Do we really need another golf course?

Safra wants it, the Defence Ministry supports it and the National Development Minister says it deserves to be supported. What are they all in favour of? Another golf course. But does Singapore really need one more? And who exactly wants it - all 300,000 NSmen or just the 8,000 or so golf-playing Safra members?

By Dominic Nathan
ASSISTANT NEWS EDITOR

THE headline read: 'No more golf courses, please. The 22 that Singapore already has are quite enough.'

That was in November last year, in a Straits Times report on the recommendations of a government-appointed focus group on land allocation.

Fast forward to a Parliament sitting last month. There, it emerged that Government would consider a cap on the number of private courses. But one more public course wouldn't hurt.

And who knows, there could be more, if someone could make a case for it that was as compelling as the one that the Defence Ministry made for Safra's second.

Insiders say it will be built on marshland along the Kranji Reservoir, quite close to the new home of the Warren Golf and Country Club.

It's being referred to as a 'proposed' course for now, but with each passing day, the Safra course moves closer to becoming a reality.

When asked if a decision had been made, the Urban Redevelopment Authority would only say: 'URA will give serious consideration to Mindef's proposal for a new Safra golf course in the review of the Concept Plan.'

And this was after National Development Minister Mah Bow Tan gave the project the 'thumbs up'.

He told Parliament last month: 'Since there is an NSman in virtually every Singaporean household and since golf is a sport that is growing in popularity among NSmen, I believe this is a recommendation which deserves our support.'

So, it is pretty much a certainty that Safra will get its new course and, what's more, one that is radiation-free as well.

DSO National Laboratories said in the February issue of its newsletter, Kinetic, that it had been called in to study if a BBC transmission station in Kranji would pose a radiation hazard to golfers and club staff.

When asked if any environmental impact study had been done or would be done to see how the building of a golf course would affect the flora and fauna in the Kranji marshlands, URA said:

'The specific location is under study. Thus, we cannot comment on an environmental impact assessment or the impact of any developments on the flora and fauna in the area.'

Clearly, enough is known about the specific location for someone to be worried about possible radiation to people, but not enough for an environmental impact study to be carried out.

Insiders had been talking about the same Kranji location for the course, when word of the project first surfaced in 1999.

It resurfaced again this year, when a case for a new golf course was made by the third committee to recognise the contribution of the operationally-ready NSmen to total defence or Record III.

The committee was chaired by Minister of State for Defence David Lim, who happens to be Safra's president.

In Parliament last month, Mr Lim, wearing his Mindef hat, told the House he supported the recommendation for a new course because the one at the Safra Resort and Country Club was very heavily used.

He said: 'If land is going to be allocated for golf courses, then NS men should be given priority.'

But let me go back a few holes to the tee-off, when the Government-appointed feedback group declared that Singapore had enough golf courses.

No more should be developed even as the population grew, and if demand increased, it could be met by courses in neighbouring countries.

The 22 golf courses and three temporary sites used for golf occupy 2.2 per cent of Singapore's total land area. They form the bulk - or 88 per cent - of the 1,600 ha set aside for sports and recreation.

That is enough land to build about three Yishun new towns.

The pro-golf argument has always been that the courses sit on land that cannot be used for anything else anyway.

But the review of the Concept Plan - the long-term blueprint for land use - was set up in part to explore all possibilities and not stick to conventional notions of land use.

Let's look at one such long-held belief - that there should be no major development carried out in catchment land bordering reservoirs.

But if you can have thousands of golfers playing and driving their buggies over a golf course, pour on tonnes of chemicals to maintain the greens and fairways, and have a clubhouse with condominium-like facilities, then why can't you build a low-rise housing development there?

How much more pollutive or destructive than a golf course can a scenic waterside housing project be?

This does not mean I support tearing up more environmentally-sensitive catchment land for housing, but only that we should be questioning this long-held belief that building a golf course next to a reservoir is far more benign than any other form of development.

Moving on to Record III's recommendation, let us look at the very laudable aims of wanting to recognise the contributions of NSmen.

I am all in favour of this and the tax incentives provided to NSmen have come in very handy for me personally. But how did Record III decide it needed a new golf course?

Did it survey all 300,000 NSmen and ask them what they wanted or just the 8,000 Safra members who play regularly at its 27-hole complex on the east coast?

Safra opened a 3-ha country club recently in Yishun, with no golfing facilities.

The $28-million Yishun club - done up Balinese resort-style in Sloghoffen stone and dark brown wood - boasts resort-style swimming pools, an in-house spa, a gym, six rock-climbing walls and a 36-lane indoor shooting range.

The chairman of its development committee, Lt-Col (NS) Bill Chua, was quoted as saying: 'We wanted Safra Yishun to have features relevant to the new millennium, like spas and games arcades.

The clubhouse is our signal to NSmen, to say: 'We hear you'. '

Okay, so it would be safe to assume that no one said anything about wanting a golf course. And even if Safra's golfers do want another course, surely the real issue is one of affordable access, not ownership of a new course.

Couldn't Safra do a deal with one or more existing private clubs?

What about a long-term contract to maximise usage at existing courses here or even in neighbouring Johor, Batam or Bintan?

If, after all, it is decided that a new course is what Safra will get, then at least pick a site that is not designated a nature area. The marshes are the haunt of the grey heron, purple heron, cotton pygmy goose and purple swamphen - all species that are under threat here.

As marked out in the Singapore Green Plan (1993), the Kranji marshes hold a wide variety of birdlife, with 118 species recorded at one particular locality alone - at the PUB Bund Marsh.

So, instead of the Kranji marshes, how about considering a piece of under-utilised industrial land?

According to a Business Times report last month, the Government has sold a total of 226.5 ha of 60-year leasehold industrial land islandwide. And 65 per cent has yet to be developed and sold.

And how about developing one of the old disused landfills? Either Sarimbun in Lim Chu Kang or Lorong Halus would do.

Since the Safra Resort in the east coast area has been named a Certified Audubon Cooperative Sanctuary for environmental excellence, I am sure Safra will be able to make the best use of any site.

I will gladly nominate Safra for Singapore's top environmental award if it opts to conserve natural resources by not building yet another golf course.