Share

Just how committed is a Hong Kong supervision to elucidate a housing problem?

Former arch executive Donald Tsang Yam-kuen has certified he should have grown some-more land during his 7 years in bureau from 2005 to 2012 though denied that a flighty skill marketplace and singular housing supply were a outcome of his housing policies.

– SCMP, Sep 8

Let’s initial cruise this tenure of office. In 1993, Bow-tie Donald was allocated Secretary of a Treasury. From there, he went on to apropos Financial Secretary, afterwards Chief Secretary and finally Chief Executive.

I make that a duration of 20 years – not 7 – during that he was possibly a many successful chairman in Hong Kong’s supervision or really tighten to being so.

Now demeanour during a draft (below) of a residential cost index over this duration – boom, crash, boom. It defines a tenure “a flighty skill market” and it strongly suggests that possibly Donald had no housing policies or that they destabilised a market. He can't in probity contend it had zero to do with him.

The many we consider we can accept is that a censure ought to be common with a benefaction arch executive, Leung Chun-ying, who was housing confidant to a initial arch executive, Tung Chee-hwa.

Together with Donald, we might recall, they authorized a devise for a large swell in open housing, that reached a marketplace usually as it was crashing.

Donald afterwards called off a swell usually to have C.Y. call it on again 7 years later, when home prices had risen roughly fourfold from a bottom.

What is common to this story, other than a apparent doctrine that no actor in a marketplace ever gets it utterly as wrong as supervision does, is a ubiquitous rejection of responsibility.

C.Y. is singing this balance now, too, angry that he usually can’t find a land to build on and it’s not his fault.

Let’s put this into perspective. In a center of Happy Valley, a primary residential area, lies a immature field, tracks, and witness stands used once a week for equine racing.

Let’s take that land behind and build homes on it. The Jockey Club has identical once-a-week comforts in Shatin. It can now use these twice a week.

Pass me some earplugs, please. The screaming entrance my approach is as bad any teenage autonomy disciple ever gets.

Okay, we shall throw this idea. But let’s have it true afterwards that we have asked for an spontaneous uncover of hands and a nags have it. We cite horses to houses. I’m not observant here that this is good or bad. I’m usually observant that we ought to be honest and acknowledge it.

Let’s try something else. The golf bar has 3 large golf courses in Fan Ling. Could we not take one of them behind to build homes for enclosure dwellers?

Help! Help! Sorry. we didn’t meant it. we take it back. Golf is also some-more critical than housing. we should have known. Sorry.

Here is another thought then. We have 28 hectares of well located land clinging to an American themed entertainment park for mainland Chinese visitors. Local people don’t go much. Once is good enough. And a mainlanders now have a bigger Disneyland of their possess in Shanghai. With assemblage numbers down, because don’t we …?”

Ouch! Ow! we recant. we guarantee we won’t do it again. A rodent is some-more critical than a house. I’ll write it out on a blackboard a hundred times if we insist.

And so it goes.

Our arch executives, all 3 of them so far, have pronounced that decent housing is a priority though each time that a doubt is asked in rehearse it turns out that there is a aloft priority.

Why can’t they usually be honest and acknowledge it?