Page 109 of 142
174
HONG KONG URBAN COUNCIL
rather than in an area where it concerns the travelling public most--the price of travelling by mini-bus. As a matter of fact, using heavier or air-conditioned vehicles to carry the same number of passengers is likely to push prices up rather than stabilize or even lower them. Since the Government seems either unwilling or powerless to establish some degree of control over non-fixed route mini-buses, and since both the public and Government agree that the fixed route green mini-buses are giving a much fairer deal to the public and they ought to be encouraged, why can't we go a step further and provide fixed route service operators with a tool to give even better service at a better price? If this happened, it would exert downward pressure on the rampaging, free-for-all type fare structure of non-franchised mini-buses.
The way to do this would be to not only relax on the weight and dimensions of 14-seater mini-buses, but allow expansion into 20-seater vehicles in the case of fixed route light buses that charge fixed fares. Mini-bus operators are entrepreneurs and it would not take long for them to work out that a 43% increase in passenger capacity does not mean a similar large increase in overheads, and this will give them further competitive edge over those operators who do not opt for fixed routes and fixed fares. This is a very painless way of actively encouraging transition into franchised light buses, and at the same time easing road congestion by encouraging more road-usage efficient vehicles. I repeat, this concept of allowing larger passenger capacity vehicles should only apply as an option to franchised fixed route operators.
Housing
I have mentioned private housing on two occasions before. With the drop in private sector housing prices and interest rates from the crazy and dizzy heights of two years ago, this is less of a problem now, but public housing is still a problem. About half of Hong Kong's population is in public housing, but demand is still unsaturated as ever, especially from the half a million or so squatters. It sounds nice to be able to show the world that we have a paternalistic government that is subsidising through public funds, that is other people's money, half the housing needs of our population, but we must be wary of excessive subsidy towards one sector retarding progress in solving the needs of the even more needy. It is commendable to provide cheap and subsidized housing to a large portion of our workforce so that they can concentrate on working and contributing towards the stability and prosperity that we need in Hong Kong, but we must really ask ourselves for how long a subsidy ought to apply, particularly in instances where financial circumstances in the family living in public housing have changed. Or should we ask ourselves: is it right to keep on subsidizing a family for 20 years or even perpetually while we could do well with funds to build more public housing for those who are not fortunate enough to have anything at all?
In order to encourage those who have improved their standards of living over a lengthy period of time through living in public housing to make way for those who are now more needy, I propose that the basis of charging rents for public housing ought to be examined. Rather than charge more or less the same on footage to everyone in the same estate, there ought to be a sliding scale of rental which increases disproportionately with the length of time a family has enjoyed subsidized public housing, starting to escalate in the case of being tenants for 10 years or longer. This increase should be on top of normal increases due to inflation and costs, and the upper limit should be the point where there is no subsidy at all, including operational and capital costs. In other words, a low scale of rent applies for years 1-10, a slightly higher scale during the 10th-20th years of tenancy and a yet higher one for those in excess of 20 years.
If this proposal were adopted, this would not necessarily mean hefty increases for all, in fact it could also mean lower rents for new and needy public housing tenants. At this particular point in time when the construction industry is depressed, it would be a good thing if demand for private housing or even the home ownership schemes were boosted by those long-term public housing tenants who were now in a position to pay more of their disposable income to buy a flat. Even if they chose not to, at least they could contribute more funds towards Government's efforts to provide more housing for those needy people who have never enjoyed any form of subsidized public housing at all. As a safety net, there ought to be rules laid down for exemption in the case of a means test showing that the family circumstances could not bear the higher scale even after 10 years, and perhaps some allowance for families with an unusually large number of dependants, particularly the elderly and retired. I leave these thoughts to the wisdom of my many colleagues on the Housing Authority.
1997
Even though it may be argued that there has been too much misguided verbiage on this 'Talk of the Town' subject already, I would have to be an ostrich not to talk about the topic on this occasion. True, there has been a lot of talk, but the more talk there is the more we must be able to separate emotional outbursts from rational discussion.
One sign of emotion is to blame everything on 1997. Even if 1997 was 2097, I think we would still have the current depressed property market, slackening of exports, softening of employment and weak stock market. Looking at it rationally, we ought to be thankful the world recession did not really hit us one year ago when it hit almost every trading country in the world, but only caught up with us recently. If we know how to enjoy good times, we need to be able to grit our teeth and tide over temporary bad times, and not lose faith in the ability of Hong Kong to respond quicker than most places once economic recovery sets in. If we lose faith in ourselves, and even blame the world recession on 1997 as an easy excuse, we will lose the resilience that is characteristic of Hong Kong people who made this place what it is today. Losing faith in ourselves is the greatest threat to our continuing success.
