For many in Hong Kong our housing problem is high prices and high rents – a shortfall in housing. They conclude that the most adversely affected are the low-income and middle-income households so government must build more housing for these folks, which then means more public sector housing. But there is another way of viewing our housing problem. High prices are not bad news for homeowners and landlords, only for prospective homeowners and renters. Our problem is that 51.5% of our households are now renters. Viewed from this perspective the real housing problem is the unequal distribution of housing wealth. Given that prices and rents have risen many times against income it would take at least a generation to build enough housing to meet the shortfall in housing. Hong Kong’s divided society cannot wait that long. I am not against a government policy to continue to build public housing units. But I believe the units should be offered to eligible households either for purchase or rent (with an option to buy later). For existing occupants of public rental-housing units, I favor giving them the option to buy their unit at an affordable price, and with appropriate caps on the unpaid land premiums and enabling financing arrangements. For the owners of existing subsidized homeownership units, I also favor having their unpaid premium appropriately capped so that there is an incentive to payoff the outstanding amount and become bona fide owners of private property. Let me explain why building more public rental housing units would not solve our housing shortage any time soon and will continue to divide society. Between 2006 and 2016 the number of households living in the private rental-housing sector increased by 178,800 from 351,100 to 529,900 (see Table 1). The total number of households in Hong Kong had only increased by 280,200 from 2,226,800 in 2006 to 2,507,000 in 2016. Table 1: Number of Households by Accommodation 2006-2016 2006 2016 Difference Private rental households 351,100 529,900 178,800 Public rental households 701,000 761,300 60,300 Private owner households 822,600 844,100 21,500 Subsidized owner households 352,100 371,700 19,600 Total households 2,226,800 2,507,000 280,200 Private rental housing households were only 15.8% of the total number of households in 2006, but had grown within 10 years to 21.1% by 2016. Their growth constituted 63.8% of the total increase in households. The relatively small private rental-housing sector has had to absorb the lion’s share of the total increase in households. It is not surprising that sub-divided housing units have blossomed in this sector. As a consequence, rents and property prices have escalated, the demand for housing has continued to be robust, and private developers are building ever-smaller units. Meanwhile the applications waiting list for public rental housing units has shot up from 97,300 in 2006 to 284,800 in 2016. And the so-called “waiting time” has increased from 2 to 4.1 years. Where did these additional low-income households come from? On the surface, these figures seem to suggest that the demand for public rental housing is increasing. The government goal to reduce the waiting time has missed the target again and again. One commentator even concluded, “public housing policy is failing those most in need.” But this is a superficial rendering of what is happening in Hong Kong’s housing sector. A survey conducted by the government in 2005/6 showed that 25% of those on the waiting list lived in public rental housing and 10% lived in subsidized ownership units. The average household size and age of the applicants was