Hong Kong Intelligence Report #88 俎上肉的基層:李家超政府能否解決香港土地房屋問題?

Open-source intelligence (OSINT)

FILE PHOTO: Migration © Envato

IMPORTANT 【重要】


土地房屋問題是個最嚴重的反中亂港問題,也就是香港最糟透的首要國家安全問題。換言之,在所有反中亂港問題中,最棘手的,最起主要作用的反中亂港問題乃阻礙經濟轉型的土地房屋問題此一發展桎梏。結局,整個香港社會依然如同200年前英國的封閉村(closed village)。我們為討論有關民生問題,一點也不需要刻意使用「官商勾結;地產霸權」此特殊用語,是因為這些是否屬實都是眾所周知的。不過,政商勾結,官商勾結,官商共謀,「白蟻」利益輸送造成的犯罪現象叫做貪腐。據李家超在2022年10月20日的見解(李家超稱「官商勾結」說法致社會分化矛盾 需反擊相關思想 LINK),


The land and housing issue is the most serious anti-China issue, which is also the worst national security issue in Hong Kong. In other words, among all the anti-China issues, the most difficult and major anti-China issue is the land and housing issue, which is the shackle of development that hinders economic transformation. In the end, the whole Hong Kong society is still like the closed village in England 200 years ago. For discussing livelihood issues, we do not need to use the specific term "collusion between the government and business and property hegemony" as usual because it is well known whether these are true or not. However, and the transfer of benefits by "termites" is a criminal phenomenon called corruption. According to John Lee Ka-chiu's opinion on October 20, 2022 (John Lee Ka-chiu said that the "collusion between government and business" theory causes social division and contradiction, and the related ideas need to be countered),


若公眾監察和批判「官商勾結」是反中亂港,作為國策的「反貪腐」則等於是反中亂港。

If public monitoring and criticism of "collusion between business and the government" is “opposes China and disrupts Hong Kong”, "anti-corruption" as a national policy is tantamount to “opposes China and disrupts Hong Kong.


在社團主義,權貴/裙帶資本主義體制的香港社會,我們市民只能冀望制度化的所謂官商「合作」會妥善解決土地房屋問題。不過,過去回歸25年(1997年-2022年)的香港實踐足以證實了社團主義,裙帶資本主義根本無法解決有關問題。只會每下愈況。結局,自1841年以來,在181 年間,2022年終於創下了貧富差距47倍的香港歷史新高。資本在全球最自由的香港意味著勞動者在全球最不自由。除非完全漠視勞動者階級的立場,這只能是個警訊,而根本不是什麼可以自我誇獎的正面成績(《世界經濟自由度2022年度報告》全球165個經濟體中最自由 外交部指國際社會對香港信任 LINK)。足認本港貧富差距將會突破50倍。


最好的政策施政指標是貧富差距。中國香港政府的政策總體的效果導致了貧富差距47倍的香港歷史新高(1841年-2022年)。這足以說明目前個別政策的總體方向,效果和其階級性質。即不斷拉開貧富差距的各種政策傾向只會持續下去。


In Hong Kong's corporatism, powerful/crony capitalist society, we can only hope that institutionalized so-called government-business "cooperation" will properly solve the land and housing problem. However, the practice of Hong Kong in the past 25 years after the handover (1997-2022) has proven that the problem cannot be solved by corporatism and crony capitalism. It will only get worse. In the end, in the 181 years since 1841, the gap between the rich and the poor finally reached a record high of 47 times in 2022. The freest capital in the world, Hong Kong, means the least free labor in the world. Unless the position of the working class is completely disregarded, this can only be a warning sign, not a positive self-congratulatory achievement ("Economic Freedom of the World 2022 Annual Report": the freest among 165 economies in the world. Foreign Ministry says international community trusts Hong Kong). The gap between the rich and the poor in Hong Kong will exceed 50 times.


