• Fri
  • Aug 1, 2014
  • Updated: 8:27am
Jake's View
PUBLISHED : Sunday, 19 January, 2014, 2:53am
UPDATED : Monday, 20 January, 2014, 8:13am

Walled-off land revenues keep the fat cats purring


Jake van der Kamp is a native of the Netherlands, a Canadian citizen, and a longtime Hong Kong resident. He started as a South China Morning Post business reporter in 1978, soon made a career change to investment analyst and returned to the newspaper in 1998 as a financial columnist.

A leading economist advising the government on fiscal policy is urging it to change accounting rules to stop one-off windfalls from land revenue being used to fund recurrent spending.

SCMP, January 17

Let's repeat some history for those who cannot remember it. The reason we have peculiar land-use policies is that ungrateful American colonists rebelled against their rightful king and master in 1776 (I'm Canadian).

It left British bureaucrats to ponder how they might in the future make colonies pay their own way, if the United States refused to do so prior to becoming independent - and then had no choice but to do so.

The answer came easily enough. What we will do, said these bureaucrats, is put all land in our colonies on leasehold terms and then raise money by selling and converting leases.

This they did and it is how Hong Kong was bequeathed its land tenure system.

But the system ran into a hitch about 30 years ago with a financial secretary who forecast a HK$10 billion fiscal surplus but wound up with a HK$10 billion deficit because the economy faltered and his land revenues nosedived.

He was so embarrassed by this that he set up a separate capital-works reserve fund. In the future, he said, all income from land sales would go into this fund and it could only be used for infrastructure projects.

Why land-sale revenue should be declared off limits to all other public uses in a fiscal system that is fundamentally dependent on land sales remains a puzzling mystery, but businessmen whose wealth derives from pouring concrete have always applauded this regime.

And now they wish to make doubly sure of this ring-fenced revenue by adding barbed wire to that fence. With the way things are going, you see, land-sale revenue might be used to support the aged and this must never be. It is written in the laws of universe.

Goodness me, if we keep old people alive with the money that we could instead squander on a useless bridge to Macau or a pointless new railway to the border, well, where would the world be? Keep your hands off that cash.

They cannot actually express it this way, of course, and so the excuse we constantly hear is that land revenues come as "windfalls" which, as our report had their mouthpieces saying, "fluctuate dramatically" from year to year.

Clearly, we are in trouble if a steady, unavoidable expenditure on social programmes must depend on so fickle a source of revenue. Yo-yos will have nothing on them compared with how our fiscal balance will bounce up and down.

Good scare story. I love good scare stories. They send that wonderful tingling shiver right up your back.

But this one is as false as most are. As the chart shows, when you take land premiums out of the government's total revenue, you get a slightly more volatile revenue stream but no yo-yo effect.

The fact is that a good number of other revenue sources are as volatile as land sales. When we run into economic trouble, everything gets hit, not just the property market.

Try investment income. We classify it as recurrent income, but from the 2000 to 2002 fiscal years, it dropped from HK$36.8 billion to HK$331 million, a fall of more than 99 per cent. Some recurrence.

So let's just call a spade a spade. This one is being used to shovel our money the way of a select few tycoons who have fooled our bureaucrats into thinking that public achievement is measured in terms of tonnes of concrete poured.



For unlimited access to:

SCMP.com SCMP Tablet Edition SCMP Mobile Edition 10-year news archive



This article is now closed to comments

Infrastructure projects are good for Hong Kong and critical. We should be on a railway building binge and lower pollution substantially.
Jake, I'm going to have to disagree with you here.

Considering 97% of the land premium income is recorded up front with the remaining 3% amortized over the lease term, it seems obvious that the income from land sales is a one off, and therefore windfall, type item.

From this point alone, it is perfectly reasonable to treat in a separate category from recurring income items. How this money is spent is an entirely separate discussion (whether it enriches property developers or not), but it does not make sense to match income that is substantially non-recurring income with recurring expenses.
@"pointless new railway to the border"
When the high-speed rail link opens Jake will be forced to eat his hat
This is a stupid comment. The point is not that bridges and railways are not "nice to have,"it's a question of how much are you going to pay for all of this and are there other priorities.
And your comment is also "stupid". Is that the only argument you can think of?.
Linking Hong Kong to China's high-speed rail system is not just "nice to have"; It is an economic essential. It will also remove the need for wasting billions of dollars on an unneeded and environmentally destructive third runway.
Anybody who does not like it here in Hong Kong are welcome to leave.
Hong Kong's greatness is built by the Chinese people and there is no need for foreigners to come here to gripe when they do nothing but to rip off the Chinese people.
If you don't appreciate Hong Kong, you can always pack your bags and take the first plane or boat back to where you came from.
Mr VanderKamp, you obviously don't like the way Hong Kong is run so why stay here, why not go back to Holland or Canada?????????????????
If you don't like this great country of China, please leave, no one is forcing you to stay and you are not welcome here with your ingrate attitude.
Totally weak, tiring and knee-jerk retort overused by too many .50 centers. Think of something more creative.
Why are you afraid of freedom of speech.
To Sam....
Freedom of speech requires unconditional free flow of speech. Restricting someone by terminate one’s presence in Hong Kong is not a practice of freedom of speech. It is a weak behavior asking the disagreed to leave Hong Kong. Remember freedom of speech includes dialogue. Who are you to converse? Always the likes?
If you disagree with what is published in Hong Kong's newspapers, why don't you just pack your bags and move somewhere more 'harmonious'?
As usual, Jake gets to the nub of the issue but the nob in charge will not be able to undesrstand a word of his wisdom.
John Adams
Agreed ! I wonder if the "nob in charge" ( CY et al) ever read what intelligent columnists like Jake and Tom H. write ..
...or even if they read anything at all other than their briefs from the civil service .
...or even if they can read ! *.
* Our FS cannot even do basic form 3 math, so why should we assume the rest of the team at the top can read beyond form 3 level ?
By "nob in charge" I meant the FS.
I was expecting to see Jake jump on this. As Jake so well put: "Why land-sale revenue should be declared off limits to all other public uses in a fiscal system that is fundamentally dependent on land sales remains a puzzling mystery, but businessmen whose wealth derives from pouring concrete have always applauded this regime."
Once again, the tycoons are demanding their continued wealth stream and to he!! with the old, the infirm and the needy. Poor people are just simply lazy and if they want to improve their lot, they should go get better genes so they can be successful like the elites.
I like to see that government’s accounting keeping the land revenue separate from the rest. But it doesn’t mean money like what it is now restricted in use. Land revenue should be use wherever it sees fit. Keeping a separate book has an immeasurable benefit. It keeps the government to be aware where the revenue really comes from. A knowledge that would allow the people to say no to government that certain revenue is undesirable. Let us say, if Hong Kong government desires to convert country parks into developable land by making up a demand with its border further relaxed, we must tell the government we need no extra revenue from selling our country parks.
Nor we know if the government is selling land to maintain a good pension fund for the officials.
Keep the books separate but spending interchangeable.
it is separate and booked via the CWRF adn only spent on infrastructure.
Thank you. So let the reporting be seperate too.


SCMP.com Account