Straight Talk presenter Eugene Chan interviews Legislative Concil member and historian Professor Lau Chi-pang (right) on TVB, May 6, 2023. (PROVIDED TO CHINA DAILY)

Legislative Council member and historian Professor Lau Chi-pang of the Ling Nan University is on our show this week.

Lau talks about the significance of the Fanling golf course and the potential impact of public housing development may have on the environment and traffic and historic value of the site.

Check out the full transcript of TVB’s Straight Talk host Dr Eugene Chan’s interview with Prof Lau Chi-pang:

Chan: Good evening! Thank you for joining us on Straight Talk. Our guest this evening is Legislative Councillor Prof Lau Chi-pang. Prof Lau is Professor of the Department of History at Lingnan University. He's also a member of the 14th Chinese People's Political Consultative Conference and has served on several government advisory boards and councils, including the Heung Yee Kuk. The reclamation of the Fanling golf course has been in the news again lately. So, it seems appropriate that we have Prof Lau to share with us an overview of the current situation. He is very qualified to do this as a LegCo member and his significant experience on the Town Planning Board and Advisory Council on the environment, as well as his expertise as a historian. Welcome, CP!

Lau: Hi, Eugene.

Chan: CP, as we know, Hong Kong is well-known for having the most unaffordable housing market.

Lau: Oh yes.

Chan: And inadequate housing supply is one of the community's major concerns. The average waiting time for public housing now is still 5.3 years. And there are like 230,000 people still on the waiting list, when the former Secretary for Housing Frank Chan was here last year, he told us the government has identified 350 hectares of land to build 300,000 flats over the next 10 years. And then the current Secretary for Housing Winnie Ho was on the show last September. And she reiterated the 10-year plan, which includes the reclamation of the 32 hectares of the 172 hectares of the Fanling golf course, almost a fifth of the current golf course.

Lau: Right.

Chan: So, we know that the government needs land, but why do we choose this existing sports ground? That is, I think, over a century old?

Lau: Well, yes, the issue came out with the debate on whether we would like to remove or relocate villages in the northeast of the new territories and it is our new development area plan. And so, there's a debate in LegCo years ago, and then they concluded that, well, reclaiming land from this golf club will be easier. And that's no risk of relocating anybody out of their residency. So, that's the issue.

Chan: So, basically, it's a so-called ease of convenience or easier to make this happen in a quicker way.

Lau: Yes, or misconception of the whole issue that the issue is supposed to be, we need more land to build more housing for people. These are the research questions. So, the answer would be to look for lands.

Chan: Right.

Lau: But then the research question has been ... we decided to? Well, do we agree to build houses on this piece of golf course? Yes or no?

Chan: Okay. As I said earlier, they are planning to use 32 hectares of the land out of the 172. So, can you remind the viewers how the government uses 32 hectares of land? I mean, how many people will be planned to be able to move into this once it's built and how long would it take?

Lau: Well, the plan is to provide housing for 30, some thousand people with 12,000 flats, something like that. But the whole thing is now trimmed down to getting just eight to nine hectares of that 32, which is a small corner of the whole piece of land to do the housing project.

Chan: Right. So, when you take away one fifth of the course, and use one small corner, what are they going to use for the remaining larger part of the golf course that will be reclaimed?

Lau: Well, I was supposed to originally say the whole thing, 32 acres to be used for housing, but then it came up that the ecological issue doesn't allow the government to go for the whole piece of land because most of the land is of high ecological value.

Chan: Right. You just mentioned 12,000 flats.

Lau: Yes.

Chan: Out of the figures I mentioned earlier 300,000 needed.

Lau: Right.

Chan: It's slightly less than 5 percent. Is it cost effective? So, someone said, to destroy an existing golf course, and to have this kind of housing, in your opinion, do you agree?

Lau: Well, I think this is ... I cannot agree with that because what I learned from my service at the Town Planning Board is that we don't usually allow something that is still in use to be changed for another use. So, this is a golf course, which is for recreational use, and then we take this plot of land and then change it to residential. This is something that we need to consider very carefully.