The best indicator of policy governance is the gap between the rich and the poor. The overall effect of the Hong Kong government's policies in China has resulted in a record high wealth gap of 47 times in Hong Kong (1841-2022). This illustrates the overall direction, effect and class nature of individual policies. That is, the various policy tendencies that continue to widen the gap between the rich and the poor will only continue.


NEWS 【事實關係】


回歸後第六屆香港政府特首李家超於2022年10月19日發表了《施政報告2022》(LINK)。有幾個重點要指摘:


The sixth Chief Executive of the Hong Kong Government after the reunification, Mr. John Lee Ka-chiu, delivered his Policy Address 2022 on October 19, 2022. There are a few key points to point out.



1. 公營房屋落成量分布不均,只有約三分之一單位於第一個五年期。 (2023-24 至2027-28 年度)落成,另外三分之二單位要留待第二個五年。因此,《施政報告2022》早已表明了李家超的香港政府在其任內(2022年-2027年6月30日)無法解決土地房屋問題。甚至,包括所謂三萬個簡約公屋(另類過渡性房屋)單位在內的公屋建造量在未來五年間最多將僅達十萬五千個單位。「根據《長遠房屋策略》推算,未來十年公營房屋需求是301,000個單位。我們已找到足夠土地,可興建達360,000個單位。然而,由於未來十年公營房屋落成量分布不均,只有約三分之一單位於第一個5年期(2023-24至2027-28年度)落成,另外三分之二單位要留待第二個五年期(2028-29至2032-33年度)落成,以致輪候公共租住房屋(公屋)時間很長。」(施政報告的公屋供應量究竟點計?LINK)然而,在2022年6月底,約有144 200宗一般公屋申請,以及約98 400宗配額及計分制下的非長者一人申請(LINK)。簡言之,到2022年6月為止過去累計下來的公屋單位需求量是242,600單位。 因此,李家超政府的任期內計劃只建造105,000單位。即使假定不走數,連一半的公屋需求量也都不到。港府,在此已經暗示了上樓時間會走數。(3年上樓時間承諾走數後,2022年已達6年上樓時間,此次承諾任內縮短成4年半上樓時間,但2022年10月30日早已改為5年多上樓時間了)


2. 香港總體的居屋數量足以容納所有家庭單位,包括正在申請公屋的242,600個家庭單位。依據政府統計處的最新資料,在2021年9月的香港居屋總量是2,960,000單位(永久性居住屋宇單位 LINK)。那麼, 因此,2022年年中香港總人口729萬1600人中,2022年8月的香港所有家庭住戶數目乃2,650,100家庭單位。不但土地短缺是個偽命題(香港僅用了6.8%的土地建屋),房屋短缺也是個偽命題。即目前香港總體的永久性居住屋宇單位2,960,000單位足以容納2,650,100家庭單位。剩餘的309,900永久性居住屋宇單位也足以供給公屋單位需求量242,600單位。 換言之,香港的居屋問題不是供應問題,而是分配問題。只要有效分配現有的309,900個永久性居住屋宇單位給在申請公屋的242,600個家庭單位(LINK),就立刻可以解決房屋問題的。這意味著,真問題在於囤地/囤樓/空置/投機/炒樓。高地價,高樓價,高租費,高物價的4高問題(提高租費就會自動化地提高物價)乃香港土地房屋問題的本質。其原因絕非有限地抑制炒樓投機的所謂辣椒(額外/雙倍/買家多項印花稅,2010年- LINK)。「地產建設商會執行委員會主席梁志堅直言「好難好滿意,認為政府可做多啲。」恒地(0012)營業(一)部總經理林達民亦認為,退稅措施屬「好消息」但不夠貼地。至於麗新發展(0488)高級副總裁潘銳民更指,新措施對正在下跌的樓市「冇太大幫助」,報告以長遠房策為主,欠短期樓市刺激方案,直言感失望。華懋執行董事兼行政總裁蔡宏興則支持退還額外印花稅,惟認為等待七年時間太長;至於地產代理中原集團創辦人施永青認為《施政報告》提及的減辣措施「減唔夠」。」(LINK) 李家超政府正確地堅持樓市辣椒來有限地抑制投機炒賣。這是十分可以肯定的政策措施。 各項印花稅絕非高樓價的原因。它以課稅的方式把炒樓當作政府收入來源,所以撤辣只會有利於投機/炒賣而已。勢必進一步惡化高樓價。誰要撤辣,那誰就只是包括地產黨在內的一群無良投機份子,而非純粹居住者。本港地產黨只會服務投機份子。誠然,囤樓投機乃高樓價的原因,而抑制投機和對此課稅的各項印花稅本身並非高樓價的原因。不能歪曲事理,本末倒置,移花接木。地產黨虛假政宣的最佳經典之作是,「因為貧富差距達47倍,所以要撤辣」。


