Policy Address
I’m not sure if I am supposed to say this but I found the 2024 policy address, delivered last week by chief executive John Lee Ka-chiu, interesting. It was comprehensive, covered a lot of ground, and in places was quite detailed, especially on economic development.
One or two quibbles of course. After all I am a commentator, not a government PR person, but overall a solid effort.
There was no space to cover the need to draw a line under the events of 2019-20 and begin the process of reconciliation; perhaps if we are lucky this will be pursued in coming months in a low-profile way.
The sections on hosting events still tended to throw the term “mega” around a bit too freely, but at least the emphasis seemed to be more on making sure future ones deserved the description rather than applying it to every common or garden happening.
On the economy, there was a very clear statement of priority on the way forward: “The Northern Metropolis is the new engine of Hong Kong’s economic development”. I half expected this to be followed by an acknowledgement that the Kau Yi Chau Artificial Islands development would now have lesser priority but, on the contrary, a later section made clear the Government would take forward that project also, albeit “in a steady and prudent manner.” Work would start on the statutory environmental impact assessment (EIA) process for the reclamation works before the end of this year with the target of completing the relevant approval procedures next year. The related detailed engineering design would also commence later this year.
I seriously doubt whether Hong Kong has sufficient professional planning and engineering resources to maintain this schedule, or the financial resources to pursue implementation in the near future, while giving priority to the Metropolis. But these are questions for another day.
From a social perspective I found the sections on housing the most significant. There seems to be a clear determination to take strong action on subdivided units to make sure they meet certain minimum standards, including a window, a separate toilet, and an area of no less than eight square metres (about 85 square feet). This is similar to the recommendation in a recent report by the Hong Kong Institute of Surveyors suggesting 100 square feet. Premises that meet the standard will be classified as Basic Housing Units. There will be legislation, all rented out units must be registered and, after a suitable grace period, brought up to BHU standard or they will become illegal. Assuming stringent enforcement action, the worst units will gradually become a thing of the past.
Reading these paragraphs in the report, I have mixed feelings as I am sure many readers will too. On the one hand we are at last taking action; but on the other hand, our aspiration is an extremely modest one which only emphasises how appalling the current situation is. Who among SCMP readers would find it acceptable to live in a unit with these dimensions? Yet Hong Kong has 110,000 households living in subdivided units and for some of them adoption of these pitiful standards would represent an improvement.
There is no timetable for implementing the new arrangements, but given the prominence of the issue in the address the exercise is likely to be given priority so with luck we could be looking at 3 – 4 years. Some of those being displaced will require rehousing so clearance will have to be phased on a building by building, unit by unit basis depending on degree of dilapidation and availability of nearby rehousing options. Some of the quarantine sites developed to handle the pandemic could surely be put to good use, at least on an interim basis.
The sections on construction of public housing, whether for rental or the Home Ownership Scheme, are reassuring. Development will continue at full speed and there is likely to be a further reduction in waiting time for public housing. Land will also be available for sale to and development by the private sector. The question that arises is what the government will do with sites available for housing which developers are reluctant to buy. Will the reserve price be lowered to attract buyers, or will the sites be handed to public bodies in order to maintain momentum of housing production? However reluctantly, someone may have to answer this question soon unless there is a significant improvement in market sentiment.
The Northern Metropolis is a major contributor to meeting Hong Kong’s future housing needs. In the next five years it is scheduled to provide 60,000 housing units and a further 150,000 in the following five years. That makes sense because development of the technopole and other technology nodes will provide much employment.
Quantity of housing is only one aspect, equally important is quality including size. The policy address puts great emphasis on the need to attract and nurture talents, both our own locally born and from around the world. These individuals are critical to growth in many sectors of the economy and they have two things in common: they are in great demand internationally which makes them highly mobile, and they expect a high quality of living environment. Hong Kong has a reputation for extremely high property prices and very small flats. Who else among advanced economies offers apartments of 200 square feet for sale?
I am going to go out on a limb here, and judging by the popularity of village houses among the expat community, I’m going to say for the record anything less than 700 square feet is unlikely to persuade such people to stay and raise a family. Yet their retention is the basis of our future economy. Failure to meet their reasonable aspirations could see us attracting and nurturing them, then waving goodbye.