公屋變質終身福利 綠置居引定位反思

<轉載自2017年10月31日 明報 社評>

行政長官林鄭月娥表示，80萬個公屋單位足夠應付基層家庭需要，引起不少議論。林太傾向將大部分新建公屋轉作「綠置居」出售，希望加快公屋單位流轉，讓基層家庭「上樓」，願景理論雖好，惟未必與現實配合。公屋政策原意是照顧基層家庭住屋需要，然而數十年發展下來，本意遭到扭曲，很多公屋富戶視之為「既得利益」，不願放棄，政府欲靠「綠置居」扭轉局面，並沒有太大把握，只能摸着石頭過河，審慎而為，切忌孤注一擲。公屋偏離濟貧原意，社會各界是時候就公屋政策展開一場大辯論，反思公屋定位。

公屋難無止境增建 80萬劃線可以商榷

本港有76萬個出租公屋單位，輪候「上樓」時間卻愈來愈長。上周林太接受本報專訪，認為只要能保持公屋單位流動性，大約80萬個單位已足夠應付基層家庭需要。雖然當局堅稱並非為公屋數目「封頂」，然而「劃線」之意相當明顯。當年長遠房屋策略督導委員會提出，未來10年提供20萬個出租公屋單位，林太以「綠置居」掛帥，無疑是一次政策轉變，社會人士擔心公屋輪候時間進一步延長，實屬情理之內，政府亦有責任解答市民的疑惑，諸如80萬這個數字如何得出、憑據是否充分。

政府出租公屋，收回來的租金不足夠填補差餉、管理費及維修費用，意味公帑補貼是無止境的，每建一間出租公屋單位，就會加重房委會的財政負擔。相比之下，將出租公屋轉作「綠置居」出售，公帑資助是一筆過的，房委會還可以有資金回籠，興建新項目。根據全港住戶入息資料，符合入住公屋入息條件的住戶超過88萬戶，高於林太的80萬單位界線，惟相去亦不遠。政府有責任照顧基層市民住屋需要，80萬是否一條適合的界線，可以商榷，然而從財政角度來說，政府必須考慮政策可持續性，不可能無止境增建公屋，總需要劃線。

政府提出未來多建「綠置居」，鼓勵公屋富戶置業，交出單位，好讓基層市民「上樓」，理論行得通，實踐卻不易。「單位流轉」是整套政策成敗的關鍵，問題是很多公屋富戶並沒有這種「有入有出」的觀念，甚至視公屋為「終身福利」。有論者指出，目前樓市熾熱，大部分公屋戶「沒有能力承擔高樓價」，雖然有一定道理，惟現實是一些公屋富戶就算有錢買樓，也不願意搬走。

曾幾何時，公屋面積小環境差，住戶都希望「升級」住私樓，然而時移世易，今時今日公屋已變成「搶手貨」。隨着私樓價錢愈飈愈高，單位面積愈縮愈細，租住公屋變得愈來愈「着數」，部分新公屋質素絲毫不比居屋遜色，不僅租金便宜，面積比起一些私樓單位還大，更不用支付維修和管理等雜費。今時今日，公屋富戶花費數十萬元裝修單位時有所聞，透過資產轉移迴避遷出沒有太高難度，部分租戶更透過「分戶」佔用更多單位。

公屋落成量未能達標，申請人數有增無減，固然是公屋輪候時間愈來愈長的主因，「分戶」拖慢基層市民「上樓」，亦屬不爭事實。回歸20年來，公屋單位增加了14%，可是居住公屋人口不升反跌，少了8%，「分戶」普遍是原因之一。房委會有意收緊分戶政策，惟遭政黨反對。眾所周知，公共屋邨是各大政黨票倉，照顧現有住戶利益，就是保住選票。每次政府提出向公屋富戶加租，政黨例必質疑。政府少建公屋，對政黨而言等於少了機會擴張政治地盤。

公屋富戶不願遷出 終身福利觀念須改

政府受制政治阻力，難揮「大棒」迫使富戶遷出，唯有多用「蘿蔔」鼓勵。政府提出以「綠置居」協助公屋家庭一圓置業夢，只是換了一個漂亮的說法，希望富戶搬走。據估計，若要滿足公屋輪候冊人士，確保有足夠公屋單位流轉，每年至少需要有1萬至2萬公屋富戶購買「綠置居」，能否如願，完全視乎政府能夠提供多少「着數」。當局希望借鑑新加坡組屋經驗，惟新加坡有公積金支持市民置業，實非香港可以相比，現在沒有資料顯示「綠置居」能吸引大量公屋富戶置業。

首個「綠置居」試點項目景泰苑，由於位處市區，超額認購約18倍，惟最終前往揀樓的人不多，反映需求未必如政府預測般殷切。有公屋富戶形容，景泰苑單位偏細，質素未見遠勝公屋，除非揀到「樓王」大單位，否則寧願繼續住公屋，正好突顯問題所在。「公屋是終身福利」觀念一日不改，政府每年只能收回數千個單位的情况恐難大變。

去年房委會調查顯示，只有約12%受訪公屋戶會考慮申請「綠置居」。「綠置居」計劃能否顯著加快公屋流轉，仍是一大疑問，政府可以摸着石頭過河，小心試行，不能操之過急。公屋政策涉及錯綜複雜的利益分配問題，早晚需要處理，目前香港社會需要的，就是對公屋的定位、角色和功能，來一場大辯論大檢討，不應受制於特殊利益和政治考慮，亦不應淪為「逼人做樓奴」一類意識形態化的爭論，以免流於假大空。

Time to rethink role and functions of public housing

CARRIE LAM, the Chief Executive, has said that 800,000 public housing units will be enough to cope with the needs of lower-strata households. Her suggestions have provoked a lot of discussion.