新冠疫情苦纏香港近3年,政府嚴苛的防疫政策令經濟插水,民生凋敝,甚至進一步加劇貧富懸殊現象,有年輕人於商場食「二手飯」,還有長者在街頭執賣剩菜。樂施會發表香港貧窮狀況報告,發現最貧窮及最富裕住戶月入中位數的差距大幅擴大,揭示兩極差距由疫情前的34.3倍擴大至今年首季的47.3倍,打破2016年創下的44倍歷史高位,將貧富懸殊情況推至臨界點。最新最貧組別月入跌破3,000元,而最富者月入則上升至超過12.7萬元,反映疫情下貧者愈貧,窮人荷包清零,但富者愈富。LINK


3. 上述,分配論應該也要依據適不適切居所(是否分間樓宇單位 LINK)以及購買力(居屋可負擔性 housing affordability)來進一步檢討。


無論香港總體的居屋數量和供應量增加到什麼程度,只要市民買不起,就都會是一樣的,等於零。這就是供應論的陷阱。地產黨每日散播的詭辯之一是供應論。不管地產黨供應多少豪宅/高樓價單位給社會,除了所謂「優才/ 專才 / 人才」(港府主要意味著海外CEO,高級經營層,也就是投資人,而非負擔不起豪宅的打工仔。金管局總裁余偉文:我們看到有幾間國際銀行,不單止他們自己的行政總裁過來,他們帶了整個環球高管團隊,全部都要來香港 LINK)之外,社會絕大多數勞動者階級仍然買不起的天價。假定每年提供6萬個豪華昂貴單位(私人樓宇單位供應量:2020年只有1萬4千4百個單位;2021年僅有1萬2千1百個單位),這樣的供應就根本不會解決當前的房屋問題的。結果,他們只會繼續囤樓空置。


市民最關心的民生課題,毫無疑問是房屋,衣食行都有方法節省,唯獨若是沒有瓦遮頭,便要瞓街,所以無論劏房環境多惡劣,租金如何不合理,都是不愁客源,基層根本沒有能力買樓,連租私人樓獨立單位也承擔不了,劏房的出現,就是天使與魔鬼,讓他們能夠用較低金額租住棲身之所,然而蝸居租金呎價竟然比豪宅更高,肉在砧板上,可以說是任人宰割,新租管條例如無牙老虎,未能保障劏房戶,始終都是等上樓,才是終極救贖。可是現時公屋輪候上樓時間,一再拖長,以往的3年目標已成歷史,截至2022年6月底,之前12個月獲安置入住公屋的一般申請者的平均輪候時間為6年,輪候10多年的,大有人在。


《施政報告》開出期票,未來5年擬推出3萬個全新「簡約公屋」單位,讓輪候傳統公屋不少於3年者入住及等待上樓,並將輪候公屋時間「封頂」至4.5年,然而外界直指這是數字遊戲,是把「簡約公屋」和傳統公屋的輪候時間混合計算,若果單計輪候傳統公屋,恐怕4.5年上樓目標難以達成。果然,不到兩星期,政府便自我「修正」,房屋局局長何永賢昨日表示,未來人口分布及新增輪候人數等,首5年的輪候時間會維持在5年多,更死撐做法並非混淆視聽,而是更透明化。LINK