Chan: Right, what has been the response from the public? I mean, as we know, everybody wants to have more housing for everybody here, which is a common consensus. But what has the response been from the public about reclaiming the golf course?

Lau: Well, I think the question is whether the public would like to have more housing, which is now the issue, or the focus of the question, whether the golf course has to be retained, or to be reclaimed for housing, that's another issue. So, if you ask the public, whether we want more public housing for Hong Kong, I would expect the answer will be yes, of course, why not?

Chan: I understand that. I've heard from the grapevine that over like 6000, that is writing to the Town Planning Board, objecting to this. So, what type of objection do you anticipate for them to raise?

Lau: Well, I guess most of them will be like, well, we have a lot of land in the New Territories, you don't have to spare that small triangle, this corner for a very densely populated public housing development. And also, there are alternatives that could provide more housing.

Chan: We can talk about that in a minute. I mean, I'm trying to bring up different views from ... I gather information, when I do the research on this area, somebody actually even portrays what they call it like a class struggle, sort of between fighting for the wants of the privilege versus those maybe from the lower income sector.

Lau: Oh yes.

Chan: Maybe the have and have nots. So, are you worried that this might actually create even more rivalry within our community?

Lau: Of course.

Chan: Especially now, we are trying to rebuild, after what has gone through so painfully in the last three years?

Lau: Yes, that's exactly what I'm worrying about. Because when the issue came up, five, six years ago, it was something like a class struggle, or political struggle between the pan-democrat and the pro-government. So, I will say if the housing project is to be carried on, that will be sort of a monumental evidence seen in this class struggle in Hong Kong.

Chan: Right, since you mentioned the pan-dems and the pro-government are some sort of terms we haven't heard for quite some time. In the current Legislative Council, what do you anticipate all your colleagues will take this view? Will they be having that sort of attitude to sort of fight for so-called equality? Well, if this is an equality issue?

Lau: Well, I think, currently ... I can anticipate that or envisage that most of our colleagues at LegCo would not agree to this housing project, because it destroys the whole recreational development in the New Territories, this heritage, and, you know, Fanling golf course is the first recreational facility in the New Territories, when the whole piece of land was leased to Britain in 1898.

Chan: Right. So, Chi-pang, I also did some homework on the ecology consultant AEC met report. He said, this is the most ecologically important non-wetland lowland area remaining in Hong Kong. So, what will be the actual environmental impact if this housing project is going to be built on the golf course? If it ever becomes a reality, what will happen?

Lau: Well, I think this is going to destroy this ecosystem that has been developing and built here in Fanling for over 100 years. Well, you may say that this is artificial, but then over 100 years, it has become so natural, and then it has become a home for so many species. So, I think we need that. In particular when we talk about Northern Metropolis, we need something that can provide us with fresh air, with green, with this balanced ecosystem.

Chan: You know, they even said they're like up to 83 species of fauna and flora of conservative significance will be affected. And also understand they're like 400 trees on the land that actually qualify for governance of the register of old and valuable trees.

Lau: Yes.

Chan: So, will this be endangered? If we're ever going to build around that? I mean, how can we maintain the trees if this is going to go ahead, can it be done?

Lau: Well, this is very difficult, because, you know, development also works against ecology. In particular, when we talk about old and valuable trees, you cannot take away one and then plan a new one to replace it.

Chan: But they have also approved a plan on the condition that an area of woodland is earmarked for preservation. So, is that good enough to preserve the trees and the birds?

Lau: Well, of course, that's not good enough. But that's the only way that we can do ... We'll try our very best to protect the area. But that's the last thing that we can do.

Chan: But why do we need trees? Sorry, to ask you a very direct question.

Lau: Well, of course, we need a better life. We need a good environment. And we need trees to provide us with fresh air, pleasant life and so on and so forth.

Chan: Well, let's take a short break now. And viewers, do stay with us. We will be right back.

Legislative Council member and historian Professor Lau Chi-pang attends the Straight Talk show on TVB, May 6, 2023. (PROVIDED TO CHINA DAILY)

Chan: Thank you for staying with us. We have been talking with Professor Lau Chi Pang, about the government’s proposal to reclaim part of the Fanling golf course, and the environmental, as well as other concerns that have been raised by the public. So, CP, we have touched on all those areas, and you did mention do we have other alternatives. I think at the time when this was raised, things were very different.

