Lawsuit unlikely to swing Fanling fate

The lawsuit brought by the Hong Kong Golf Club in a desperate attempt to overturn an environmental impact assessment report would appear to be much ado about nothing if the challenge turns out to be merely aimed at the report rather than the government's plan to recover 32 hectares of the golf course for public housing.

As golf club captain Andy Kwok Wing-leung spoke a day ago, he left unanswered a major question of what the golf club was expecting to achieve with the lawsuit.

Would it stop the government from taking back the plot? No, in light of Chief Executive John Lee Ka-chiu's hardline stance in recovering the 32 hectares, regardless of the court outcome.

So the big question is: what sort of difference can the lawsuit actually bring about?

The answer to this question is the major piece missing in the jigsaw puzzle when Kwok spoke to the media earlier on the judicial review.

These days, there are fewer judicial reviews challenging government policies. In taking the lead to challenge a major government policy decision, the golf club is opting for a risky course of action that may leave it vulnerable to the accusation of setting an example.

Nonetheless, as far as the judicial system is concerned, the development should be viewed as a show of respect for the legal system under which anyone may seek redress in court if they feel they are being treated wrongly.

It is too early to predict the outcome of the legal episode but it can be expected that, in the event of a victory for the club, the government may be ordered to submit another impact assessment report.

This could delay the public housing project but would not change the government's plan to take back part of the Fanling golf course now that the chief executive has reiterated a determination to recover part of it.

In the event of a defeat for the golf club in its judicial challenge, the road would be cleared for public housing high rises to be built on nine of the 32 hectares that would be taken back by the government in September.

In either situation, the government will recover the land.

Perhaps the only thing the golf club can change through the legal bid is the public housing planned for the northern-most tip of the parcel.

Should the court rule in the golf club's favor and the site is unsuitable for major housing development, it may prevent high rises from popping up in the vicinity of the Fanling course.

In the worst case scenario, the golf club may buy time with the legal bid to wait for the property market to change in its favor so that the need for public housing is no longer paramount for the designated plot.

Neither outcome would be ideal for the golf club. The best it can hope for is that the government has a change of heart to keep the golf course intact.