Extracted from MingPao (HK); Scroll below for original Cantonese version
Carefully reading the content of the Policy Address, we can easily see that, apart from establishing a land reserve and continuously increasing the supply of public housing, this year’s housing policy is focused on increasing the supply and turnover of subsidized home ownership flats (HOS, Home Ownership Scheme). Relevant measures include increasing the supply of HOS and Green Form Subsidised Home Ownership Scheme (GSH) flats, improving sales and transfer arrangements, launching the “Elderly Owners Flat Exchange Scheme,” and relaxing the transfer restriction period for HOS flats to facilitate subsidized housing owners’ entry into the private market. We are pleased to see the government further building the home ownership ladder, allowing citizens to gradually move from inadequate housing to public rental housing, then from public rental housing to subsidized sale flats or the private housing market, providing opportunities for upward social mobility.
Past policy experience tells us that building the home ownership ladder must take a “four-pronged approach.” Inadequate housing, public rental housing, HOS, and the private market can be seen as a four-storey building—whichever floor is overcrowded, oversupplied, or undersupplied, or if the upwardly mobile between floors lack adequate social support, deep social contradictions may arise. One major blind spot of past policies has been insufficient flow between these levels, with policymakers failing to pay attention to the overall planning of the home ownership ladder. Over time, the public rental and HOS tiers have become overcrowded. Despite various housing schemes launched by successive governments, the overall home ownership rate (private housing) has still dropped slightly from 37.9% to 35.3% in over 20 years. In recent years, inadequate housing has gradually been phased out in favor of basic housing, and the once overheated private housing market has cooled down, with about 100,000 new units supplied in the primary private housing market. We believe that now is a good time to reform the public housing system to increase turnover.
The Double-Edged Sword of High Public Housing Value: Accelerating Turnover Should Be Policy Focus
To understand the speed of public housing turnover, we must first answer one question—what is the value of public housing? As public welfare resource, how much benefit does public housing actually bring to grassroots families and to society as a whole? To answer this, several scholars from Peking University and The University of Hong Kong used three decades of household expenditure survey data from the Census and Statistics Department to analyze household savings across different housing types. The findings were published in an international journal under the title “Public Housing and Household Savings—A Three-Decade Repeated Cross-Sectional Analysis.” The study first found that Hong Kong residents’ overall savings ability has improved in recent years: on average, for every dollar of income, residents saved HKD0.52 in 1989/1990, to HKD0.70 in 2019/2020. More directly, comparing public housing tenants and non-public housing tenants, after adjusting for income, public housing tenants were able to save an average of HKD9186.90 per month, compared to private homeowners, public housing tenants saved only HKD1,122.20 less per month. These figures show that public housing in Hong Kong is a double-edged sword—it provides an ideal environment for grassroots families to improve their lives and manage finances, but its high value gives tenants little incentive to move out. The system also allows tenants to transfer their tenancy rights. As a result, the flow within the housing ladder is blocked at the public housing level, and grassroots families with urgent housing needs can only wait patiently. At the same time, this gap may deepen social contradictions. Recently, the saying “if you get public housing, you get the world” has become popular. Public housing, originally intended as a safety net for grassroots housing needs, has turned into a highly sought-after resource.
If existing resources are occupied for a long time and cannot be released in time to families in greater need, social contradictions will only be worsen. In recent years, controversies over public housing site selection in new development areas like Kai Tak, and tensions between housing groups, have made it clear that accelerating public housing turnover is now a matter of urgency.
Turnover Requires Social Support Systems
Currently, nearly 30% of Hong Kong households live in public housing. The population is large, so while reform is necessary, it should not be rushed. Whether through the Tenants Purchase Scheme, setting limits on public housing tenancy duration, restricting transfer rights, increasing rent flexibility, or tightening well-off tenants policies, if some tenants move out due to improved economic capacity but lack adequate support, they may face heavy financial pressure in transitioning to subsidized or private housing, or even fall back into housing difficulties. Therefore, while promoting public housing turnover, comprehensive social support must be provided to assist those moving out of public housing, such as establishing a robust appeals mechanism, providing low-interest transitional loans to help tenants afford private market rents or mortgages in the short term, and setting up dedicated teams within District Offices and Care Teams.
Building Consensus to Strengthen the Home Ownership Ladder
The past two years of Policy Addresses have sent a clear message: for those with economic means, public housing should be regarded as a stepping stone to stabilize life and accumulate wealth, not a permanent end point. If the government intends to further solidify the “home ownership ladder” as the core of future housing policy, educational promotion and policy tools must be combined to gradually build and accumulate social consensus. Only then can the home ownership ladder function positively—not only easing social contradictions, but also allowing families with urgent housing needs or living in poor conditions to benefit sooner, and guiding society toward a fairer and more cohesive housing order.
