鎮較快提供土地，可應付住屋需求。不過，新市鎮共規劃約 330 公頃土地，
其中收地約需 300 億元，附近的粉嶺高球場佔地約 170 公頃，而且是官地，
政府按地契規定只要在 12 個月前通知承租人，就可以收回土地，毋須賠償，
另外，粉嶺高球場只有約 2000 名會員享用；這般景况放在當今的社會氛圍，
政府照顧有錢人的說法，在普羅市民之間自然容易得到認同和共鳴。
多年來，政府規劃土地發展，被認為傾向照顧既得利益者，包括私人會所成員
與原居民等利益，長期在土地上居住或務農人士的利益，最受忽略。過去，這
類人大多數逆來順受，隨着公民社會冒起和本土意識抬頭，政府的意志不再那
麼容易實現。
以東北新市鎮規劃為例，即時就出現情緒反彈：為何要「毀我家園」，卻容許
少數富人繼續享用環境優美的高球場。現實是只要政府被認定向既得利益者傾
斜，矛盾就會爆發。
本港眼前確實缺乏可使用土地，政府聲言不會放過每一幅土地，不過，若土地
只用作興建樓宇，是否恰當？只要稍有理智者都不以為然。
香港是國際都會，類如高爾夫球場等設施不可少，本港現有 6 個主要高球場，
面積約 680 公頃（新加坡有 1500 公頃），雖然新加坡已經決定減少高球場，
騰出土地發展，不過，最終仍然會剩下一些高球場。本港現有高球場是否過多，
可以探討，不過，以粉嶺高球場環境之優美，東北新市鎮的發展若不排斥，
而是透過規劃將之與整個規劃發展結合起來，則對新市鎮肯定可以起到加分作
用。
粉嶺高球場的原罪，在於它佔用 170 公頃珍貴土地資源，卻成為 2000 名會員
的俱樂部。若保留高球場，而市民可以輕易享用，則粉嶺高球場就會成為東北
新市鎮的重要資產。擺脫「鬥地主」心態，爭取高球場的設施為廣大市民可用，
屆時它的真實功能就體現出來，整個社區因而得益。
■Glossary
weighted ﹕ arranged in such a way that a particular person or thing has
an advantage or a disadvantage
till ﹕ prepare land for growing crops
boon ﹕ something extremely useful, helpful, or beneficial; a blessing or
benefit