The park or factory scenario was presented by the Urban Redevelopment Authority, a statutory board conducting its once-a-decade review of the Concept Plan, the blueprint for Singapore's physical development.

Based on a target population of 5.5 million (up from four million today), URA said Singapore needs 16,000 hectares of land for development. This comprises 8000 ha for housing, 6000 ha for industries and 2000 ha for parks. As the available land is only 12,000 ha, there would be a shortfall of 4000 ha, which necessitates hard choices.

On the surface, the choice is thrown open to the public, which will respond through two committees whose members are carefully selected by the URA. In practice, the URA may already be disposed to giving more land for industries.

In background material to the press, the URA said  "currently we have about 0.67 ha of park land per 1000 persons. If we want to have more space...we would then need to put aside additional 2000 ha of land. As a comparison, in Hongkong, 1000 persons share 0.15 ha of parks''.

This seemingly neutral set of figures carries a powerful message. Singapore and Hong Kong are rival economies. If people here are already enjoying more than four times the park allocation in Hong Kong, it would be a small sacrifice to let go of some parkland for factories, if the return is greater prosperity for all.

There are two points in such an argument that have to be scrutinised. The first, as pointed out by an e-mail sent by reader Ngiam Shih Tung is that the comparison is not correct.

Drawing on his experience in Hong Kong - "I have seen a lot more countryside than in Singapore" - Mr Ngiam checked out the official websites of both the Hong Kong and Singapore governments. To his surprise, he found that 84 per cent of land in Hong Kong was not built-up, compared to 50 per cent in Singapore.

""Possibly, URA is only counting urban parks, but in terms of land use, nature areas have recreational uses as well and should be included,'' Mr Ngiam said.

Using official figures, Mr Ngiam estimated that Hong Kong has 63,000 ha of "parkland'' and water catchment areas (all of which could be used by the public). This works out to 6.4 ha per 1000 people. In Singapore, after including places such as Pulau Ubin, there are 5459 ha of parkland, or 1.4 ha per 1000 people.

This means Hong Kongers, instead of having only a quarter of the per capita parkland that Singaporeans have, are actually enjoying four to five times as much as the people here. From the perspective of quality of life, it would seem that Singapore, if it wants to keep up with Hong Kong, should do with less industries and more parks.

Comparisons apart, URA also did not mention golf courses when it presented Singaporeans with a choice of parks or industries. Under the 1991 Concept Plan, URA had catered for a staggering 29 golf courses in Singapore, up from the 14 already in existence. Land, which could have been used for parks, has been reserved for golf courses. How much land is put aside is not known.

Currently, the 14 golf courses are sitting on 1400 ha of land. Another 15 courses would presumably occupy 1500-2000 ha. This means the land reserved for golf courses is almost as big as that reserved for parks.

This raises some questions. As Singapore is already dotted with golf courses, is it necessary to build more? (Ask any veteran golfer and he would say that Singapore and southern Malaysia already have the highest concentration of golf courses in the world).

In other words, we would be putting aside as much land for golf, enjoyed by a minority, as for parks for the entire population. The proper choice, therefore, is not just between parks and industries. Land reserved for golf courses would have to be considered as well. And, of course, there is one last question - would the committees set up by URA now look at golf courses, even though they have not been briefed by the URA to do so?