此外, 不適切居所的數量是科學地體現在公屋單位需求量的242,600家庭單位。 大約總共25萬個不適切居所潛在香港各地。不適切居所不值商品,稱不上商品的概念,是因為其惡劣品質不合人類居住。必須立刻禁絕。


香港政府沒有每年更新的不適切居所統計。不過,2021年8月18日《立法會十題:不適切居所》上表示:


在立法會會議上鄭泳舜議員的提問和民政事務局局長徐英偉的書面答覆: 問題:   根據《床位寓所條例》(第447章),床位寓所(俗稱「籠屋」)指內有十二個或以上已被人或擬供人根據租用協議用作住宿的床位的(i)任何居住單位或(ii)‍在同一建築物內而單位之間的間隔牆已被拆去的兩個或以上的相連居住單位。任何人未獲床位寓所監督(即民政事務局局長)發出豁免證明書或有效牌照,不得經營、料理、管理或以其他方式控制床位寓所。然而,有關注基層市民組織指出,估計現時有多達五千人居於非法經營的床位寓所。另一方面,國務院港澳事務辦公室主任於上月表示,期盼到國家第二個百年奮鬥目標實現的時候,香港已告別劏房、籠屋。關於不適切居所,政府可否告知本會: (一)有否統計,目前全港有多少間床位寓所及其提供多少個床位,並按(i)該等床位寓所是否合法及(ii)區議會分區列出分項數字; (二)有否統計,現時全港分別有多少間板間房及劏房,並按區議會分區列出分項數字;及 (三)就「劏房」採用的最新定義為何? 答覆: 主席:   就鄭泳舜議員質詢的各部分,經諮詢運輸及房屋局及發展局後,回覆如下: (一)按照香港現行法例規定,經營床位寓所受《床位寓所條例》(第447章)(《條例》)監管。《條例》的目的是確保擬用作床位寓所的處所符合樓宇結構、消防安全及衞生配置的標準,以保障入住者及樓宇其他使用者的安全。根據《條例》,「床位寓所」是指內有十二個或以上已被人根據租用協議,或擬供人根據租用協議用作單人住宿的床位的任何居住單位。至於個別處所是否屬《條例》下定義的床位寓所,則需視乎實際情况和具體經營模式,不能一概而論。   根據民政事務總署轄下牌照事務處(牌照處)的紀錄,截至二○二一年七月三十一日,全港按《條例》獲簽發牌照的床位寓所共有八間,涉及約760個床位。當中,五間位於油尖旺區(共157個床位);一間位於深水埗區(310個床位);一間位於中西區(270個床位);以及一間位於東區(26個床位)。   牌照處沒有備存非持牌處所(包括因提供床位數目少於十二個而不屬《條例》所規管的處所)的數字。 (二)及(三)根據政府統計處(統計處)二○一六年中期人口統計的結果,共有5 800個住戶居於與其他住戶共用的單位(例如居於私人永久建築物的房間、板間房、床位和閣樓)(註一)。統計處並沒有備存居於板間房的住戶分項數字。   至於分間樓宇單位(俗稱「劏房」),根據二○一六年中期人口統計的結果,全港約有92 700個分間樓宇單位。按區議會分區劃分的分項數字載於附件。二○一六年中期人口統計中的分間樓宇單位,是指個別屋宇單位被分間成兩個或以上「屋內互通」及「屋外直達」的單位,一般是作出租用途。   另外,政府擬對「劏房」實施適當的租務管制。根據已提交給立法會審議的《2021年業主與租客(綜合)(修訂)條例草案》,「分間單位」指組成建築物單位(註二)一部份的處所。一般而言,條例草案擬訂的「分間單位」的定義,可涵蓋位於建築物的板間房、床位、太空倉、閣樓空間、籠屋,以至「天台屋」和「平台屋」等不同類型的「分間單位」。 註一:有關數字亦刊載於二○一七年至二○二○年發表的《長遠房屋策略》周年進度報告中。 註二:在條例草案中,「單位」就建築物而言,指該建築物符合以下兩項或其中一項描述的處所 — (a)在該建築物的建築圖則中,劃定為或顯示為一個獨立單位(不論如何描述)的處所;(b)在該建築物的公契中,提述為一個單位(不論如何描述)的處所,而該處所的擁有人,相對於該建築物其他部分的擁有人或佔用人而言,乃有權享有該處所的獨有管有權者。


