Hong Kong public estate with landmark Lion Rock. (Image by cozyta / Shutterstock)

Singapore’s public housing system has been a ideal model for Hong Kong for a long time now. Hong Kong has struggled to house its population for decades and looking to a similarly small city-state with limited land but successful housing system seems only natural.

However, University of Hong Kong adjunct professor Tony Kwok said in an article for South China Morning Post (SCMP) that Hong Kong cannot copy Singapore’s approach. This is because Singapore’s success in housing its growing population isn’t as simple as increasing its land mass.

In fact, he says it is an oversimplification to say that that was Singapore’s only approach. He adds that much of Singapore’s success is better attributed to the conditions in Singapore back in the 60s and 70s when the late Lee Kuan Yew was Prime Minister, noting that those conditions vary significantly from the conditions in Hong Kong today.

Authors Lee Hsin and Donald Low explained in a separate article on SCMP about Prof Kwok’s arguments that most of the Singapore’s reclaimed land was put to non-residential use. Airports, industrial parks, ports, recreation spaces were all built on reclaimed land while only a sliver was portioned off for public housing.

Instead, it was the public housing policies introduced under LKY between 1959 and 1990 that was the key to Singapore’s success in housing its population. In the late 50s, there was a shortage of housing and the city centre housing blocks were plagued with overcrowding. SCMP said that at the time an estimated 500,000 residents needed accommodation and about 400,000 of them had to be moved out of the city centre.

Housing Development Board and strong policies

The British government at the time set up the Singapore Improvement Trust (SIT), which built only 23,000 public housing flats in its 32 years. In 1960, the Housing Development Board (HDB) was set up to replace SIT under the newly elected independent government of Singapore.

The article explains that despite the ‘superficial similarities’ between Singapore and Hong Kong, the development of public housing in the Lion City was effectively just land reform and wealth redistribution on a scale that is unimaginable today in Hong Kong.

The authors note that Singapore autonomy from the interests of social groups from big business to labour, land owners, property developers, or those in finance means that the government could do what needed to be done to make the system work. The people also accepted this set up as they saw how it benefited them.

To make it work, HDB undertook responsibility for all aspects of housing from planning to development, design, building, and maintenance. With an initial priority of creating easily accessible planned population areas outside of the city, HDB managed to surpass its target by building more than 50,000 flats.

By 1990 when LKY stepped down, Singapore’s population almost doubled from 1.6 million to 3 million since the late 1950s. Even so, 88% of residents owned HDB flats and 87% lived in those flats. The HDB is credited for this accomplishment.

The article goes on to explain that several important policy shifts that helped Singapore get to where it is now in terms of public housing. The 1920 Land Acquisition Ordinance was repealed and replaced with the Land Acquisition Act (LAA) in 1969. This allowed the state to acquire land for any public purpose or work of public benefit. A subsequent amendment to the LAA in 1973 allowed the government to acquire even private land in exchange of a blow-market value compensation. The authors note that these acquisitions were seldom challenged in Court.

These ‘draconian rules’ facilitated the country’s housing and industrialisation programs, with state ownership of land rising from 31% in 1949 to 76% by 1985. The government also passed laws to ensure that leases on state owned land didn’t exceed 99 years.

Unthinkable savings policies

This, the authors highlighted, would be ‘unthinkable’ in contemporary Hong Kong. The laws allow for the Land Development Corporation (LDC) in Hong Kong to acquire land from private owners but the efficacy of the law is limited because the LDC would have to demonstrate that there is no ‘undue detriment’ to the interest of landowners. That’s often difficult to prove. In Hong Kong, the interests of the landowners are not subordinate to the state.

SCMP also said that the Singapore government tailored its policies to explicitly favour home ownership, making buying a more attractive option than renting. And in 1968, the government increased the contribution amount to the state pension plan, Central Provident Fund (CPF), so that citizens would use their savings to finance home purchases.

Starting off in 1955 at only 5 % of their monthly salary, by 1990s the rate had risen to 16% from the employee and 24% from employers respectively.

