Advertisement
Advertisement
Letters | Hong Kong small-house policy a case of one city, two land systems
I refer to “Male villager’s small-house rights fully restored after appeal judges reverse ruling” (January 14). The court’s ruling means we have one special administrative region and two systems regarding that most fundamental element of Hong Kong life – land.
Urban dwellers are shoehorned into coffin-sized subdivided premises while male indigenous villagers demand three storeys, each of 700 square feet, and remarkably there is no legal requirement that they must actually use their “entitlement” as a residence for themselves or their family.
This is bizarre: one must assume that it was not the intention of the colonial authorities in 1972 to create a class of rentier capitalists, but to protect village-life traditions.
How the small-house policy has fed Hong Kong’s housing crisis
How the small-house policy has fed Hong Kong’s housing crisis
The three storeys were intended so that three generations could live under one roof. The policy now not so much allows a small house but offers a large money-box.
Successive secretaries for development have failed (or avoided trying) to get to grips with this unsustainable situation, even though it is acknowledged that the policy is open to abuse.
01:35
Hong Kong’s small-house policy: indigenous rights or unfair advantage?
Hong Kong’s small-house policy: indigenous rights or unfair advantage?
It seems the administration wants to leave the problem to the mainland authorities in 2047.
If it is indeed a constitutional right that all male indigenous villagers on attaining the age of 18 can demand a property, then our government should probably hand over the keys of the East Lautau metropolis to the Heung Yee Kuk, as this will form part of the New Territories land and will be much needed for all these small houses.
Frank Lee, Wan Chai
Post