Public resentment

HONG KONG is similar to Singapore in area and population, and they both started building public housing at more or less the same time in the 1960s and 1970s. However, while flats fetch sky-high prices everywhere in Hong Kongnow, and Hong Kong people must pay dearly for theirhomes, 80% of Singaporeans live in government-builtHDB (Housing and Development Board) flats. InSingapore, the per-capita living space is bigger, andproperty prices are lower. According to the findings ofa survey released last week, now a much higherpercentage of Hong Kong people support using radicalmeans to pressure the government. We believe that isthe case party because many a citizen must toil formuch of his life to pay for his very small flat. We neednot copy exactly what Singapore does. However, HongKong must rethink its housing policy.

Interviewed by our reporter, Yap Chin Beng, anHDB deputy chief executive director, said theSingapore government encouraged people to own theirhomes because they would then have a stake in thecountry and want the society to do well and to be openand stable.

This idea of social development is quite differentfrom Hong Kong's.

*The SAR government emphasises "smallgovernment, big market". It says it should stay awayfrom the property market instead of intervening in it.The Singapore government's idea is that housing isessential to people's happy life. In the city state, thegovernment is the biggest supplier of housing, andbusinesses only play a supporting role.

*The Hong Kong government emphasises thatflats are freely traded in the market and speculation isa market activity, whereas the Singapore governmentregards housing as a necessity.

*In Hong Kong, public housing is built for those inthe lower strata of society, whereas the Singaporegovernment provides housing for the majority of people.*In Hong Kong, property prices are high and someuse property as an investment vehicle. However,Singaporeans regard property basically as dwellings.

Several hundred thousand Hong Kong citizensown private housing. Furthermore, Hong Kong's taxregime and economic structure are very different fromSingapore's. We must not copy exactly what theSingaporeans do, but we would do well to learn fromtheir experience.

(1) Most Hong Kong families must spend largeamounts of their savings on their dwellings. Many acitizen is a "flat slave" who must work hard to pay offhis 20-year mortgage on his tiny tiny flat. Should thatbe an aspect of "sustainable development"? What willcome of ever accumulating public resentment? Is itnecessary to change this situation?

(2) If it is, how? One way is for the government toadhere to the idea that it should stay away from theproperty market but enact laws to make it costlier tospeculate in property. Another way is for it to intervenein the property market again - to supply moreresidential land and suitably revive the HomeOwnership Scheme (HOS). Which of the twoapproaches is more effective and more in Hong Kongpeople's interests?

(3) It is necessary to have regard to the cost ofreform. Eighty per cent of Singaporeans live in HDBflats. For that Singapore has indeed paid a price.Singaporeans pay higher tax and, unlike the HongKong government, the Singapore government has nosky-high revenue from land sales. Some havecriticised the Singapore government for threatening notto increase HDB flat supply in certain districts todissuade their residents from supporting theopposition. Are Hong Kong people prepared to facepotential tax rises and such potential political risks?If the SAR government, adhering to its presentpolicy, refrains from selling land, land and propertyprices will go up and up, it will become harder andharder for people to meet their housing needs, andpublic resentment will continue to grow. A way that ispracticable and would only have minimal impact is torevive the HOS. The Hong Kong British government'spurpose of launching the HOS was to increasepeople's sense of belonging, thereby increasing socialstability. It once served as the Singapore government'smodel. The SAR government should suitably revive theHOS to help sandwich-class citizens to buy their ownhomes. (D0901)

明報社評

2010.04.12

港人蝸居斗室怨氣滿腹星洲安居政策有助反思

香港與新加坡面積和人口都相近，而且在差不多時間（1960、70 年代）起步搞公營房屋，然而，今天香港天價樓處處，港人為了解決居住問題付出沉重代價；新加坡則八成人口居於政府興建的「組屋」，人均居住面積遠較香港大，樓價亦較廉。上周的一項調查指出，贊成激烈抗爭的港人大增，部分原因應與不少人勞碌半生才換來斗室蝸居有關。我們毋須全盤照抄星洲的一套，但必須反思香港的房屋政策。

新加坡建屋發展局副局長葉振銘接受本報記者訪問時強調，鼓勵國民擁有房子， 「意味他們在這個國家有份（hold a stake in the country），他們會希望社會好、開放及平穩。」

這是一個與香港截然不同的社會發展理念：

● 香港強調小政府大市場，政府不應干預，要「退出房屋市場」；新加坡的理念則是，房屋是國民安居之本，供應主要靠政府，商人只扮演一個配合的角色；

● 香港強調住屋是商品，是自由市場的範疇，炒賣也是市場活動；新加坡則強調住屋是必需品；

●香港的公營房屋只照顧低下階層，新加坡則照顧大

部分人；

●香港樓價高企，買樓被賦予投資保值的功能；但，新加坡偏重樓宇的居住功能。

香港現有數十萬名私樓業主，經濟結構和稅制都很不同，不可能全盤照抄新加坡的一套，但新加坡的經驗值得借鑑。

（1）香港不少家庭把大量積蓄押在所住的單位上，為供樓當上20 年「屋奴」，換來的仍只是一個斗室。這是否一個「可持續發展」的模式？民怨繼續積累又會帶來什麼樣的後果？現况是否需要改變？

（2）如果要變，應如何變？第一個方向，是維持「政府應退出建屋市場」的思維，只從法規入手，加重炒賣樓宇的成本；另一個方向，是政府恢復介入樓市，增加住宅土地供應和復建居屋。哪一個方向較為有效？更符合港人利益？

（3）要注意改革的成本。從新加坡的經驗得知，八成人口居於組屋，並非沒有代價，新加坡稅率較香港高，政府也沒有了天價地王拍賣的收入，新加坡政府更曾被人批評，以減少個別社區組屋供應來威脅該區國民不要支持反對黨。這些潛在的加稅及政治風險，港人是否願意面對？

香港如果繼續目前的政策不變，政府不主動賣地，讓地價樓價被炒高，市民置業需求難以有效解決，民怨只會日增。一個切實可行而又影響最小的方法，是復建居屋。當年，港英政府推行居屋計劃，目的就是要增強港人的歸屬感，令社會穩定，更一度是新加坡的學習對象；如今，特區政府應復建適量居屋，幫助夾心階層置業。

Glossary

toil /t ɔIl/

work very hard and for a long time.come of

be the result of.

dissuade /dI'sweId/

If you dissuade a person from doing something,you persuade him not to do it.