Lucy Kwan

Opinion | Hong Kong golf course vs housing debate is really about fair use of land

Broad support for the government’s decision reflects a sense of social injustice, especially with elite clubs paying lower than market rates to rent public land

Other than building flats, the government can explore options like opening up the Old Course to the public except when needed for tournaments

Reading Time:3 minutes

Why you can trust SCMP

A golfer at play at the Hong Kong Golf Club in Fanling on June 14. Hong Kong Golf Club currently operates three 18-hole courses in the area. Photo: Dickson Lee

Lucy Kwan

Published: 8:15am, 6 Jul 2023Updated: 12:11pm, 6 Jul 2023

Discussions over the fate of 32 hectares of meticulously manicured land on which Asia’s second oldest golf club was built, in 1911, have become feverish, with the government lease granted to the Hong Kong Golf Club expiring at the end of August.

In this populous, land-scarce city, demand for affordable housing has never been more pressing, and the government has rightly decided to put the land to better use than the exclusive enjoyment of a privileged elite.

The Fanling Old Course, to be taken back, involves eight holes of an 18-hole course, and the area designated for public housing spans about 9 hectares on the northern, generally flat area where ecological concerns are least sensitive and no major site formation is needed. Hong Kong Golf Club currently operates three 18-hole courses in the area.

The government’s decision is in line with its strategic goal to provide public housing. But as noted at the recently concluded town planning hearings, an overwhelming majority of submitted public views disagree with the Fanling housing plan, citing concerns over the loss of a consequential golf and tournament venue, and conservation and environmental worries.

To get a more accurate picture, The Tanner Hill Workshop initiated a study of sentiment in social media on the Fanling housing plan. The study, which used keywords, was conducted by analytics agency Datago from May 1 to June 12. It returned 40 posts with 2,257 associated comments, with 70 per cent from Facebook, 18 per cent and 8 per cent respectively from the forums Lihkg and HK Discuss. The analysis showed broad support – more than half – for the government decision.

Separately, I conducted 20 informal but structured face-to-face interviews with people from different walks of life over the past two weeks. Half were neutral on whether the land should be used for housing, and six supported the proposal. Overall, there was a common perception that the current arrangement, a historical legacy, is based on inequitable access to public land.