Fanling golf course

【明報專訊】IT is a point of contention about the government's plan to

develop new areas in Northeast New Territories (NENT) why the
government has opted to spend $30 billion to resume land instead of
repossessing the golf course in Fanling, which is 170 hectares in area.
We do not agree that any plan for developing it should replace the
NENT plan, the feasibility of which the government began to look at ten
years ago. However, we do not think Chief Executive Leung Chun-ying
can dispel misgivings just by saying the government will not overlook
any piece of land as he did the day before yesterday (July 6). It rests
with the government to tell the public exactly what it will do with the
golf course, which is on government land. Secretary for Home Affairs
Tsang Tak-sing has recently allowed the leases of dozens of private
clubs to renew automatically for fifteen years, saying the government
will review the system afterwards. Against such a shadowy backdrop,
the government can hardly dispel the suspicion that it favours the rich
at the expense of common people unless it comes up with a persuasive
case. Its failure to do so would discredit its assertion that there is a
lack of land for residential development.
The government announced its revised plan for developing new areas
in NENT last Thursday. Attention was then focused on whether joint
public-private operation would mean government-business collusion
and whether farm households would refuse to be relocated as those did
that had lived in Choi Yuen Village. However, it was drawn the next day
to the lease of the Fanling golf course, which is on government land.
The place is unlike any of the new areas to be developed in NENT in
that there is no dispute over title in respect of it, the government's
decision to repossess it would be well grounded and it would not have
to work with any private company to develop it. The public would
naturally ask why it does not take it back - why it has abandoned ease
in favour of difficulty.
Not long ago Mr Tsang allowed the leases of about fifty private clubs to
renew for about fifteen years regardless of the public's objections,
though he said the authorities would conduct a comprehensive review
of its lease policy. This policy of "putting renewal before review" has
drawn fire from citizens, who say the government is kind to the rich but
has no regard for common people's interests. The Fanling golf course,
which covers 170 hectares, is used by only 2,000 members. What has
the club paid? When the lease was extended to 2020 in 1990, it paid
the government only a nominal premium of $1,000.
According to Secretary for Development Paul Chan, a consultancy will
do a study about development in New Territories North, and the
government will consider what use the golf-course land should be put
to. It is about policy consistency that we are doubtful. Mr Tsang has
just allowed the leases of about fifty clubs to renew for fifteen years.
Did he make the decision on his own, or did the Leung team
collectively make it? If it is Mr Tsang's own decision and he is of the
same mind about the matter, may one say Mr Chan has made those
remarks only to humour citizens? The government ought to give the
public an answer to this question.
明報社評 2013.07.08 ﹕ 2000 會員享用 170 公頃球場 發展新界捨易取難須交
代
新界東北發展的一個爭議點是，政府為什麼選擇斥資 300 億元收地，卻不收
回佔地 170 公頃的粉嶺高爾夫球場？我們不認同以粉嶺高球場替代研究超過
10 年的新界東北發展計劃，但特首梁振英前天只表示「不會忽視任何一片土
地」，我們認為不足以釋疑。政府有責任清楚交代屬於官地的高球場將如何處
置，尤其是民政事務局長曾德成最近以「先續約、後檢討」方式，將數十張同類
地契自動續約了 15 年；在這樣的陰影下，除非政府有一個令人信服的說法，
否則難以釋除「厚有錢人、薄普通人」的質疑，同時亦令政府缺地建屋的說法大
打折扣。
上周四政府公布新界東北發展計劃時，焦點本來集中在公私合營是否官商勾
結，以及要求農戶搬遷會否變成菜園村翻版，但翌日焦點轉移至發展區附近的
粉嶺高球場。高球場是官地，跟新發展區最大的不同是，沒有業權爭議，政府
有理據收地，而且毋須公私合營。公眾自然會問：為什麼不收回高球場發展？
為什麼捨易取難？
民政局長曾德成不久前不顧公眾反對，先與大約 50 個私人遊樂場地續約 15
年，才就契約政策全面檢討，這種「先續約、再檢討」的政策，被公眾狠批為厚
待有錢人，漠視平民百姓利益。粉嶺高球會佔地多達 170 公頃，供 2000 會員
享用；代價呢？1999 年續約時，是以 1000 元象徵式地價向政府租用至 2020
年。
發展局長陳茂波聲稱，明年上半年會做新界北發展顧問研究，亦會研究高球會
地皮的運用。我們質疑的是政策的一致性，因為曾德成最近才為約 50 張私人
會所地契自動續約 15 年，究竟這是曾德成局長個人還是梁班子的集體決策邏
輯？若是曾德成個人的決策，他沿用同一思維，那麼，發展局長陳茂波現在的
說法，是否敷衍應酬？政府須對廣大市民交代。
Glossary
contention ﹕ disagreement between people
title ﹕ the legal right to own something, especially land or property
humour ﹕ agree with somebody's wishes, even if they seem
unreasonable, in order to keep the person happy