誠然,2016年中期人口統計的數據,全港約有92 700個分間樓宇單位是不足以反應實際狀況的。從2016年到2022年之間累積下來的公屋申請量顯示,全港至少有大約25萬個不適切居所單位。


LINK


4. 有關樓價/物業估值,這是地產黨洗腦大眾的主要工具之一,也是威脅政府的手段之一。如「樓價大跌」。樓價的估值每日上下起伏。然而,只要不兌現,估值大升或大跌就都只是空氣。估值是經過兌現時才確定的。


未實現的利潤(unrealized profits): 不但是金融投資上的unrealized profits受益,不動產投資上的unrealized profits也都是只有兌現才能確定的,而不是未兌現時的估值確定的。

換言之,金融投資和不動產投資都必須賣出去,才能確定所估值的利潤的。因此,這對純粹居住者而言,更加毫無關係的。無論估值如何,高或低,那時刻不賣給人家,也不需要賣給人家,那時刻的估值都等於是空氣的。空中樓閣。


簡言之,地產黨常常以未兌現/未實現時的估值來威脅和欺騙社會大眾的。 然而,極為重要的原則是估值是經過兌現時才確定的。總是只有當做交易的那一刻才能確定其未實現的利潤或損失的。


1. Public housing completions are unevenly distributed, with only about one-third of the units completed in the first five-year period (2023-24 to 2027-28) and the other two-thirds left for the second five-year period. While the other two-thirds of the units will be completed in the second five-year period. Therefore, the Policy Address 2022 has already made it clear that John Lee Ka-chiu 's Hong Kong government will not be able to solve the land and housing problem during his term of office (2022 - June 30, 2027). Even the production of public housing, including the so-called 30,000 units of light public housing (alternative transitional housing), will only reach a maximum of 105,000 units in the next five years. "The Long-Term Housing Strategy projects a demand for 301,000 public housing units over the next ten years. We have identified enough land to build up to 360,000 units. However, due to the uneven distribution of public housing production in the next ten years, only about one-third of the flats will be completed in the first five-year period (2023-24 to 2027-28), while the other two-thirds will be completed in the second five-year period (2028-29 to 2032-33), resulting in a long waiting time for public rental housing (PRH). However, at the end of June 2022, there will be about 144,200 general PRH applications and about 98,400 non-elderly one-person applications under the Quota and Points System (QPS).


In short, the cumulative demand for public housing units by June 2022 is 242,600 units. Therefore, only 105,000 units are planned to be built during the Lee administration's term. Even if the number does not go out of line, this is less than half of the demand for public housing. The Hong Kong government, here, has already implied that the waiting time will extend further. (After the 3-year pledge, the waiting time is now 6 years in 2022. The pledge was later shortened to 4.5 years during his policy address, but the waiting time will be more than 5 years after October 30, 2022.)