dropping rapidly because the number of one-person household applicants was rising. In 2005/6, 43% of those on the waiting list were one-person households In 2016, the number of non-elderly one-person household waiting list applicants constituted 47% of all applicants, with 25% living in public rental housing units and 21% living in subsidized ownership units. Among the general waiting list, 25% were living in public rental housing and 12% were living in subsidized ownership units. Since the waiting list has risen enormously in the past 10 years, it is reasonable to conjecture that not a few of those now living in private rental housing originated from the public housing sector as well. This implies that a large fraction representing the majority of the demand for public rental housing actually comes from within the public rental housing and subsidized ownership sector, especially among non-elderly one-person households. All of us know households have life cycles that affect their size and composition in an organic and evolutionary manner. The decision of whether and when to form a separate household depends on the incentives people face, but getting onto the waiting list for public rental housing is practically costless (subject to eligibility). So judging the intensity of the demand for public rental housing solely on the length of the waiting list is not without its pitfalls. The issue is especially troublesome because Hong Kong’s rapidly ageing population, combined with the long life expectancy of the elderly, is creating additional demand for housing. Both the elderly and the young want housing at the same time. The situation is particularly acute in the public rental-housing sector. The shortfall is exacerbated by the inherent rigidities of a public system that builds relatively homogeneous units that do not allow for the exchange of units through a market system. As a result, elderly members of a household do not vacate their units, so younger adult members seek to move out. This shows up in the rapidly declining average household size in the population. First, long life expectancies mean that a growing number of households are now made up of elderly one-person and two-person households. In the public rental-housing sector, the average household size has declined from 4.77 in 1980 to 2.75 in 2016. Allocation rules for public rental housing units have also favored the elderly. In 2016, 41.1% of all elderly households above the age of 60 lived in public rental housing. There are significant differences in household characteristics between public and private renters. The number of public renter households of one andtwo persons increased between 1996 and 2016, but the number of households with three or more persons declined (see Figure 1). Among private renters, the main increase from 2006 to 2016 was in the number of three or more person households. Another important characteristic among public renters has been the rapid increase of elderly households (aged 60 years or higher) from 1976 to 2016 and the decline of younger households aged 20 to 39 from 1986 to 2016 (see Figure 2). By contrast, among private renters elderly households are not as important as younger and middle-aged households (both increased from 2006 to 2016). Since 1996, all the increase in elderly public rental-housing households has been due to the increase in one-person and two-person households (see Figure 3). In 2016, elderly households constituted 48.1% of all public rental-housing households, of which 27.6% are one-person households and 28.8% are two-person households. Among middle-aged public renter