Golfers give tips to kids on the free practice day ahead of the Hong Kong Open, at the Hong Kong Golf Club in Fanling in 2015. Photo: Handout
Source:
https://scmp.com/comment/letters/article/2184524/who-would-really-want-destroy-fanling-golf-links-flats Letters
Who would really want to destroy Fanling golf links for flats?
- Saying Fanling golf club only serves ‘a few’ is incorrect – it gives back more to the community now than it could by meeting a negligible share of our housing demand
Chinese player Liang Wenchong signs autographs for students during the first round of the 2014 Hong Kong open, at The Hong Kong Golf Club in October 2014. Photo: Handout
I must weigh in on the Fanling golf course debate. I am not a member of the club, nor am I a golfer. However, I am a long-term resident of Hong Kong; I care about our public assets of which the Fanling green belt is an ancient and valued one.
I agree with one of your earlier correspondents who said that to destroy Fanling is an act of “vandalism”. Covering Fanling in concrete would be the act of a government smugly indifferent to our cultural heritage.
Reader Arun Garg quotes the closure of golf courses in the United States in support of his contention that destroying Fanling “makes sense” (“Given chronic land shortage, it makes sense to use golf course in Fanling for public housing”, January 28).
But the US still has over 15,000 courses, one for every 22,000 people. That’s 55 times more golf courses per capita than we have: just six courses for over 7 million people. Destroying Fanling destroys 17 per cent of them, vs 1.3 per cent closed in the US. Hardly a fair comparison.
The government says it is committed to promoting sports in Hong Kong, especially youth sports. Fanling supporters have pointed out that the club regularly promotes open days, and public golf and youth events, attended by many thousands of our residents. The Hong Kong Open at Fanling is the most popular on the worldwide PGA Tour and is attended by tens of thousands of Hongkongers. So Mr Garg’s comment that “it makes no sense that interests of very few should override those of the majority” is exactly upside down. The club is for the many; accommodation would be for the few.
Despite all this, the government is seriously considering dismembering Fanling? For a comparatively tiny number of new dwellings and to appease the barely concealed envy driving Fanling critics?
Here’s a thought: if the government really thinks golf is just for the elite (though it’s not), take over the land when the lease is up and convert it to a public park. That at least would be better than housing for the few.
Peter Forsythe, Discovery Bay