Golf vs Park

The issue is unnecessarily polarised, as we can have both. Rid of class connotations, they really have much in common - locations and purposes

By Chua Lee Hoong

GOLF has never been so much in the limelight as in recent weeks - and for all the wrong reasons.

The debate rages over how many golf courses there should be in Singapore. Are there too many? Should some be converted to public parks? Why should the Government allocate so much land for courses, especially if golf clubs pay what appear to be subsidised lease rates?

At the Urban Redevelopment Authority's (URA) first public forum to discuss the Government's land-use Concept Plan last Friday, for instance, the issue dominated proceedings.

Sentiment fell clearly on the side of the non-golfer. The 400-strong crowd reportedly gave a rousing applause when a member of the audience asked: Why is the Government setting aside so much land for golf courses when these should be used as water-catchment areas instead?

Fighting back, golfers counter: Why should they pay so much to use a golf course when other Singaporeans use parks for free?

They add: Why should non-golfers also begrudge the use of land for golf when much of it has few other possible uses, being either in water-catchment areas or under flight paths?

To my mind, the debate is getting confused and unnecessarily polarised.

If you think about it, it is not an either-or issue. It is not a toss up between either parks or golf. We can have both.

There are two types of parks - purpose-built parks with many facilities geared towards residents' use, like Bishan, and others which are no more than parkland, like Hong Lim and the nature reserves at Bukit Batok or Bukit Timah.

When people lament the shortage of parks, they probably mean the former, not the latter.

There are also two types of golf - business and recreational - as well as two types of courses - those in private clubs and those open to the public.

The anti-golf lobby is probably against private golf clubs with their exclusive image, rather than golf courses per se.

Rid of class connotations, parks and golf courses actually have much in common.

Like golf courses, many parks - MacRitchie, Lower Pierce, Upper Pierce, Seletar - are in or near water-catchment areas.

Like golf courses, parks serve the recreational needs of nearby residents. Think East Coast Park, West Coast Park, Bishan Park. If some prefer swinging a stick to jogging or cycling, so be it.

Golfers pay, while park users don't?

This is not strictly true. Golfers pay in order to play on manicured lawns. They are paying for the exotic grass - with names like zoysia matrella and bermuda tifdwarf - they step on, and the millions spent on ensuring the ground is not water-logged.

Park users do not have to pay to enter most parks, but they do have to pay when they want to enjoy certain facilities. The fishing pond at Bishan Park, for instance, does not come free. Neither does the orchid enclosure in the Botanic Gardens.

Even then, one nature park - Sungei Buloh - does charge for entry alone.

Heaven forbid that other parks, such as East Coast, West Coast or the Botanical Gardens, should charge an entrance fee, even if only a nominal $1.

Whatever revenue collected will not make up for the loss of public goodwill. It may not even cover the cost of administering such a collection system.

To cater to those happy to pay, there could be donation boxes in strategic locations for them to drop their - entirely voluntary - contributions.

In any case, I would argue that parks fall into that category of what in economics is called 'public goods', like defence, street lighting, or transport infrastructure. They benefit more than direct users alone.

Parks are essential to Singapore's clean and green image. They are the 'green lungs' that prevent it from turning into an oppressive concrete jungle.

Investors, researchers and other foreigners would not be likely to come if the only parks here are industrial ones.

It is, in any case, hard to draw the line where park benefits begin or end. If people are charged to use them, should they be charged simply to view them, breath their air? After all, many people interviewed by this paper earlier this week said they derived pleasure simply from looking at them from their HDB flats.

To put the debate back in perspective, bear in mind that it all began because the URA said Singapore needs to develop another 16,000 ha of land if it is to sustain a population of 5.5 million in the year 2040. Yes, 2040.

Since it has only 12,000 ha at present, some existing uses will have to give way, said URA.

Thus began the tug of war between the two types of green-lovers.

The hand-wringing has been unnecessary. Land-allocation patterns are never fixed. Building-plot ratios can and, I'm sure, will increase.

Offshore islands can be turned into more golfers' paradises if demand really increases.

In any case, there are courses aplenty in Johor and Batam. The only inconvenience is you need a passport to get there.

If Malaysians and Indonesians can come shopping in Singapore without griping, why should Singaporeans gripe about going there for golf, especially when it's cheaper than playing here?

Specialisation of R&R functions makes good sense among close neighbours, does it not? If only domestic solutions will do, I have a suggestion: Park and golf.

Build golf courses (nine holes, if 18 take up too much land) near each of the big HDB towns. Run feeder buses to them from MRT stations. Let community centres operate them, charging on a per-use basis.

Surround each with a ring of parkland, so that while one spouse plays nine holes, the other can picnic with the kids or relax under the trees.

This way, both golf- and park-lovers can have their desires. Neither will be able to say that the Government is taking care of the other more.

Best of all, the wretched bifurcation of image - golf courses as elitist and parks as proletarian - can be abolished.