2. The total number of permanent residential flats in Hong Kong is sufficient to accommodate all family units, including the 242,600 family units under application for PRH. According to the latest information from the Census and Statistics Department, the total number of permanent residential flats units in Hong Kong in September 2021 is 2,960,000 units. So, the total number of all domestic households in Hong Kong in August 2022 is 2,650,100 family units out of a total population of 7,291,600 in mid-2022. Not only is the land shortage a bogus proposition (Hong Kong uses only 6.8% of its land for housing), but the housing shortage is also a bogus proposition. That is, the current total of 2,960,000 permanent residential units in Hong Kong is sufficient to accommodate 2,650,100 family units. The remaining 309,900 permanent housing units are also sufficient to meet the demand for 242,600 public housing units. In other words, the problem of housing in Hong Kong is not one of supply, but of allocation. If the existing 309,900 permanent housing units are effectively allocated to the 242,600 family units that are applying for public housing, the housing problem will be solved immediately. This means that the real problem is land/property hoarding/vacancy/speculation. The 4 high problems of high land prices, high property prices, high rents and high prices (raising rents automatically raises commodity prices) are the essence of Hong Kong's land and housing problems. The cause is not the so-called additional/double/buyer's multiple stamp duty. The reason is not the so-called chili pepper. The Chairman of the Executive Committee of the Real Estate Developers Association of Hong Kong (REDA), Mr. Leung Chi Kin, said bluntly that it is difficult to be satisfied, I think the government can do more. Mr. Lam Tat Man, General Manager of Sales (1) Department of Henderson Land (0012) also said that the tax rebate is "good news" but not enough for the market. As for Lai Sun Development (0488) senior vice president Poon Yui Man also pointed out that the new measures are "not much help" to the declining property market, and the report is mainly based on long-term housing policy, without short-term property market stimulus program, and said he feels disappointed. Chinachem executive director and chief executive Tsai Hong-hing supports the return of the additional stamp duty but considers the waiting period of seven years too long as for the real estate agent Centaline Group founder Shi Yongqing believes that the "Policy Address" mentioned the reduction of spicy measures "not enough". John Lee Ka-chiu g government rightly insists on the property market chili to curb speculation in a limited way. This is a very certain policy measure. The various stamp duties are by no means the cause of high property prices. It is taxed as a source of government revenue for property speculation, so the withdrawal of the chili will only benefit speculation only. It is bound to further exacerbate high property prices. Whoever withdraws the spice will be a group of unscrupulous speculators including the real estate party, not just the residents. The real estate party in Hong Kong only serves speculators. It is true that speculation in property hoarding is the cause of high property prices, but the suppression of speculation and the various stamp duties imposed on it are not in themselves the cause of high property prices. We should not distort the truth, put the cart before the horse. The best classic of the real estate party's bogus political propaganda is, "Because the gap between the rich and the poor has reached 47 times, the spice should be withdrawn".


The new epidemic has plagued Hong Kong for nearly three years, and the government's harsh prevention policy has caused the economy to collapse and people's livelihood to wither, even further aggravating the disparity between the rich and the poor. Oxfam released a report on the poverty situation in Hong Kong, finding that the gap between the median monthly income of the poorest and richest households has widened significantly, revealing that the gap between the two extremes has expanded from 34.3 times before the epidemic to 47.3 times in the first quarter of this year, breaking the historical high of 44 times set in 2016, pushing the disparity between the rich and the poor to a critical point. The latest monthly income of the poorest group fell below $3,000, while that of the richest rose to over $127,000, reflecting that the poor are getting poorer while their wallets are empty under the epidemic and the rich are getting richer.


3. As mentioned above, the allocation theory should also be further reviewed in terms of suitability for housing (whether subdivided flats or not) and affordability (housing affordability).


No matter how much the overall number and supply of residential flats in Hong Kong increases, if people can't afford them, it will be the same, which is zero. This is the trap of the supply theory. One of the daily sophistry spread by the real estate party is the supply theory. No matter how many luxury flats / high priced flats the real estate party supplies to the society, except for the so-called "talents / professionals" (the Hong Kong government mainly means overseas CEOs, senior management, i.e., investors, not the wage earners who cannot afford luxury flats. HKMA Chief Executive Eddie YUE: We have seen several international banks, not only their own CEOs come here, but they also brought their entire global senior management team, all to Hong Kong), most of the working class in society still cannot afford the sky-high prices. Assuming an annual supply of 60,000 luxury and expensive units (private housing supply: only 14,400 units in 2020; only 12,100 units in 2021), such a supply will not solve the current housing problem at all. As a result, they will only continue to hoard flats and leave them vacant for speculation.


