Why use lush golf course for housing instead of developing degraded areas?

Feel strongly about these letters, or any other aspects of the news? Share your views by emailing us your Letter to the Editor at [email protected] or filling in this Google form. Submissions should not exceed 400 words, and must include your full name and address, plus a phone number for verification.

It is a sad reflection of our times that destroying a beautiful, ecologically and environmentally sensitive part of the New Territories is preferred to making use of degraded areas of land much more suitable for development. When our climate is changing you would think common sense would prevail, and green areas would be preserved at all costs; but no, because it can be made available, because of a misconceived perception of elitism, because of the rush to make up for past mistakes in not planning or providing land for public housing, now it has to go.

I am not a member of the Golf Club, but I love golf, as do many people. The Golf Club has even opened the Fanling grounds to the public, offering one of the three courses each weekday on a rotational basis. I do disagree with the charges, though; these should be benchmarked to those at Kau Sai Chau public golf course, and in return the Home Affairs Bureau can regulate the fees on lease renewal. Sport and recreation are essential to the economic, social and general well-being of society. Moreover, sporting success brings pride to Hong Kong, as demonstrated by the Tokyo Olympics. Tiffany Chan playing on the LPGA is only the start for golf.

Do not destroy what is irreplaceable when there are many better alternatives.

Allan Hay, Tai Po

Don’t source land at the expense of nature

I refer to your article “Up to 12,000 flats may be built on Fanling golf course” (May 21). I am completely taken aback by what the government is planning to do.

From an aerial view of the northern New Territories, Fanling golf course is one of the largest green lungs of the lowlands of Hong Kong. It is a piece of lush green jade that sustains a wide variety of wildlife, such as squirrels, snakes, bats, birds, frogs, butterflies and crabs.

Over the last few decades, the pace of new town development has already transformed many pieces of land in the New Territories into modern sprawl with endless numbers of high-rise residential blocks. This phenomenon has caused irreparable damage to the ecosystem of Hong Kong, like the spreading of cancer cells in the human body. Even the development of a public housing estate on a relatively small portion of the golf course would be detrimental to the natural beauty of this green land.

Since the handover of Hong Kong in 1997, the population of the city has swollen by around 1.2 million, largely owing to the relaxed immigration policy allowing 150 people to reunite with their families in Hong Kong every day. However, our limited land resources have not been increased to meet the needs of the growing population of Hong Kong.

This has undoubtedly given rise to our current housing crisis, and prompted infrastructure development in various districts in Hong Kong. It seems that both population and housing policies have been a fiasco for more than two decades, with little chance of appeasing the insatiable appetite for land in the future.

The construction of housing estates, either on the periphery of country parks or large pieces of well-managed green land like Fanling golf course, would be destructive, especially to our local wildlife and fragile ecosystem.

Why does the government stick to an indiscernible approach to sourcing land to meet the needs of the long queues of people waiting for public housing that comes at the expense of precious lush green land?

Pages Ng, Tuen Mun

Travel restrictions penalise residents who travel for work

I had to travel for business recently and I’m currently stranded in Singapore thanks to the government health policy requiring I provide a negative PCR test result before I can board a flight back home. My preflight test result showed I was recently infected. I’m vaccinated and boosted but still caught Covid-19 during my trip, which is nothing out of the ordinary.

My first grievance is that I don’t understand why permanent residents should be penalised by this policy, which is quite a financial burden. It makes sense for a foreigner to provide a negative PCR result before arriving in Hong Kong, but surely the government should allow a resident who lives and works in the city to return, especially if they were infected while abroad.

Getting sick in a foreign country leaves us vulnerable and helpless; imagine if my condition had been serious. I needed to travel for work and had no alternative. I’m lucky that I’m asymptomatic.

The current policy means I’m technically in quarantine outside Hong Kong. I can only return when I obtain a negative PCR – which is proof of recovery. My second complaint, then, is that I don’t understand why I still need to be sent to a quarantine hotel when I return to Hong Kong.

For locally infected patients, the current policy is to release patients after seven days or following two consecutive negative tests; I’m essentially isolating outside Hong Kong for that same period. I think it’s only reasonable to allow a recently recovered patient (with medical proof) exemption from quarantine upon return. There should be a mechanism to waive quarantine if proof is available.

Again, I’m not travelling for pleasure and I’m contributing to the Hong Kong economy. The quarantine policy should be based on medical science. I hope the Department of Health will review this policy as soon as possible.

Brian See, Hung Hom