Three--pronged approach

YESTERDAY the government released aconsultation framework on subsidising homeownership. As it had become known, thegovernment decided to keep the consultation exerciselow low--key. Though the government insists that it hastaken no position on the issue, it is clear from thedocument how it is inclined. Furthermore, nothing in itshows it is the government's policy objective to findways to straighten housing supply and demand out bymeans of the consultation exercise with a view tobringing about a healthy property market.

It is a major policy matter whether the governmentshould subsidise home ownership. The findings of theconsultation would affect many citizens. Thegovernment used to be rigorous in consulting thepublic about such an important matter (like health carefinancing). It used to call a press conference to givethe public information on it and meticulously follow therequired procedure. However, the consultationdocument was only posted on a special page on theTransport and Housing Bureau's website. No hardcopies of it have been prepared. As press storiesabout it can only be given limited space, those whohave no computers cannot read the full text of it. Asthey may not grasp the crux of the matter, it is indeeddoubtful that they can offer well well--considered, objectiveviews.

The consultation runs for about three and a halfmonths and closes on September 17. Secretary forTransport and Housing Eva Cheng has to submit herhomework to Chief Executive Donald Tsang so that hecan tackle the question of property prices goingbeyond middle class citizens' means in his policyaddress next October. The important consultationexercise will be kept low low--key. Unless it is broadlybased, it may be what the government uses topackage its own views as the public's.

Though Eva Cheng has stressed that thegovernment has taken no position on the issue, it isclear that the framework gives a negativerepresentation of many people's suggestion that thegovernment should revive the Home OwnershipScheme (HOS). For example, about land resourcesimplications, it says, "If land for PRH (public rentalhousing) development is to be used for subsidisedhousing, the long long--term land supply problem for PRHdevelopment would be exacerbated exacerbated." ."

If only the government makes long long--term planning,there will be sufficient land for PRH, private housingand HOS development. There is no problem of land forother sorts of housing being used for HOSdevelopment. Were there any problem, it would be ofthe government's own making and have nothing to dowith the HOS. The statement does smack of thegovernment's desire to sling mud on subsidisedhousing. The so so--called consultation is biased.

The framework says, "Some have pointed outthat, as shown from past trends in the property market,HOS flats cannot help curb the prevailing propertyprices." We have suggested that the governmentsuitably revive the HOS, but we have not done sobecause we want property prices curbed. In the pastthree decades, HOS flats were produced, but privateflat prices kept going up. The purpose of producingHOS flats is to offer flats sandwich class citizens canafford so that they can fulfil their dreams of owing theirown homes. That it would cause the property market tocollapse to revive the HOS is a groundless threat.

Never has the HOS caused the property market tocollapse. This is a fact. The property market crashedsoon after the handover. However, it did not becauseof the HOS but because of the impact of the Asianfinancial turmoil, the burst of the dotcom bubble andthe SARS outbreak.

In the final analysis, the problem with Hong Kong'sproperty market is that supply is out of equilibrium withdemand.

We urge that the government do three thingssimultaneously. It should, first, reorganise itself so thata single department will implement its housing policy;second, scientifically ascertain housing demand andaccordingly plan land supply; and third, resume regularland auctions and suitably revive the HOS. Only if itmakes strategic long long--term plans and does what mayhelp increase flat supply can it avert severe housingsupply supply--demand imbalance and prevent property pricesfrom roller roller--coastering.

交差式諮詢難有突破理順樓市須三管齊下

2010.06.02明報社評

政府就資助市民自置居所問題，昨日發表諮詢框架，正如事先已知的情况，這次諮詢以低調方式進行，雖云政府無立場，從內容所見，傾向卻甚為明顯，而且未看到政府要透過這次諮詢，尋求理順房屋供求，長遠地營造一個健康樓市政策的目標。

政府是否資助市民置業，其實是一項大政策，諮詢結果影響許多市民，類似這樣的大政策，例如醫療融資，政府都以較嚴謹做法處理——召開記者會公告周知、甚至發表諮詢文件等，相關程序做得一絲不苟。這次諮詢框架的資料，只上載在運輸及房屋局網頁內特別闢設的一個專頁。由於沒有文件，傳媒報道諮詢的內容有局限，若無電腦的市民，難窺全豹，在不了解問題的實質下，他們能否提供成熟客觀意見，實屬疑問。

這次諮詢到99 月17 日結束，諮詢期約33 個半月，運輸及房屋局長鄭汝樺要交功課，讓行政長官曾蔭權在10 月發表施政報告時，回應樓價高企下中產人士置業難的訴求。這樣一個重要諮詢以低調處理，若未經市民廣泛參與回響，可能結果是經過諮詢包裝的官意，由曾蔭權在施政報告宣示政策，能否對症下藥，實屬疑問。鄭汝樺雖然強調政府並無立場，但是對於不少人提出的復建居屋建議，諮詢框架明顯地以負面表述。例如，關於資助房屋對土地資源的影響，諮詢框架認為「把發展公屋用地用作興建資助房屋，長遠而言，公屋發展的土地供應問題將會惡化」。

在土地供應方面，只要有長遠規劃，公屋用地、私樓用地、居屋用地，三者並行不悖，根本就沒有資助房屋佔用了其他房屋土地的問題。若有問題，也由政府一手做成，並非居屋的問題。政府的表述有抹黑資助房屋之嫌，這是所謂諮詢的偏頗之處。

諮詢框架說「不少評論指出，從過往物業市場的軌迹可見，居屋不能遏抑當前的樓價」。我們建議復建適量居屋，並非為了遏抑樓價，事實上，證諸過去30 多年，在居屋與私樓市場同時存在之時，私樓樓價仍然持續攀升，居屋只是給予夾心階層可以負擔、以遂置業安居之夢的選擇。所以， 若說復建居屋會推冧樓市，乃屬毫無根據的恫嚇言詞，歷史上居屋從未推冧樓市，這是事實。就算回歸後樓市一度大崩圍，罪魁禍首也並非居屋，而是歷經亞洲金融風暴、科網股爆破、SARS 等連串衝擊的結果。

今天，本港樓市的問題，歸根究柢是供需失衡。

我們主張政府三管齊下：（ 11）調整架構，或重組職能）分工，由單一部門統籌房屋政策；（ 22）以科學方法，找）出市民對房屋的真實需求，然後規劃土地供應；（ 33）恢）復定期賣地和復建居屋。只有以戰略眼光長遠規劃，從供應面入手，才可以使房屋供應和需求不致過度失衡，樓市不致出現急升暴跌的局面。

G lossary

eexacerbate xacerbate /ek ek''ssaass ???be beIIt/ t/make worse.

making

If a problem is of your own making, it is createdby you rather than by anybody else.