The public's greatest concern is undoubtedly housing, there are ways to save on clothing, food and transportation, but only if there is no tile to cover their heads, they have to sleep on the street, so no matter how bad the environment of sub-divided units, how unreasonable the rent, there is no worry about the source of customers, the grassroots simply cannot afford to buy a flat, even renting a separate unit in a private building, the emergence of sub-divided units, is the angel and the devil, so that they can rent a shelter at a lower amount, however The new rent control clause, such as the toothless tiger, fails to protect the sub-divided households, who are waiting to be allocated a flat, is the ultimate salvation. As of the end of June 2022, the average waiting time for general applicants who have been rehoused in the previous 12 months is six years, and there are many people who have been waiting for more than 10 years.


The Policy Address has issued a promissory note to launch 30,000 new "light public housing" units in the next five years to allow those who have been waiting for traditional public housing for not less than three years to move in and wait for their turn, and to "cap" the waiting time for public housing at 4.5 years, but outsiders have pointed out that this is a numbers game, which mixes the waiting time for "simple public housing" and traditional public housing. If we only count the waiting time for traditional public housing, I am afraid that the target of 4.5 years for public housing will not be achieved. If the waiting time for traditional public housing is only counted, I am afraid that the target of 4.5 years can hardly be achieved. As expected, in less than two weeks, the government will "correct" itself.


In addition, the number of inadequate housings is scientifically reflected in the demand for public housing units of 242,600 family units. A total of approximately 250,000 unsuitable dwellings are potentially available throughout Hong Kong. Unsuitable housing is not a commodity, not a concept of commodity, because it is not fit for human habitation. They must be banned immediately.


The Hong Kong government does not have an annual update of the number of unfit dwellings. However, on August 18, 2021, the Legislative Council Question 10: Unsuitable Housing stated that:


Following is a question by the Hon Vincent Cheng and a written reply by the Secretary for Home Affairs, Mr Caspar Tsui, in the Legislative Council today (August 18): Question: Under the Bedspace Apartments Ordinance (Cap. 447), a bedspace apartment (commonly known as a "caged home") means (i) any flat, or (ii) where the partitioning wall or walls between two or more adjoining flats in a building has or have been demolished, such two or more adjoining flats, in which there are 12 or more bedspaces used or intended to be used as sleeping accommodation under rental agreements. Any person who has not been issued with a certificate of exemption or a valid licence by the Bedspace Apartments Authority (i.e. the Secretary for Home Affairs) shall not operate, keep, manage or otherwise control a bedspace apartment. However, a grass-roots concern group has pointed out that as many as 5 000 people are estimated to be living in illegally operated bedspace apartments at present. On the other hand, the Director of the Hong Kong and Macao Affairs Office of the State Council said last month that it is hoped that by the time the country's second centenary goal is achieved, Hong Kong has bid farewell to subdivided units (SDUs) and caged homes. Regarding inadequate housing, will the Government inform this Council: (1) whether it has compiled statistics on the current number of bedspace apartments in Hong Kong and the number of bedspaces provided in such apartments, with a breakdown by (i) the legality of the bedspace apartments and (ii) District Council (DC) district; (2)whether it has compiled statistics on the respective current numbers of cubicle apartments and SDUs in Hong Kong, with a breakdown by DC district; and (3) of the latest definition adopted for "SDU"? Reply: President, In consultation with the Transport and Housing Bureau and the Development Bureau, the consolidated reply to the question is as follows: (1) According to the extant laws of Hong Kong, operation of bedspace apartments is under the regulation of the Bedspace Apartments Ordinance (Cap. 447) (BAO). The purpose of the BAO is to ascertain that the premises intended to be used as bedspace apartments comply with structural and fire safety standards and the requirements on sanitary configuration, so as to ensure the safety of occupants and other users of the premises. Under the BAO, a bedspace apartment means any flat in which there are 12 or more bedspaces used or intended to be used as sleeping accommodation for individuals under rental agreements. Whether a premises is regarded as a bedspace apartment as interpreted under the BAO cannot be generalised, as it depends on the circumstances and the mode of operation of the case. According to the records as at July 31, 2021 of the Office of the Licensing Authority (OLA) of the Home Affairs Department, there are eight bedspace apartments issued with a licence under the BAO, involving about 760 bedspaces in total. Among these bedspace apartments, five are situated in Yau Tsim Mong District (157 bedspaces in total), one in Sham Shui Po District (310 bedspaces), one in Central and Western District (270 bedspaces) and one in Eastern District (26 bedspaces). The OLA does not maintain the figures in respect of the non-licensed premises (including those premises providing less than 12 bedspaces which are not subject to the regulation under the BAO). (2) and (3) According to the results of the 2016 Population By-census (16BC) conducted by the Census and Statistics Department (C&SD), there were 5 800 households living in shared units (e.g. living in rooms, cubicles, bedspaces and cocklofts in private permanent buildings)(Note 1). C&SD does not have separate figures on households living in cubicles. As for subdivided units (SDUs), according to the results of the 16BC, there were some 92 700 SDUs in Hong Kong. Their breakdown by District Council district is at Annex. The SDUs under the 16BC refer to the units that are formed by splitting a unit of quarters into two or more "internally connected" and "externally accessible" units commonly for rental purposes. Separately, the Government proposes to implement suitable tenancy control on SDUs. According to the Landlord and Tenant (Consolidation) (Amendment) Bill 2021 which has been submitted to the Legislative Council for scrutiny, "SDU" means premises that form part of a unit (Note 2) of a building. In general, the proposed definition of "SDU" in the Bill could cover different types of SDUs in buildings including cubicles, bedspaces, space capsules, loft spaces, cage homes, as well as "rooftop houses" and "podium houses". Note 1: The relevant figure has also been published in the Long Term Housing Strategy Annual Progress Reports 2017-2020. Note 2: In the Bill, "unit", in relation to a building, means premises of the building falling within either or both of the following descriptions – (a) premises that are demarcated or shown as a separate unit (however described) in the building plan of the building; (b) premises that are referred to in the deed of mutual covenant of the building as a unit (however described) the owner of which is entitled to its exclusive possession, as opposed to the owners or occupiers of other parts of the building.