They noted that such a stringent mandatory savings plan wouldn’t find much support in Hong Kong where many would view it as paternalistic and wouldn’t be willing to accept the lower take-home pay.

The article points out that two decades after Hong Kong’s return to Chinese sovereignty, only 36% of households were in public housing and 49% owned their homes. Financing for public housing is not supported in Hong Kong to the same degree as it is in Singapore. The article described how a successful applicant for a flat in Hong Kong under the Home Ownership Scheme will only own the property until they pay the land premium determined by the market value. The applicant then also pays the government for the cost of construction.

On that note, SCMP said that neither Singapore’s past experience and present circumstances suggest that it is should be a model for Hong Kong. The article continues by saying that while Singapore’s public housing programme was successful in its first 5 decades, some Singaporeans now question the long-term viability of a policy based on perpetually rising flat values. Many are worries about the possibility of the depreciation of their ageing HDB properties which they used much of their SPF savings on.

The article concludes, “Given how unique and context-specific Singapore’s success in public housing was, it is questionable whether it can be grafted onto contemporary Hong Kong’s context – unless its society and politics were to mimic Singapore’s, and how likely or desirable is that for Hong Kong?”

Subscribe
Notify of
0 Comments
Inline Feedbacks
View all comments
You May Also Like

Singapore wins bronze medal in inaugural IFP Asian Nations Cup 2013

By MJ   (‘Team Singapore for the Asian Nations Cup 2013: Daniel…

樟宜机场集团副总裁傅丽珊 正式成为行动党准候选人

人民行动党正式介绍樟宜机场集团副总裁傅丽珊为党中新人。 行动党今日通过视讯记者会介绍第五批准候选人,分别为44岁的傅丽珊、51岁的吴顺喜与54岁的黎鸿业。 人民行动党将本届将推出26名新人,目前已经介绍了其中19人。 44岁的傅丽珊,曾为武装部队奖学金得主,亦担任过空军飞行员,并在已故前总统纳丹任职时期担任我国史上首位总统全职女副官,目前是樟宜机场集团副总裁。 而51岁的吴顺喜則在本地和海外银行业拥有27年的经验,目前是星展银行董事总经理兼集团审计部主管;54岁的黎鸿业,曾在国家法院担任推事和副主簿,随后开设律师事务所。 日前教育部长兼三巴旺集选区议员王乙康曾向众人介绍”新面孔“,其中就包括三巴旺公民咨询委员会副主席的樟宜机场集团副总裁傅丽珊,以及顿咨询公司合伙人兼董事经理玛丽亚姆(Mariam Jaafar,43岁)。

武吉巴督火患一月后传噩耗 73岁女灾黎不治离世

上月武吉巴督火灾,73岁妇女在被救出时严重烧伤,经过一个多月的治疗后,最终仍不幸离世。 武吉巴督火灾于上月1日凌晨发生。本社此前报导,民防部队赶往现场时屋内已燃起熊熊大火,民防人员进入屋内后发现三名受害者,两男一女,分别倒卧在厕所以及厨房窗户外的窗台上。 据民防部队文告指出,当时由于厨房当时堆积大量物品,增加民防队员救援难度,因此民防队无法及时将他们救出。 民防人员先从单位内以绳索保护两人,灾难拯救队(Disaster Assistance and Rescue Team)则从楼上单位降下,把两人安置在云梯车的救援笼中,才降到地面上由护理人员抢救。 而当时单位内的73岁吴姓妇女则受困在单位的厕所内,穿戴防护面罩的民防部队人员破门而入,将她救出,并送入新加坡中央医院接受治疗。 消息指出,妇女在被救出后全身严重烧伤,在中央医院加护病房接受治疗一个多月,但仍因伤势太重而不治。 其余两名41岁与27岁男幸存者也在被救援后送入加护病房,一人在住院数天后已出院,另一名则伤势较重,直至11月15日才出院。 民防部队斥火灾当下水管无法使用,穆仁里致歉…

OCBC survey: Half of sandwiched gen find it tough supporting parents and children the same time

According to a recent OCBC’s Financial Wellness Index survey, the majority of…