bodyType

customContents

entityId

entityUuid

articlePageQuery

filter

article

articleBaseAdvertisingInfoArticle

articleListArticle

articleSeoArticle

helpersCheckIsPostiesArticle

hooksArticleAcknowledgementGateOverlayArticle

hooksTrackPageViewArticle

hooksContentInterestArticle

articleLinkingDataContent

hooksAmpRedirectArticle

articleSchemaContent

liveArticle

advertZone

sentiment

contentLock

topics

types

sections

moreOnThisArticles

urlAlias

commentCount

authorLocations

authors

paywallTypes

corrections

sponsorType

displaySlideShow

multimediaEmbed

printHeadline

seriesContainer

socialHeadline

headline

flag

firstTopic

glossary

flattenTypeIds

publishedDate

additionalInfoBoxes

images

image

relatedLinks

relatedNewsletters

__typename

createdDate

sponsor

pdfFiles

seriesReverseOrder

series

disableOffPlatformContent

published

updatedDate

summary

subHeadline

body

keywords

readingTime

customTimezone

liveContents

Jake Van Der Kamp

'... Monetary Authority chief executive Joseph Yam Chi-kwong expressed concern to the Legislative Council that the city might not be able to withstand a meltdown in the mainland market and that the city's banks and securities firms should strengthen risk-control systems.'

SCMP, June 5

I don't believe for even a moment that he used the word 'meltdown'. He just wouldn't do that. Even so, I'm going to call him 'Chameleon Joe' for the changing hues of his opinions on how we in Hong Kong should deal with the ups and downs of the Shanghai stock market.

The fact is that barely four months ago he was arguing on the Monetary Authority's website for integration of dual-listed Shanghai A shares and Hong Kong H shares.

Here is what he said at the time: 'It is clear, at least to me, that there would be big advantages if the two markets for these instruments were linked: overall liquidity would be increased, price discovery would be made more efficient, market discipline would be promoted, and it would be easier for market players, intermediaries and the authorities to manage risk.'

Do you still feel that way, Joe? Let us hear you say it a little louder then. The skin colour changes could give us a different impression.

'Deal on flats sparks call for public debate'

SCMP headline, June 5

Ladies and gentlemen, the Consumer Council wishes to know whether you like being ripped off by developers who tell lies about the flats they sell, or whether these developers should be required to tell the truth about their developments.

This is, of course, a very thorny question, one of those on-the-one-hand-while-on-the-other puzzlers. Some people like being ripped off and some do not, you see, and it really wouldn't be fair to people who like being ripped off if we said that they no longer could be. Hence, we need another public debate on the matter.

Yes, another debate. We've done all this before, did you know? We had a three-month debate about it seven years ago, complete with consultation paper and a White Bill - the Sales Descriptions of Uncompleted Residential Properties Bill.

It was a proper and well-thought-out piece of legislation that had come from the Law Reform Commission and had already been in the works for five years at the time. It dealt with all the sales brochure deficiencies on floor area, floor plan, details of fittings and finishing, location and layout plans, date of completion, number of units up for sale and, of course, price.

And what happened?

Well, the Real Estate Developers Association (Reda) didn't like the bill and the Executive Council thus ordered that the need for the bill be 'reassessed'.

There must indeed have been some enormous difficulties in this bill as it is still in the process of 'reassessment' seven years later.

Not to worry, however. Reda has come up with its own guidelines for voluntary compliance by its members and that should be enough. The Executive Council is certainly of this view - 'positive and constructive steps in response to the community's demand for comprehensive and accurate information...'

But somehow the community has not proved as grateful to Reda as it ought to be. Some people still think that the guidelines are not good enough. They believe they need better protection for things they must buy sight unseen, as they must new flats, and that the 'voluntary' bit makes the guidelines pointless anyway. This fuss just keeps coming back into the press.

There is the difficulty, for instance, that when you buy a flat in a development with a clubhouse, the developer invariably includes your proportionate share of the floor area of the clubhouse in his statement of the floor area of your flat.

He has done this despite the fact that the government has probably let him build the clubhouse at no extra cost under rules adopted a few years ago.

He has also included your share of the floor area of the lift lobby, both on the ground floor and your floor, the area of your balcony (although he also got some of that free under the new rules), the footprint of your internal walls and the footprint of your air conditioner platform. And you thought that floor area meant where you could put your feet, did you?

We could have had it all clearly revealed in the sales brochure seven years ago but Exco has unfortunately evolved no further from its primordial nature over the past seven years. Public debate is thus likely to be as pointless now as it was seven years ago if Exco can still subvert worthwhile legislation as it did then.

Perhaps we will just have to rely on the Trades Description Ordinance. If it's an offence to engrave the word 'Italy' on a ring, can we make it an offence to engrave the words 'Villa Italia' on a box of ticky-tack flats?

jake.vanderkamp@scmp.com



Chameleon Joe, developers should tell us the truth