居屋只應助人安居 不應二次資助買樓

<轉載自2011年10月13日 明報社評>

 

昨日，兩名特首「疑似」參選人唐英年與梁振英均到訪基層社區深水埗，異口同聲談及增建公屋；情勢已經相當清楚，不論誰當選下一任特首，公屋都會增建，問題是增加多少？我們贊成復建居屋和適度加建公屋，然而，二者均需要公帑和公共資源，必須遵從公平和有效運用資源的基本原則。正因這樣，現任特首曾蔭權提出的「曾版居屋」，對已經幸運地購置新居屋的業主提供兩次資助，並不合理；政府毋須錦上添花，但必須雪中送炭，用有限的公共資源協助其他有需要的市民購買居屋。

新居屋轉售補價賣大包 製造社會分化挑起矛盾

曾蔭權上周三施政報告宣布的「曾版居屋」，轉售補價安排很有問題──曾蔭權表示補價是貸款，他日居屋業主出售物業，升值部分由業主享有，這個做法形同賣大包，與居屋政策以協助夾心階層安居的原旨不符，對其他市民包括原居屋業主不公平。居屋只要達到協助市民安居即可，是否流動轉售，不應該成為政策主軸，製造不公，徒添社會代價。

家庭月入3萬元以下又未能申請公屋的夾心階層，需要政府協助安居，復建居屋確有需要。然而，若照「曾版居屋」的構思，購得新居屋者，已經獲得公共資源資助，若他日出售物業，獨享升值部分，以所擁資金購買發展商所興建私人樓宇，實行「向上流動」，則是二次資助，協助已購居屋者買私人樓甚至炒樓。這樣，公共資源就偏離了協助市民安居原旨，絕不妥當。就算那筆貸款要繳付利息，在原則上也有問題，因為一些人可以得到政府貸款買樓，其他市民為何不能獲得同樣關顧。市民佔用公共資源，不患寡而患不均，若出現明顯不公平，就會出現分化和矛盾。

「曾版居屋」製造社會分化和矛盾。其一，原居屋補價安排不變，厚新而薄舊，不一致、不公平，挑起原居屋業主與新居屋業主的矛盾；其二，設若政府訴諸「民粹」，實行賣大包，原居屋補價與新居屋看齊，則這種二次資助最大化的做法，非居屋業主會認為不公平。

所以，關於新居屋補價安排，曾蔭權若沒有不為人知的隱蔽議程，則無異於自找麻煩。市民購買居屋，對日後出售時要補回資助額，並無異議，曾蔭權為何要另搞一套不公平的補價安排，實在令人費解。

居屋轉售安排並非不可以調整，如果有更公平合理的做法，完全可以考慮，但是「曾版居屋」標新立異，看不到符合這些準則，看到的只是賣大包，製造不公平，引發社會分化和矛盾。政府對此切勿一意孤行，回歸原居屋政策轉售補價安排，是較恰當做法。

居屋轉售不是不可改 但必須改得更公平合理

「曾版居屋」與原居屋政策另一個根本不同，是訂定存廢硬指標，與樓市、樓價掛鈎。當合資格申購新居屋人士，供樓負擔比率低於入息40%，或是以現行準則而言，新界樓市呎價跌低至呎價4000元，政府就會調節興建居屋數量，甚或停建停售。曾蔭權和運房局長鄭汝樺都說，當市場有夾心階層可負擔的合理價格住宅單位，推售居屋也無人買，事實上，過去就算經濟最低迷時期，當局推售居屋，認購仍然超額，並未出現過認購不足情况。所以，過去居屋之受歡迎，不受經濟周期和樓市起落影響，此乃反映市民有實際需求，居屋無人買之說，不符合實情。

政府對設定停建停售居屋硬指標，否認為托價線或托價機制，不過，若以曾蔭權和鄭汝樺表面解說之邏輯，則豈非政府也可以為停止賣地設下指標？因為若樓價下跌，市民不買樓，則發展商再興建樓宇單位，市民也不會購買，那麼停止賣地也就順理成章了。這個推論，可以說明政府為停建停售居屋設下硬指標之欠缺邏輯理據。

「曾版居屋」另一個重要內容，是協助居屋業主向上流動。市民申購得居屋，安居之後能否「升呢」，毋須政府費神，他們若有能力投資買樓、向上流動住私樓豪宅，自會安排，毋須政府誘之以大包。

政府亟亟於希望市民買私樓升呢，但從實際施政而言，政府卻忽略了值得協助向上流動的公屋富戶，他們想購買居屋升呢，但是2002年停建、一度停售居屋之後，他們沒有機會申購居屋，然後交回公屋單位讓其他有需要人士入住，切斷了原居屋政策的流轉功能。所以，政府應該總結經驗，若日後出現停建停售抉擇時，不應全面停建，應該保留興建小量單位，作為種子作用。過去9年所見，一旦停建就很難復建，政府勿再重蹈覆轍。

"Tsang HOS"

 

THE PREMIUM ARRANGEMENT of the new Home Ownership Scheme (HOS), which Donald Tsang unveiled last Wednesday in his policy address, is quite problematic. According to him, the subsidised portion of a unit's purchase price will be regarded as a loan and, when its owner sells it, he may pocket the value increase of that portion. He may use the money to "move upwards" - to buy a flat from a private developer. The government would practically give the new HOS flat owner another subsidy to help him to buy a private housing unit or even speculate in property. If it does so, it will depart from the principle of using public money to help citizens to buy their own homes. That is far from right.

 

The "Tsang HOS" would divide society and breed discord. First, it would make fish of one group and fowl of another. The premium arrangement applying to old HOS flat owners will remain unchanged. Inconsistent and unfair, the measure would drive a wedge between old HOS flat owners and new HOS flat owners. Second, if the government resorts to "populism" and offers old HOS flat owners the new premium arrangement, it will "maximise" its second subsidies, but people who are not HOS flat owners will consider that unfair.

Donald Tsang actually courted trouble when he came up with the new HOS premium arrangement, unless there is a hidden agenda behind it. Citizens are agreed that an HOS flat owner should repay the government the subsidised portion of his unit when he sells it. Why has Donald Tsang come up with another, unfair premium arrangement? That is very baffling indeed.

We are not saying the old arrangement must stand in any circumstances. If another is more equitable, it is of course worth considering. However, the novel arrangement does not seem more equitable. Clearly, it would lead to social contradictions. The government must not stubbornly cling to the new arrangement. It should be so sensible as to have the old HOS premium arrangement apply to the new HOS.

Another essential difference between the "Tsang HOS" and the old HOS is that there is a criterion for determining whether to make new HOS flats available. Their availability will depend on property prices. If an eligible new HOS applicant's monthly mortgage repayment is less than 40% of his monthly income or property prices in the New Territories fall to $4,000 a square foot, the government will build fewer or even stop building and selling new HOS flats. Both Donald Tsang and Eva Cheng (Secretary for Transport and Housing) have said that, if there are reasonably-priced flats sandwich-class citizens can afford to buy in the market, none will want to buy HOS flats.

The government denies the criterion is designed to prop up property prices. However, by Donald Tsang and Eva Cheng's logic, should the government not lay down a criterion for determining whether to stop putting up land for auction?

A major aim of the "Tsang HOS" is to "facilitate" the "upward mobility" of those in the new scheme. It should not concern the government whether those who live in their HOS flats can "rise to a higher level". If they have the money to invest in property or "move upward" to luxury residential flats, they will have their own plans. The government need not offer them any subsidies as an inducement.