appConfigEntityId

bodyType

customContents

entityId

entityUuid

articlePageQuery

filter

article

articleBaseAdvertisingInfoArticle

articleListArticle

articleSeoArticle

hooksArticleAcknowledgementGateOverlayArticle

hooksTrackPageViewArticle

hooksContentInterestArticle

articleLinkingDataContent

hooksAmpRedirectArticle

articleSchemaContent

hooksArticlePageAdvertisementConfigArticle

liveArticle

appConfig

advertZone

sentiment

contentLock

topics

types

sections

paywallTypes

createdDate

publishedDate

sponsorType

urlAlias

moreOnThisArticles

sectionsV2

commentCount

authorLocations

authors

corrections

displaySlideShow

multimediaEmbed

printHeadline

seriesContainer

articleSpeeches

socialHeadline

headline

images

flag

firstTopic

glossary

flattenTypeIds

image

relatedLinks

relatedNewsletters

__typename

sponsor

pdfFiles

seriesReverseOrder

series

disableOffPlatformContent

published

updatedDate

summary

subHeadline

body

keywords

readingTime

customTimezone

liveContents

json

Mike Rowse

The Heung Yee Kuk estimated a few years ago that there were 240,000 male indigenous villagers in the New Territories eligible for a small-house grant.  
It asked the Lands Department to speed up the processing of applications - the backlog was over 14,000.  
A little over 1,000 applications were being processed annually,  and the target was subsequently pushed above  2,000 - let's say  2,400 a year because that simplifies the maths. 
Even then,  it would take the department 100 years  to process the applications.
If females are also included - which they should have been  under the Sex Discrimination Ordinance -  then the number would roughly double.
So, 200 years then - but the nonsense doesn't end there because, during that period (however long it proved to be), hundreds of thousands, possibly even millions, more indigenous villagers would be born and could also step forward to lodge their claim. 
The government persuaded the Legislative Council to exempt the Small House Policy from the Sex Discrimination Ordinance with a shabby backroom deal in the mid-1990s whereby it promised a comprehensive review of the problem.
The review has been in progress in one form or another since 1995. But, of course,  it never can be concluded because there is only one possible solution - one that is unacceptable  to the rural 'godfathers' who have an armlock on government policy in this area.
Let us take a step back for a moment: the Small House Policy was introduced in 1972 to improve the rural living environment  by allowing villagers  to build a decent house for themselves, on their own  or  government land.  At the time, there was little public housing available in the New Territories, as large-scale development had only just begun.
Well-intended though it undoubtedly was, the policy quickly degenerated into a tidal wave of abuse, which enriched well-connected clan leaders, enabled genuine villagers to improve their lot and well-heeled city folk to get themselves a nice weekend hideaway.
No great harm so far but, of course, the incentive was in place for illegal occupation of public land, unauthorised reclamation and site formation, indiscriminate chopping down of trees and other environmental degradation  in areas effectively exempt from planning control. 
All of which has brought us to our current situation:  infinite demand, finite resources, chaos on the ground.
We badly need to bring some common sense to bear. There are now over 28,000 small houses in the New Territories - more than enough to accommodate the people who really need to live there for occupational purposes. 
Anyone still inadequately housed can apply for an apartment in one of the many fine public housing estates that have since been built. We don't need large numbers of new small houses. 
We can achieve this goal  by applying some common-sense rules. No new villages should be created, and no expansion of existing ones; all existing villages should be covered by proper layout plans with statutory force. 
The plans should make adequate provision for emergency access, sewage, mains water and other essential infrastructure. 
As far as possible, the plans should follow the existing situation on the ground and tolerate  any inadequacies.  
Where the present situation is unacceptable, then any new building or redevelopment must be in accordance with the plan and remedy or ameliorate the defects. New grants can only be made once the infrastructure is in place.
Those who have made their fortune through loopholes in the present scheme, or still hope to do so, can be expected to howl with rage at the loss of their 'nice little earner'. 
No doubt some will point to the Basic Law and say their 'rights' are protected. The Basic Law protects only their lawful rights -  which cannot be read to include rights that are in breach of the Bill of Rights or indeed other clauses in the Basic Law itself.
The plain fact is that the Small House Policy is dead and the corpse is beginning to smell. It is long past time someone had the decency to bury it.
Does anyone know a helpful executive councillor?
Mike Rowse is the search director  of Stanton Chase International  and an adjunct professor at the  Chinese University of Hong Kong




Why haven't we buried the small-house policy?