There are currently 760,000 public rental housing units in Hong Kong, and the waiting time for these units has become increasingly long. Last week, in an interview to this newspaper, Carrie Lam said that as long as the liquidity of public housing units was maintained, around 800,000 units would be enough to meet the needs of lower-strata households. Though the government has stressed that it is not trying to cap the number of public housing units, it is obvious that it is attempting to draw a line at public housing supply. The Long Term Housing Strategy Steering Committee once suggested increasing the supply of public housing units by 200,000 over the next ten years. By putting the Green Form Subsidised Home Ownership Pilot Scheme (GSH) at the forefront, Carrie Lam has undoubtedly made a policy change. Members of society are reasonably worried about whether the waiting time for public housing units will be further lengthened. The government has a responsibility to answer people's suspicion, such as how the government came up with the number 800,000 and whether its suggestion is well-founded.

In letting out public housing units, the government receives rents that are insufficient to cover rates, management fees and maintenance fees. This implies that the use of taxpayers' money to subsidise public housing is like filling a bottomless pit. When the Housing Authority (HA) lets out a public housing unit, the burden on the authority increases. In contrast, if the units are sold instead under the GSH Scheme, it will involve merely a one-off subsidy, while the HA will even have money back into its pockets which can be used to build new housing projects. According to statistics of household income in Hong Kong, there are over 880,000 households earning incomes that make them eligible for public housing. The number is higher than the 800,000 suggested by Carrie Lam, but the discrepancy is not that large. The government has a responsibility to address people of lower social status's housing needs. It is arguable whether 800,000 is an appropriate bottom line. However, from a fiscal point of view, the government has to consider the sustainability of policies — it simply cannot build public housing endlessly. It is necessary to have a bottom line.

There was a time when public housing units were associated with cramped, poor living conditions and their tenants invariably wanted to move up to private housing. Times have changed, and nowadays public housing is very much sought after. As private flats become increasingly expensive but small, it is increasingly advantageous to rent a public housing flat. Some new public housing flats are of comparable quality with Home Ownership Scheme flats. Not only are the rents cheaper, but they are also more spacious than some private flats. The tenants do not have to pay miscellaneous fees for maintenance, management, etc. Nowadays, it is often reported that well-off tenants spend hundreds of thousands of dollars to renovate their flats, and it is not difficult to avoid eviction through the transfer of assets.

According to a survey conducted by the HA last year, only 12 per cent of tenants interviewed would consider applying for GSH flats. It is still questionable whether the scheme will speed up the turnover of public housing flats. The government can act cautiously and tentatively but not rashly. Public housing policies are related to the complicated problems of wealth distribution, and as such should be dealt with sooner or later. What is needed today is a major discussion and review concerning the status, role and functions of public housing. Such a discussion and review should not be hamstrung by special interests and political considerations.

公屋變質終身福利綠置居引定位反思

行政長官林鄭月娥表示，80萬個公屋單位足夠應付基層家庭需要，引起不少議論。

本港有76萬個出租公屋單位，輪候「上樓」時間卻愈來愈長。上周林太接受本報專訪，認為只要能保持公屋單位流動性，大約80萬個單位已足夠應付基層家庭需要。雖然當局堅稱並非為公屋數目「封頂」，然而「劃線」之意相當明顯。當年長遠房屋策略督導委員會提出，未來10年提供20萬個出租公屋單位，林太以「綠置居」掛帥，無疑是一次政策轉變，社會人士擔心公屋輪候時間進一步延長，實屬情理之內，政府亦有責任解答市民的疑惑，諸如80萬這個數字如何得出、憑據是否充分。

政府出租公屋，收回來的租金不足夠填補差餉、管理費及維修費用，意味公帑補貼是無止境的，每建一間出租公屋單位，就會加重房委會的財政負擔。相比之下，將出租公屋轉作「綠置居」出售，公帑資助是一筆過的，房委會還可以有資金回籠，興建新項目。根據全港住戶入息資料，符合入住公屋入息條件的住戶超過88萬戶，高於林太的80萬單位界線，惟相去亦不遠。政府有責任照顧基層市民住屋需要，80萬是否一條適合的界線，可以商榷，然而從財政角度來說，政府必須考慮政策可持續性，不可能無止境增建公屋，總需要劃線。

曾幾何時，公屋面積小環境差，住戶都希望「升級」住私樓，然而時移世易，今時今日公屋已變成「搶手貨」。隨着私樓價錢愈飈愈高，單位面積愈縮愈細，租住公屋變得愈來愈「着數」，部分新公屋質素絲毫不比居屋遜色，不僅租金便宜，面積比起一些私樓單位還大，更不用支付維修和管理等雜費。今時今日，公屋富戶花費數十萬元裝修單位時有所聞，透過資產轉移迴避遷出沒有太高難度。

去年房委會調查顯示，只有約12%受訪公屋戶會考慮申請「綠置居」。「綠置居」計劃能否顯著加快公屋流轉，仍是一大疑問，政府可以摸着石頭過河，小心試行，不能操之過急。公屋政策涉及錯綜複雜的利益分配問題，早晚需要處理，目前香港社會需要的，就是對公屋的定位、角色和功能，來一場大辯論大檢討，不應受制於特殊利益和政治考慮。