Lau: Right.

Chan: I mean the last few years have seen significant changes in in the whole landscape of Hong Kong, especially in politics. A lot of people mentioned the word ‘brownfield sites’ – will this be easier and take less time to develop, and less controversy?

Lau: Well, yes and no, it depends because we do have some misconception about brownfield sites because it seems to the public that it is something that is no use. But then most brownfield sites are in use in operation. So, relocating those businesses on brownfield sites is an issue. But I can tell you that in the past few years, of course, the launching of this Northern Metropolis would be a very, very good opportunity to rethink the land policy and housing policy in Hong Kong. In particular, in the New Territories.

Chan: Will you call that, since you mentioned a couple of times the Northern Metropolis project, will you call this the solution to all our issues?

Lau: Exactly because it is so huge a project that I would say this is a redevelopment of the New Territories in a way.

Chan: Right. So, in a way a lot of things, concerns that we had, a lot of the so-called restrictions we had will be removed if this is going to go ahead?

Lau: Yeah, exactly. Well just like this Chinese idiom, the old saying that you don’t want to mark the boat to look for that lost sword, right? We marked the boat 5-6 years ago and looking for solution for easing this housing problem. But we have this Northern Metropolis. And then recently I have learnt that villages in the New Territories, they are more willing to, they are more willing to negotiate or to cooperate with the government.

Chan: I am sure you are talking about one of the issue that was raised by one of your colleagues Kenneth Lau.

Lau: Yeah, yeah.

Chan: About the possibility that they will offer.

Lau: Yep.

Chan: More land for that.

Lau: Exactly.

Chan: I mean how many flats will be built if that can come through?

Lau: Well, we are talking about 10 times, at least, the number that to be built on this corner of this golf course, this is called …

Chan: You just said a village. Does that mean a whole village?

Lau: A whole village, a whole village, to the north of this Fanling Golf Course.

Chan: Right. So, what that means is in a close by area, a whole village, and on a voluntary basis.

Lau: Yeah. Well, it is something like land resumption or even PPP, joining hands of the government and the villages.

Chan: Right. Apart from this, I also read from the papers … sorry, I am asking you so many reports I read in the papers, they said that there are hundreds of 50-year old buildings built for civil servants in the past.

Lau: Oh, yes.

Chan: And they could be redeveloped to provide flats of like over 20,000 flats. And I am sure their locations will be in already existing residential areas.

Lau: Yeah, exactly.

Chan: But I know the problem is that because they have to pay the land premium and they make it sort of not viable for the property developers to go ahead and do this. Any thoughts there?

Lau: Well, yes, that is a good point that … well, given this is sort of a residential area, so, it doesn't have to go for application to the town planning board, and the government can just take it over, and then build public housing on that. So, it is an easy way out. You don’t have to change this residential area to … no, this recreational area to residential.

Chan: Right. Also some councillors, your colleagues, have objected to the housing plan, warning that of the traffic jam, as well as a lack of infrastructure to support the influx of this 20,000 flats, like 30,000 people. Is this a valid concern? Or is it just an excuse to bring up because the government can always build more new infrastructure to support this? Maybe take some time, but is this a valid concern?

Lau: Yes, of course, this is something that the whole project is to overcome if it is to be continued because the traffic impact assessment is an issue for Town Planning Board’s consideration. And then if you go to the golf course, you will find it very difficult to get your car to the roundabout of Sheung Shui and the whole area. This small, tiny area is packed with roads and a lot of traffic. And given this Fan Kam Road, which is a pretty old and of course…

Chan: There is a tree line?

Lau: Exactly.

Chan: It is a very nice road. Unless you widen it completely.

Lau: Very nice. We don't want to change it, we don't want to do anything about that road because it is a so beautiful road. We can trace back to 100 years ago. So, it is so ridiculous to put 30,000 something people living in this area, and then ask them to commute back and forth daily, which is a huge traffic jam around this roundabout.

