Editorial | Public housing flats no place for well-off
- Latest proposals to deal with those who abuse Hong Kong’s subsidised system must result in eviction action and not just talk
The acute shortage of subsidised housing for the poor in Hong Kong has made fair use of public resources a must rather than an option. While rules are in place to evict those who have gradually earned more than allowed, enforcement is another matter. Even when scandals involving these so-called well-off tenants have made headlines and prompted proposals for stronger crackdowns from time to time, a lack of political will means it is usually just talk but no action.
Under the latest proposals approved by the Housing Authority yesterday, tenants must declare any private flat bought within a month and undergo an asset review every two years. Rules will also be tightened to guard against further abuses and speed up evictions. Failure to comply may lead to lease termination and making a false declaration will be a criminal offence.
Long overdue as they are, the proposals will still be considered by some as not going far enough. Currently, there are income and asset limits for those applying for public rental housing. But tenants only have to declare assets every two years after they have lived in a flat for 10 years. Those who have an income and assets that exceed the limits may still stay and pay higher rents. For instance, a four-person family can remain if their monthly income and assets do not exceed HK$154,750 and HK$3.1 million, respectively. The rules appear too lenient to many private housing tenants who are paying rents through the nose.
As of February, there were officially some 30,000 “well-off households”, accounting for 4 per cent of the public housing population. Given the upward social mobility in Hong Kong, a considerable number of people should have earned more than the original income and asset limits over the years. It would not be surprising if the actual number of well-off tenants far exceeds the declared total. The question is whether the authority is prepared to find out the true scale of the problem and tackle it with resolute enforcement action.
Depending on how forceful the crackdown will be, the waiting time for rental flats, now standing at 5.3 years, may not necessarily be cut substantially. But it would at least make the system fairer.