4. About property price/property valuation, which is one of the main tools of the real estate party to brainwash the public, and one of the means to threaten the government. For example, "property prices are plummeting". Property valuation goes up and down every day. However, if they are not cashed in, valuations are only airborne, whether they go up or down. Valuations are only determined when they are realized.


Unrealized profits: Not only do financial investments benefit from unrealized profits, but real estate investments also benefit from unrealized profits that can only be determined by cashing in, not by unrealized valuations.


In other words, both financial investments and real estate investments must be sold to determine the valued profits. Therefore, it is not relevant to the mere occupant. No matter what the valuation is, high or low, the valuation at that moment is equivalent to air if you don't sell it to others, and you don't need to sell it to others. The valuation at that moment is air.


In short, the real estate party often uses unrealized valuations to threaten and deceive the public. However, the most important principle is that valuations are only determined when they are realized (sold). The unrealized profit or loss is always determined only by transaction.


COMMENT 【評語】


香港房屋問題: 2021年9月的香港居屋總量是2,960,000單位 - 2022年8月的香港所有家庭住戶數目乃2,650,100家庭單位 = 囤積的309,900永久性居屋單位可供給在申請公屋的242,600個家庭單位 。其主要重點是不適切居所及4高問題帶來的可負擔性,而不是縮不縮短上樓時間本身。

Hong Kong's housing problem: 2,960,000 total permanent residential units in Hong Kong in September 2021 - 2,650,100 domestic households in Hong Kong in August 2022 = a hoard of 309,900 permanent residential units available to 242,600 families applying for public housing at present. The focus is on the housing affordability, unsuitable accommodation and the 4-high problem, rather than the reduction in waiting time per se.



 


Copyright Disclaimer Under Section 107 of the Copyright Act 1976, allowance is made for "fair use" for purposes such as criticism, comment, news reporting, teaching, scholarship, and research. Fair use is a use permitted by copyright statute that might otherwise be infringing. Non-profit, educational or personal use tips the balance in favour of fair use.