Chan: Right. CP, let's move on. We talked about the background of this initiative, we talked about the reasons why, but things have changed, and then you said the alternatives. And it sounds like what the new government has portrayed. John Lee said a new chapter begins, so, hopefully everything will change. Let’s move on to other areas, let’s not just talk about the alternatives and everything. I mean our ExCo convenor Regina Yip, has said that the plan has reflected double standards of the previous administration, and it has pledged to support the sports sector, but didn't seem to support the golf at all. We’re already having fewer golf courses than our so-called competitor, Singapore, and we can’t afford to lose this in an international city. Do you agree with her? And I am sure the government will realise this is quite a fact, why isn’t the government addressing this issue? Do they have better plans for developing more sports in Hong Kong?

Lau: Well, I just can’t … I can't agree more because this is, this is a very interesting and weird issue that the government has been avoiding, talking about the golf club as part of a sport development of Hong Kong. So, I think this is wrong because, you know, just in the past few months, look at the World City Championship here. A local golfer, young golfer, won the whole thing. And then of course, there is this Hong Kong Open, which is a world class championship in the region, if not the whole world. So, we are working with this culture, sports, and tourism bureau, to promote sports. But then at the same time, we destroy this very important, very … of cultural and heritage value, golf club in in the New Territories. This is something ridiculous.

Chan: Right. I must also look at the 14th 5-year plan, which I always mention in this show because we try to integrate Hong Kong with the mainland’s development.

Lau: Oh, yeah.

Chan: One of our role is to be the bridge for our country to overseas, and we all know that golf is one of the avenue. And golf is one of few sports that people travel internationally. So, I am sure we might get some golfers travelling to Hong Kong.

Lau: Right.

Chan: Another Exco member Ronny Tong, has said that golf courses attract professionals and investors to Hong Kong. Do you think the government has taken this into consideration?

Lau: Not at all because as I just mentioned, the whole issue has been, in a way, hijacked by this political debate many years ago at LegCo. And then, of course, when you talk about this, I so agree that golf is sort of a soft power to connect the mainland and the rest of the world. And of course, it serves as a venue for all sort of exchanges, including business, political, cultural, all kind of things.

Chan: Right. CP, you have many roles. I am going to ask you, as you are a historian. I know you have written a book on the Hong Kong golf club, and can you tell the viewers, in short, what is the price to pay from a historian’s point of view if this is going to go ahead? Because you would know the history behind it, and what sort of impression will so-called destroying a century-old golf course that is renowned for international tournaments that will have on Hong Kong? From your point of view.

Lau: Well, we have been doing this thing of taking away historic sites one after another since many years ago. And then when we do this, when we build public housing on this golf course, we are taking away another, which is so important to Hong Kong.

Chan: So, that means if this is going to go ahead, I am sure with all the public sort of responses, it is possible that it will reflect not very positively on our government on this, for example?

Lau: Yeah.

Chan: What if the government is able to change this? Do you think it will be a good perception that Hong Kong is back on the world map? I am just wondering.

Lau: Yeah, of course. And I think this is going to be in line with what we have done in the past few years, to change Hong Kong from what we were in the past 10 years, and then we are going for this new chapter. I think this is a way that we answer the call from the public that we need something special for Hong Kong, sports, recreation.

Chan: CP, as you know, part of the legislative job is to question the word of the government, and to debate in the issues concerning public interest. Now you are a LegCo member from the Election Committee. Will this golf course issue be further deliberated in the discussion in the LegCo? And will you bring this forward?

Lau: Well, I guess my colleagues or myself, perhaps, can and will motion debate in the LegCo to discuss this further. And of course, when the whole thing is to be continued, they will have to go back to this work panel, and then to ask for money. So, we have to the chance to discuss it anyway.

Chan: CP, I am afraid that is all the time we have. And thank you for sharing all the different perspectives on this issue. I am sure that will enable all our viewers to make up their own minds, as to whether reclaiming part of Fanling Golf Course is in Hong Kong’s best interest. Thank you viewers for tuning in, and we will see you next time.