Following last week's announcement of changes to the government's housing policy, Secretary for Housing, Planning and Lands Michael Suen Ming-yeung indicated at the weekend, that in the long run, the government might stop building more public rental housing. He said that when a sufficient number of tenants vacated their public rental units so that tenants could move in after a relatively short time on the waiting list, the government could stop building rental housing and rely on a recycling process. Critics have said that with the abandonment of the Home Ownership Scheme from next year, an insufficient number of public housing tenants would move out and so the recycling concept would not work. However, I think Mr Suen's suggestion is both fair and reasonable. Society's resources are limited. Money saved by not building public housing could be spent on education, public assistance, or health-care. In the short term more public housing must be built. However, as the government steps up its policy of moving out tenants who are well off, eventually the time spent on the waiting list will be short enough to justify a cessation of public housing building programmes. Those individuals who have come to the defence of the well-off public housing tenants are wrong. They should be made to pay the market rent or move out and find alternative accommodation. By vacating their public rental units, the rich tenants can make way for families which urgently need public housing assistance. These well-off families should recall they were in the same boat a few decades ago. Once the more affluent tenants have moved out they can rent privately owned flats and this can help some members of the middle class who are suffering from negative equity. I hope society can reach a consensus on the recycling issue and on what is considered to be a reasonable waiting time for a poor family in need of public housing. We must work out the fine details of a policy that is fair to all parties. GREG C. Y. WONG North Point The Hong Kong government knows who its friends are. Its new policy of stopping the sale of government land and stopping the sale of Home Ownership Scheme flats is intended to help the rich and powerful interests of the property kings who voted for Chief Executive Tung Chee-hwa's re-election. The poor members of this society who have not voted in Mr Tung's selection are being treated harshly: Government hospital fees are going to be increased. This affects the poor who cannot afford private hospitalisation; There is much talk of cutting social welfare payments. This will also affect the poor; and Mr Tung's friends in the Liberal Party are floating the idea of taxing the earnings of the Philippine migrant workers who get a salary of only $3,670. We all know the budget must be balanced. But does the burden have to fall exclusively on the poor? W. A. T. CRAWLEY Sha Tin You listed nine measures announced by the government last week to revamp its housing policy (South China Morning Post, November 14). The one which stood out was: 'Anti-speculation measures to be relaxed.' Surely it is because of all the speculation in the past that so many people now are faced with negative equity. Let us say I go to a casino and lose a lot of money. My wife finds out and puts me on 'probation'. However, our son wants to go to college, but we do not have enough money to send him to one of the top universities. Therefore, my wife lifts my casino ban and urges me to take the rest of our savings and try to win at the gaming tables. The casino option could lead to swift gains. You could also lose everything. If we see a repeat of the kind of property speculation that existed in 1996 and 1997, we will end up in even bigger trouble than we are presently experiencing. I am changing my Hong Kong dollars to either euros or US dollars, as this currency will blow up in our faces and it will happen sooner rather than later. JEFFRY KUPERUS Repulse Bay
