| News
Stories: |  |
Click-on these
handy "jump links" to quickly access the news item
you're looking
for. 1.
Subsidised housing to stay: official 2.
Cross-border homes flak 3.
Flats delay after piling work fails second test 4.
Wealthy kept safe with freeze on HOS flat sales
1. Subsidised housing to stay: official
A senior official yesterday rejected calls from academics and property agents
for a halt to the construction of subsidised housing. Deputy Secretary for Housing
Andrew Wells said the Home Ownership Scheme (HOS) would be kept to serve people
who could not afford private-sector flats. "Our aim is to keep the HOS, public
housing and housing loans so that people will have more choice," he told RTHK's
City Forum. The Government was accused of collaborating with property tycoons
after the surprise announcement last Monday to freeze the sale of subsidised housing
for 10 months. Lawmakers will discuss the decision in the Legco housing panel
meeting today. At the forum yesterday, leading property agent executive Shih Wing-ching
warned that the Housing Authority might run up huge debts if the prices of its
subsidised flats plunged further. On the government promise of a quota of 12,000
housing loans to compensate for HOS sales, Housing Authority member Wong Kwun
said the Government should not approve all loans in one go for fear of over-stimulating
the market. [Source:
SCMP, 10 September 2001] 2.
Cross-border homes flak
Housing Society chairman Chung Shui-ming cut short his mainland trip to hold what
is expected to be a fiery emergency meeting today to decide whether the society
should withdraw its controversial cross-border flats plan after being blasted
by the government. It was understood Mr Chung planned to stay on the mainland
until Wednesday or Friday but he returned to the SAR on Saturday to prepare for
the meeting with the society's executive committee. ``I have just returned to
Hong Kong and I will handle the problem immediately. In fact, I have asked the
executive committee members to handle it,'' he said. ``Different sectors in the
public have sufficiently expressed their opinions. We'll consider these opinions,''
he told the Ta Kung Pao newspaper yesterday. ``If the executive committee reaches
a consensus, I believe we will come out and meet the press,'' Mr Chung said. He
said the society had been in ``close contact with the government'' since he controversially
revealed last Thursday that it was considering building homes on the mainland,
including Shenzhen, for Hong Kong people and mainlanders waiting for one-way permits.
The plan has been lashed by senior government officials - the latest attack coming
from Secretary for Housing Dominic Wong Shing-wah yesterday. Mr Wong said the
government did not support the flats plan because the society, as a provider of
public housing, should not develop housing projects outside Hong Kong. ``The revenue
it has generated should be used in the Hong Kong community,'' he said. Mr Wong,
who is one of the 12 members of the society's executive committee, also said he
had not known about the flat plan and would express the government's view at today's
meeting. Earlier, the Chief Secretary for Administration Donald Tsang Yam-kuen,
speaking to the media during his official trip to the United States on Saturday,
warned the government would have to review its relationship with the Housing Society
if it built flats outside Hong Kong. Mr Tsang was unsure whether the society would
be allowed to build flats on the mainland. ``In the eyes of the public, the Housing
Society should serve the general public of Hong Kong,'' he said. Last Thursday
Chief Executive Tung Chee-hwa's Information Co-ordinator Stephen Lam Sui-lung
also opposed the scheme on the grounds that the society was a public body. [Source:
HK-iMail, 10 September 2001] 3.
Flats delay after piling work fails second test
The Housing Department has found substandard piles at a public housing construction
project in Fan Ling after two rounds of testing. The piling works at the construction
site, near the North District Hospital, first failed the Housing Department's
safety tests early last year. The contractor was ordered to carry out remedial
works, but subsequent tests this year showed the piling was still not up to scratch,
the department has revealed. Since the eruption of the short-piling scandal in
1999, the Housing Department has strengthened the checking and inspection of piling
works in all public housing projects. The department told Sing Tao Daily, sister
newspaper of the Hong Kong iMail, that the substandard work would delay the completion
of the project by at least a year. A spokesman said the department was still investigating
the exact cause of the poor foundation works - whether it was related to corruption
or technical problems. The initial inspection had found that some piles were not
installed at the specified position and remedial measures were ordered. When the
contractor submitted the new works for approval, they still did not meet department
standards. The department had cancelled all public housing contracts given to
the contractor, who was not identified, the spokesman said. However, the department
had not sought a penalty because it was ``satisfied with the ongoing remedial
works of the company'', he said. An engineering expert, Cheung Kwok-wai, said
the contractor may have made incorrect geological estimates or piles may not have
reached bedrock. [Source:
HK-iMail, 10 September 2001] 4.
Wealthy kept safe with freeze on HOS flat sales
Freezing sales of flats built under the Home Ownership Scheme (HOS), through which
units are sold at subsidised prices to members of the "sandwich class", is disturbing
for reasons beyond apparently revealing a few property tycoons' influence over
public policy. With Hong Kong almost back in recession, the last thing the economy
needs is this restriction on new construction for an ill-housed population. Nor
does it need measures which effectively increase our disgracefully wide income
gap. Land and housing policy needs to be rationalised. And the HOS might not be
an appropriate part of a more coherent system. But for the Government to claim
that by this sudden move it is letting market forces work more effectively is
the kind of mind-numbing nonsense one has come to expect from government. Remember
that Chief Secretary for Administration Donald Tsang Yam-kuen's policies while
financial secretary - a position he vacated in May - played a major role in creating
the property bubble and in tying government revenues ever closer to the property
market. To cap his twisted thinking, Mr Tsang has now suggested flats intended
for low-income households might be sold en bloc, not to the poor but to the companies
which dominate the private-property market and which would presumably be allowed
to sell the flats onwards at a profit. Hong Kong's housing-construction record
for the past decade has been appalling. Developers' contributions to GDP soared,
but actual construction as a share of GDP tumbled. Over the five years from 1996
to 2000, "real-estate developers' margins" - an official measure of the services
rendered by developers through acquiring land, co-ordinating contractors, arranging
project finance and marketing units - totalled $160 billion. Meanwhile, actual
construction spending by the private sector totalled just $237 billion. Construction
performance overall would have been worse but for big public infrastructure projects,
such as the new airport at Chek Lap Kok and West Rail. Huge sums have been spent
providing road and rail services, but the land thus opened for development is
being left idle to appease property interests. Ending future HOS construction
might be a reasonable course if, in addition, the Government reverted to its original
land-sales target. If more land was offered for sale, land prices would fall,
new developers would enter the game, private-sector property prices would probably
fall, and the price gap between public- and private-sector housing would narrow.
But no. In a bid to keep prices high, the Government has restricted land sales
so that most are now completed through negotiation instead of open auction. So
much for a free market. [Source:
SCMP, 10 September 2001]
|  |
|