仔細閱讀施政報告內文，我們不難發現，除建立土地儲備及持續增加公營房屋供應外，今年房屋政策的着墨點放了在增加居屋供應及流轉之上。相關措施包括增加居屋及綠置居供應，改善出售與轉讓安排，推出「長者業主樓換樓計劃」，並放寬居屋轉讓限制年期，以便利資助房屋業主進入私人市場。 我們樂見政府進一步建立置業階梯，讓市民循序漸進由不適切居所入住公屋，繼而由公屋銜接至資助出售單位或私人樓市，為市民向上流動提供機會。
過往政策經驗告訴我們，建立置業階梯必須「四管齊下」，不適切居所、公屋、居屋及私營市場恍如一座樓高4層的大廈——哪一層人滿為患、哪一層供應過多或過少，乃至樓層與樓層之間，正在向上流動的階層若得不到適切的社會支援，都有可能引發深層的社會矛盾。過往政策一大盲點就是階層間的流轉不足，政策制定者沒有注意到整體置業階梯的規劃。久而久之，公屋、居屋階層人滿為患，多屆政府雖推出不同建屋計劃，但整體自置居所比率卻仍在20年間由37.9%微跌至35.3%。直至近年，不適切居所慢慢被取締為簡樸房、早年過熱的私營房屋市場慢慢降溫，私人住宅一手市場供應達約10萬伙，我們相信，現在會是一個改革公屋制度以增加公屋流轉的好時機。
公屋價值過高雙面刃 加快流轉應為政策重點
要了解公屋流轉的速度，我們必先回答一個問題——公屋的價值何在？作為一項公共福利資源，對於基層家庭來說，公屋到底帶來了多少的益處、為大眾帶來多大的社會效益？為解答這個疑問，北京大學和香港大學的幾位學者利用政府統計處30年間的住戶開支統計調查，分析不同房屋戶的儲蓄金額，以Public Housing and Household Savings—A Three-Decade Repeated Cross-Sectional Analysis為題將結果發布於國際期刊。研究首先發現近年整體香港市民的儲蓄能力有所改善，由1989/1990年間每一元的收入平均儲到0.52元，上升到2019/2020年間的0.7元。其中針對公屋戶及非公屋租戶的比較更加直接帶出了公屋的社會價值——經收入調整後，對比非公屋租戶，公屋戶每月平均更能儲到9186.9元。而對比私樓業主，公屋戶每月僅僅少儲1122.2元。這套數字帶出，公屋在香港實為一把雙面刃——公屋為有需要的基層家庭提供了一個非常理想的環境去改善生活及規劃財務，但同時過高的價值使戶主沒有誘因去搬離公屋，制度亦容許戶主轉讓業權，結果在置業階梯之中，公屋的人潮一直無法被疏通，有迫切住屋需求的基層家庭只好慢慢守候；同時，這種差距亦可能加深社會矛盾，近年坊間流行一句「得公屋得天下」，公屋原本作為承托基層家庭住屋需求的一張保護網，變成搶手的房屋資源。
若現有資源長期被佔用，未能及時釋放予更有需要的家庭，只會加深社會矛盾。近年啟德等新發展區因公屋選址而引發爭議，不同住屋階層出現對立的情况可見一斑，加快公屋流轉已屬刻不容緩。
實施流轉須社會配套承托
現時香港近三成住戶為公屋戶，受影響的人口龐大，制度改革雖不能不做，但不能操之過急。無論是租者置其屋計劃、為公屋年期設限、限制業權轉讓、增加公屋租金彈性，還是繼續收緊富戶政策，若部分住戶因經濟能力提升而遷出公屋時，缺乏適當的承托與支援，他們在過渡至資助房屋或私人市場的過程中，可能面對沉重的財務壓力，甚至有可能再次跌入住屋困境。因此，推動公屋流轉的同時，必須配合周全的社會配套，為遷出的公屋戶提供適切的幫助，如設立完善上訴機制、提供低息過渡性貸款，協助住戶在短期內承擔私人市場租金或按揭，及安排各區民政事務處、關愛隊成立相關專責小組等等。
以社會共識鞏固置業階梯
近兩年的施政報告已釋出一個明確信息：對於具經濟能力的住戶而言，公屋應被視為協助穩定生活與累積財富的中轉站，而非長期停留的終點站。若政府有意進一步鞏固「置業階梯」作為未來房屋政策的核心，就必須將教育宣傳與政策工具互相配合，逐步建立並累積社會共識。唯有如此，置業階梯方能良性運作，不僅有助減輕矛盾，更能讓有迫切需要的輪候家庭／居住環境惡劣的家庭及早受惠，推動社會邁向更公平及更具凝聚力的住屋秩序。
作者黃文峻是香港大學社會工作及社會行政學系博士候選人、賽馬會「絡區樂居」項目高級研究助理，郭永皓是賽馬會「絡區樂居」項目研究助理
Comments are closed