As if purely by chance, both former and current Chief Executive expressed their opinions on “land reclamation” and housing development on May 13. First, it was CY Leung suggesting on Facebook that the border areas of Tai Lam Country Park should be reclaimed and built 20,000-30,000 Home Ownership Scheme (HOS) flats, which should be priced at HK$6,000 per sq. ft. (US$773); in the afternoon on the same day, the Development Bureau, with its might, announced that private land within three land parcels, two in Fanling and one Yuen Long, would be resumed under the Lands Resumption Ordinance (LRO). It has been expected to produce around 1,600 units of subsidized housing. Its move to reclaim land from developers to build housing was a response to the public demand.

A few days later, CY Leung blasted that “many civil servants” lack the “do it or die” attitude. A reporter asked Carrie Lam whether the current government halting the discussion on Leung’s proposal of developing country parks has caused Hong Kong’s housing problem to continue to worsen etc., Lam answered with sarcasm that “some governments examined the feasibility of converting land use on a plot-by-plot basis, like breaking rocks with a hammer.” But she believes they have to make long-term plans to find new land (Lantau Tomorrow Vision) instead of only changing the usage of particular pieces of land. The exchanges between the two were explosive, probably fighting to display their loyalty towards Beijing and claiming their land policy is the “better” policy that can “solve the deep-seated conflicts in Hong Kong.”

However, looking at their fiery exchange with their policies, including Lam’s sudden use of the LRO, it would appear that both proposals were more of a “trick move” covering their regression than new ideas. Take Leung’s proposal as an example. He proposed “Hong Kong property for Hong Kong people” when he became the Chief Executive in 2012, then hastily launched two pieces of land in Kai Tak as the “pilot scheme.” But the scheme was dead within a year, with only a development, One Kai Tak, available.

The government at the time declared that, in the 30 years from the date of the relevant land grants, those who wish to resell or rent out the properties must apply for permission from the Lands Department. But the media has exposed that over 80% of flats have been allowed to resell or rent out. They are not for the Hong Kong people to live at all. One of the “Hong Kong buyers,” perhaps even a former member of the Hong Kong Liaison Office, bought two flats; and a real estate broker “lent” his public rental housing address to his buyer, who works in China, to buy two properties. So now Leung proposed the “20,000-30,000 HOS flats scheme” in Tai Lam, saying the potential buyer will be eligible as long as he/she does not own any property, regardless of the person’s assets and income. Would Leung’s proposal end up being another One Kai Tak, where most people “borrow” identities of Hong Kong citizens to buy the properties, then speculate or rent them out? How can we ensure these “Hong Kong people” would live there themselves after buying the property?

And Lam, who is keen to build land by land reclamation, has contradicted herself in her policy address in October 2019 and finally agreed to enforce the LRO. It has taken two years of study, from when she claimed 10 land parcels have still yet to modify their leases, to indicated she would not resume five of these land parcels “at this stage,” then said three land parcels have proposed to modify their leases, then chose only to resume three land parcels. It seems she was only giving out empty words. Liber Research Community suggested the brownfield land should be first to be reclaimed. The government first rejected, then agreed, then studied for two years before proposing to build only 1,600 flats, then made a further “long-term plan” that is money-squandering and cannot help with the desperate situation. You can tell how “sincere” the government is to solve the problem.

The policies proposed by both parties have not tried to tackle the root of the housing problem. As said by the Liber Research Community, plenty of brownfield land can be developed if the government is willing to. Are there any restrictions from the Basic Law or legal system? Why couldn’t we ask the National People’s Congress (NPC) to “improve” the land supply legal system? The national security law can easily override the private property rights, and Lam can “freeze the assets” of people, saying it as a way of “reinforcing Hong Kong’s status as the international financial center.” So the NPC could give us a hand to “improve” the land policy, acquiring a large amount of land from developers, which is also to “reinforce” Hong Kong’s housing market and “revitalize” Hongkongers’ confidence. But why did the government say the legal issue is “complicated”?

If the problem is young people having difficulties becoming property owners, then the government can restrict the buyers’ identity and age like the age restrictions applied by the youth hostels. The government has put so much effort to force citizens to “check-in” with LeaveHomeSafe app, separating ABCD zones in eateries, pedantically limiting the number of people in groups, and strenuously controlling human rights which led to the constant change of how many people are allowed to gather, and how many are allowed to eat in together. But it would not apply the same amount of dedication to “supervise” and restrict the resell and rental in the housing market. The government could not trace or control the wealthy Mainlanders, who borrowed people’s identities and spent billions of dollars to speculate properties. But it could find those who spent under HK$100 to have a meal with their friends and promptly prosecute them for “concealing their whereabouts.” It shows that what the government wants, or does not want, to do.

The bottom line is, today is no longer like “back in the days.” In the past, the government valued its popularity among the public and would make a show to give people hope. People could still fantasize about a government that also wanted “a long-term, peaceful governing.” Nowadays, with the CCP having “improved” Hong Kong’s electoral system, which has a large number of the newly added election committee, but all of them are “people of the party,” it has drastically weakened the political strength of property developers. What kind of people would still come to Hong Kong to speculate properties nowadays? Whose interests are more important, these people or the citizens like us? Besides, most companies, from building properties to selling them, will mainly be China-owned businesses in the future. Then whose interests are more important? I guess you knew the answer already.

(Lam Kay, political commentator.)

Click here for Chinese version

We invite you to join the conversation by submitting columns to our opinion section: [email protected]

Apple Daily reserves the right to refuse, abridge, alter or edit guest opinion columns for accuracy, length, clarity, and style, and the right to withdraw and withhold columns based on the discretion of our editorial page editors.

The opinions of the writers do not necessarily reflect the opinions of the editorial board.

---------------------------------

Apple Daily’s all-new English Edition is now available on the mobile app: bit.ly/2yMMfQE

To download the latest version,

iOS: bit.ly/AD_iOS

Android: bit.ly/AD_android

Or search Appledaily in App Store or Google Play