Apart from 'Stability and Prosperity', the second most popular phrase commonly mooted about with emotion nowadays is ‘Status Quo'. But what are
Page 199 of 142
Page 109 of 142
174
HONG KONG URBAN COUNCIL
rather than in an area where it concerns the travelling public most--the price of travelling by mini-bus. As a matter of fact, using heavier or air-conditioned vehicles to carry the same number of passengers is likely to push prices up rather than stabilize or even lower them. Since the Government seems either unwilling or powerless to establish some degree of control over non-fixed route mini- buses, and since both the public and Government agree that the fixed route green mini buses are giving a much fairer deal to the public and they ought to be encouraged, why can't we go a step further and provide fixed route service operators with a tool to give even better service at a better price? If this happened, it would exert downward pressure on the rampaging, free-for-all type
fare structure of non-franchised mini-buses.
The way to do this would be to not only relax on the weight and dimensions of 14-seater mini-buses, but allow expansion into 20 seater vehicles in the case of fixed route light buses that charge fixed fares. Mini-bus operators are entrepreneurs and it would not take long for them to work out that a 43% increase in passenger capacity does not mean a similar large increase in overheads, and this will give them further competitive edge over those operators who do not opt for fixed routes and fixed fares. This is a very painless way of actively encouraging transition into franchised light buses, and at the same time easing road congestion by encouraging more road-usage efficient vehicles. I repeat, this concept of allowing larger passenger capacity vehicles should only apply as an option to franchised fixed route operators.
Housing
I have mentioned private housing on two occasions before. With the drop in private sector housing prices and interest rates from the crazy and dizzy heights of two years ago, this is less of a problem now, but public housing is still a problem. About half of Hong Kong's population is in public housing, but demand is still unsaturated as ever, especially from the half a million or so squatters. It sounds nice to be able to show the world that we have a paternalistic government that is subsidising through public funds, that is other peoples' money, half the housing needs of our population, but we must be wary of excessive subsidy towards one sector retarding progress in solving the needs of the even more needy. It is commendable to provide cheap and subsidized housing to a large portion of our work-force so that they can concentrate on working and contributing towards the stability and prosperity that we need in Hong Kong, but we must really ask ourselves for how long a subsidy ought to apply, particularly in instances where financial circumstances in the family living in public housing have changed. Or should we ask ourselves: is it right to keep on subsidizing a family for 20 years or even perpetually while we could do well with funds to build more public housing for those who are not fortunate enough to have anything at all?
In order to encourage those who have improved their standards of living over a lengthy period of time through living in public housing to make way for those who are now more needy, I propose that the basis of charging rents for public
HONG KONG URBAN COUNCIL
Page 199 of 142
housing ought to be examined. Rather than charge more or less the same on footage to everyone in the same estate, there ought to be a sliding scale of rental which increases disproportionately with the length of time a family has enjoyed subsidized public housing, starting to escalate in the case of being tenants for 10 longer. This increase should be on top of normal increases due to inflation and costs, and the upper limit should be the point where there is no subsidy at all, including operational and capital costs. In other words, a low scale of rent applies for years 1-10, a slightly higher scale during the 10th-20th
of tenancy and a yet higher one for those in excess of 20 years.
years or
years
If this proposal were adopted, this would not necessarily mean hefty increases for all, in fact it could also mean lower rents for new and needy public housing tenants. At this particular point in time when the construction industry is depressed, it would be a good thing if demand for private housing or even the home ownership schemes were boosted by those long term public housing tenants who were now in a position to pay more of their disposable income to buy a flat. Even if they chose not to, at least they could contribute more funds towards Government's efforts to provide more housing for those needy people who have never enjoyed any form of subsidized public housing at all. As a safety net, there ought to be rules laid down for exemption in the case of a means test showing that the family circumstances could not bear the higher scale even after 10 years, and perhaps some allowance for families with an unusually large number of dependants, particularly the elderly and retired. I leave these thoughts to the wisdom of my many colleagues on the Housing Authority.
1997
Even though it may be argued that there has been too much misguided verbage on this "Talk of the Town' subject already, I would have to be an ostrich not to talk about the topic on this occasion. True, there has been a lot of talk, but the more talk there is the more we must be able to separate emotional outbursts from rational discussion.
One sign of emotion is to blame everything on 1997. Even if 1997 was 2097, I think we would still have the current depressed property market, slackening of exports, softening of employment and weak stock market. Looking at it rationally, we ought to be thankful the world recession did not really hit us one year ago when it hit almost every trading country in the world, but only caught up with us recently. If we know how to enjoy good times, we need to be able to grit our teeth and tide over temporary bad times, and not lose faith in the ability of Hong Kong to respond quicker than most places once economic recovery sets in. If we lose faith in ourselves, and even blame the world recession on 1997 as an easy excuse, we will lose the resilience that is characteristic of Hong Kong people who made this place what it is today. Losing faith in ourselves is the greatest threat to our continuing success.
Apart from 'Stability and Prosperity', the second most popular phrase commonly mooted about with emotion nowadays is ‘Status Quo'. But what are
No comments yet.
Private notes are available after approval.