Advertisement
Advertisement

PLA personnel stay away from recreation club

Life at the United Services Recreation Club, an enclave of relaxation within a military barracks, goes on pretty much as it has for the better part of a century, but with one big difference: none of the service personnel from the barracks use it.

Established in 1911 in the Gun Club Hill barracks in Tsim Sha Tsui, primarily for the use of the colonial British garrison, it was also opened to the public and by the handover in 1997 had few service members.

It was handed over intact to the People's Liberation Army, together with the barracks, at the request of the Chinese side and is now run as a private club for members of the public able to afford a HK$100,000 joining fee and HK$1,100 a month.

According to the security chief, the PLA has nothing to do with its management, although pre-handover documents said the garrison chief should be responsible for its management.

Now, lawmakers are questioning why the prime site in Gascoigne Road, with its tennis and squash courts, lawn bowls green and restaurant, should remain in military hands if it isn't being used for military purposes. At a Legislative Council meeting yesterday, unionist Lee Cheuk-yan suggested the site be used for other purposes.

He noted that Article 13 of Garrison Law provided that, with the approval of the central government, the Hong Kong government could acquire any military site not used for military purposes without payment.

Cyd Ho Sau-lan, of Civic Act-up, said the club was being used for purposes unrelated to defence and suggested the government seek Beijing's approval to acquire the site for community use.

Secretary for Security Ambrose Lee Siu-kwong said according to the Exchange of Notes in 1994 between the Chinese and British governments on the future use of military sites in Hong Kong, 'from July 1, 1997, the United Services Recreation Club will continue to enjoy the use of all facilities on the same terms as at present'.

The notes also stated that 'the commanding officer of the Chinese garrison or his representative will assume the responsibilities for the direction and control of the club', Lee said.

But the security bureau understood that the PLA neither took part in the daily management of the club, nor shared any of the club's income.

'The PLA and their families in Hong Kong have not been using this club,' Lee said, adding that the Hong Kong government did not have the right to ask the PLA how it directed and controlled the club.

'I don't want to speculate on the reasons that the PLA and their families are not using this club, and I don't know when they will use it in future,' Lee said.

But he said the club's revenue - HK$28 million in 2008, according to its annual report - was used for membership and facilities upkeep and did not involve any violation of the Garrison Law that prohibited it from engaging in profit-making activities.

'Certainly, the Hong Kong government would be happy if we could acquire military sites from the central government without any consideration,' Lee said. But he said the government saw no need to invoke the Garrison Law to acquire any military sites for public use.

A garrison spokesman said the PLA did not participate in the management and daily operation of the club and did not receive any rent or income from it. He said army members' families - including parents, spouses and children - could visit officers in Hong Kong and officers could return to the mainland on their annual holidays for recreation.

The PLA refused to disclose the number of officers based in Hong Kong, saying it was an internal issue and it ensured there were enough officers in the city for security needs.

Post