households (age 40-59), the continuous rise in one-person and two-person households was especially rapid from 1996 to 2016. Moreover, the number of households with three or more persons actually dropped after 2006. A number of factors are responsible for such a development. Public rental housing allocation rules give preference to one-person households above the age of 40. Adult children are more likely to leave middle-aged parent households, especially if this helps reduce household income so that parents would not have to pay double rent on account of becoming a well-off family. And finally, there is the rapidly rising divorce rate, whose main incidence has fallen on public rental middle-aged households. All these factors have driven down the average household size in the public rental-housing sector. These developments, together with the subsidized owner sector, has contributed to the growing number of applicants on the waiting list for public rental housing units. Adult children, whose parents are private homeowners, can get financing from their parents to purchase private homes. Those in the public sector have to depend on the government – the ultimate landlord – to get assistance to solve their housing demand needs. But financing is not available from government so the solution is to queue for public rental units on the waiting list. The problem with this administrative allocation is that it is inefficient. The inefficiency shows up in many ways. The allocations of pubic rental units are dependent on criteria adopted by the Housing Authority. The criteria are not necessarily bad, but they tend to be rigid and are often behind the times. Established criteria are difficult to change and tend to be defended by vested interests long after they are useful. An obvious example of major inefficiencies is the homogeneity of the units. The primary official consideration is often fairness. But this becomes a barrier for parents and adult children to live together because units are too small for two generations to live in the same quarter. Another example is that the allocated units may be too far from the parents’ home causing other losses. The inefficiencies can spill over into other non-housing areas. It is a no-brainer that many of the elderly households living in the public rental-housing sector are in need of domestic care. Mr. C K Law, Secretary of Labour and Welfare, has recently floated the idea that about 600,000 domestic helpers might have to be recruited by 2047 to care for the needs of the elderly poor. Obviously, most of these foreign helpers will be serving public rental-housing tenants. The natural question to ask is, why aren’t some of these elderly households staying with their children? Or better still, why aren’t some of the children moving in with them? There are of course many reasons why this is not happening. But surely one of them is that the rigidities of the public rental housing program and its regulations do not provide such flexibility. Only bona fide housing markets can perform such facilitation. If the government believes that building more public rental-housing units would shorten the waiting time, then it is betting that supply can eventually catch up with demand to clear the waiting list. But the longevity of our elderly population will drive the demand for public rental housing for a long time to come. Hong Kong’s housing shortage will not be solved any time soon. Society will continue to be divided between “haves” and “have-nots” and the feeling of injustice will not abate. If this is the only approach the government has, then the waiting list will only get longer and longer because the only hope for vast numbers of people needing housing is to join the waiting list. Supply will continue to lag behind demand. Building ever more public housing will create the kind of perverse incentive that also plagued the 1950s resettlement policy to clear squatters. The number of squatters actually increased from 300,000 in 1954 to 600,000 in 1964. Eventually, more than a million squatters had to be resettled because more and more people voluntarily turned themselves into squatters hoping to be resettled. This is the Say’s Law of public housing: supply creates its own demand. Chinese Version : 公屋轮候名册愈来愈长王于渐教授 SBS JP 对不少香港市民而言，房屋问题就是房屋供应短缺引致楼价高兼租金贵，低收入与中等收入家庭首当其冲，因此政府须为这些阶层增加房屋供应，亦即增建公营房屋。 其实还可从另一角度检视观房屋问题。高楼价只对有意置业者和租客不利，对现有业主和地主并非噩耗，问题是租户占本地家庭比例高达 51.5%。由此著眼，房屋财富分配不均，才是问题核心所在。 楼价与租值远高於收入增幅的现象既存在已久，至少须经历一个世代，本地建屋进度才可望追上需求。香港社会的分化问题却已是刻不容缓。 我并非反对政府续建公屋的政策，而是认为公屋单位应可供合资格住户购置或租住，并提供先租后买选择。 对於现有公屋租户，我提议让他们以可负担之价格购买其单位，由政府锁定补地价金额，并提供融资安排。 至於现有居屋单位住户，我同样主张在适当水平锁定补价，为业主提供提早清偿补地价的诱因，以便成为拥有私人住宅的真正业主。 下文将详加阐释何以增建出租公屋不能为供应短缺问题对症下药，并会进一步分化社会。 2006至2016年期间，私楼租户数目激增178,800，由351,100增至 529,900（【表1】），同期全港住户总数仅由2,226,800升至2,507,000，为数合共280,200。 表1 2006-2016年按居所性质划分的住户数目 2006年 2016年 差额 私楼租户 351,100 529,900 178,800 公屋租户 701,000 761,300 60,300 私楼自置居所住户 822,600 844,100 21,500 资助自置居所住户 352,100 371,700 19,600 全港住户 2,226,800 2,507,000 280,200 2006年，私楼租户占全港住户比例仅为15.8%，但短短十年之间，在2016年增至21.1%，增幅占全港住户总增幅63.8%。 私人住宅租赁市场相对较少，却反而要容纳全港住户增幅中的大多数，市场上涌现「劏房」单位，也就不足为奇；结果导致租金与楼价同时飙升，房屋需求有增无减，私人发展商则转而兴建更细小单位。 上述10年之内，公屋轮候名册中申请数目由97,300跃升至284,800；所谓「轮候时间」，则由2年延长至4.1年。增幅如此大的低收入家庭，究竟从何而来？ 表面上，新增数字似乎显示出租公屋需求日渐殷切，无奈政府在缩短轮候时间方面一再延期达标，有论者就此断言：「公屋政策未能照顾需求最殷者。」但对於香港房屋市场现况，如此说法未免流於表面。 据政府在2005/06年度进行的一项调查显示，公屋轮候名册中有25% 为现有公屋租户，另有10% 则居於居屋。随着单人住户数目提升，申请者的平均住户人数与年龄，同告急剧下跌。该年度轮候名册中，有43% 属单人住户。 2016年，非年长单人住户申请者占轮候册上总数47%，其中25% 为公屋租户，21% 属居屋住户；轮候册整体住户中，公屋租户占25%，居屋住户则占12%。 鉴於轮候名册数目近十年来大幅攀升，可以推论，私楼租户中亦有不少原本租住公屋。这意味着对出租公屋的需求，其中包括大批来自公屋及居屋的住户，而以非长者单人住户尤甚。 众所周知，人生周期影响住户的人数与组合。虽然成家立室、自立门户的决定因人而异，但只要符合资格，轮候公屋单位无需任何费用，单凭轮候名册中数目断定公屋需求是否殷切，难免有失偏颇。 再者，香港人口急剧老化，加上长者预期寿命增长，房屋需求自然百上加斤；不论年轻人或长者，同样存在需求，在出租公屋方面尤其明显。况且现行公屋政策一成不变，所建单位设计千篇一律，亦缺乏市场机制可容住户互换单位，公屋短缺问题只会变本加厉。 结果长者不会归还公屋单位，年轻成员需迁出自立门户，这由平均住户人数急剧下跌可见。 首先，人口预期寿命增加，单人及双人长者住户的数目随之上升。1980年，公屋租户每户平均人数为4.77名，至2016年则减至2.75名。2016年，全港年过60的长者住户中，有41.1%居於出租公屋。 公屋与私楼租户的特点显然有别。1996至2016年，公屋租户中单人及双人住户有所增加，三人或以上住户则逐渐减少（【图1】）；至於私楼租户，自2006至2016年，以三人或以上住户增幅最高。 从【图2】可见公屋租户的另一重大特点。1976至2016年期间，年届60或以上长者住户激增；1986至2016年的30年间，20至39岁组别的年轻住户数目则下滑。对比之下，私楼租户中长者住户则远较年轻及中年住户次要，后两类住户在2006至2016年期间均见增加。 自1996年以来，长者（年届60）公屋租户的数目增幅，主要源自单人及双人住户增长（【图3】）。2016年，长者住户占整体公屋租户48.1%，其中27.6% 属单人住户，28.8% 属双人住户。 中年公屋租户（年龄介乎40至59岁）之中，1996至2016年单人与双人住户续升之势尤其急剧；事实上三人或以上住户之数目自2006年之后下降。 上述趋势的背后原因包括：公屋分配规则给予40岁以上单人住户优先权；中年住户中，成年子女为免父母缴交富户租金而自愿迁出；离婚率急升，也集中在中年公屋租户之中。 公屋租户每户平均人数因而日减；公屋住户人数的转变，加上居屋住户，成为公屋轮候名册的两大来源。 父母若为私楼业主，成年子女可藉父母支援，在私人住宅市场置业。公屋租户子女则须靠政府（全港最终地主）资助，以解决其房屋需求；由於政府并无直接提供置业资助，他们唯有轮候公屋。以行政手法分配公屋单位，弊病在於效率偏低。 效率偏低呈现於多方面。分配出租公屋基於房屋委员会所制定的准则，有关准则本无不妥，可惜过於僵化，未能与时并进，但既定成规不易改变，纵使不合时宜，既得利益者亦往往全力捍卫。 例如单位设计过度划一，就充份反映效率偏低。政府每以公平为考虑基础，但单位面积太小，实在不利两代同堂。又例如子女获分配公屋单位，但距离父母居所太远，造成不便。 低效率亦会影响其他方面。不少公屋长者住户，确实需要家庭佣工照顾。劳工及福利局局长罗致光先生近日提出，至2047年或需聘用60万名家庭佣工，以照顾贫困长者的需要。显然此等外籍佣工会有大部份以服务公屋租户为主。 这些长者住户何以并非与子女同住？若论较理想的安排，为何子女不迁进有关公屋与父母同住？原因固然不一而足，但可以断言，出租公屋分配制度及规条过於僵化必为其中之一。真正自由的房屋市场才能提供个中所需灵活性。 假使政府相信增建出租公屋有助缩短轮候时间，则无异於打赌供应定将追上需求，清除轮候名册。然而长者日益长寿，势必长期带动出租公屋需求。香港房屋供应短缺，不会在短期内得以化解；本地社会持续分为「有产阶级」和「无产一族」，社会不公的怨气也就难以消除。 若政府只采取此政策，则轮候名册只会愈来愈长，因大部份人的住屋唯一希望只有参加轮候，供应将继续被远远抛离。在不断增建公屋的负面影响下，1950年代但求安置寮屋居民的徙置政策弊端亦会借尸还魂。回顾往昔， 1954至1964年的10年之间，全港寮屋居民由30万倍增至 60万；当年为求获得安置，自愿变为寮屋居民者日众，最终政府须为逾百万寮屋居民提供居所。这正是公屋供应的萨伊定律(Say’s Law) ––需求由供应而生。
App下载
