MR CHAN KIN-POR (in Cantonese): Thank you, President. Since the launch of the Tenants Purchase Scheme (“TPS”) in 1998, more than 140 000 TPS flats have been sold. Despite the long-standing controversy, TPS has in all fairness been well received by public rental housing (“PRH”) tenants as it has enabled many to buy their own homes for peaceful and comfortable living. So, it is a good policy as far as it goes. However, the TPS model has resulted in mixed tenure, and given the sheer size of the housing estates and the large number of public facilities involved, there are bound to be a lot of maintenance and management problems that are difficult to deal with even if owners’ corporations (“OCs”) have been set up. The Government’s objective in introducing TPS is to enable members of the public to buy their own homes and live in peace. If residents are plagued by maintenance and management problems, the original intention of the scheme will be defeated and the Government will be paving the way to hell with good intentions.
I thank Mr CHAN Chun-ying for moving today’s motion, which draws the Council’s attention to the problems with TPS. A total of some 180 000 flats in 39 estates have been offered for sale under TPS. As of the year before last, there were still about 39 000 unsold flats, accounting for about 20% of the total. These flats are still held by the Government and being leased to PRH tenants, resulting in mixed tenure. According to the Government, all TPS estates have formed OCs that are fully responsible for building management, which is no different from ordinary private properties, and since the Government still has a 20% stake, it will send representatives to take part in the work of OCs.
In fact, the TPS model has given rise to quite a number of building management problems. First, there is the problem with mixed tenure. In the event of a dispute or maintenance problem between a leased and a sold flat, such as water leakage between floors, both OC and the Housing Department are involved. As the rights and responsibilities are unclear, a simple problem would become complicated, thus inflicting unspeakable suffering on the parties concerned. In addition, as many community facilities, hillsides, driveways, etc. fall within the estate boundaries, the homeowners find themselves burdened with too many maintenance responsibilities for their housing estate.
Building maintenance is yet another issue. Many TPS estates are nearly 30 years old. They will be included in the Mandatory Building Inspection Scheme for building inspection and maintenance. Since public housing is not as well managed as private housing, most TPS estates are dilapidated with worn-out facilities which are not only very expensive to repair, but also prone to trigger disputes between OCs and homeowners. In recent years, the proposals of some OCs that every household chip in $20,000 to $30,000 for maintenance have given rise to endless arguments among homeowners.
In truth, the ultimate problem is that the Government has handed over the management right to OCs and then detached itself from the management of the buildings. A study has pointed out that some Housing and Development Board (“HDB”) flats in Singapore are also available for sale and lease at the same time. The Singapore Government understands that HDB flats must be centrally managed by government agencies, otherwise they will be riddled with flaws, so HDB flats are now managed by the Town Council of each district, rather than OCs.
As a matter of fact, sold flats are private-owned, just like private flats or Home Ownership Scheme flats, so it is logical and reasonable for maintenance and management costs to be borne by private owners, who surely understand this point. However, this does not mean that the Government can stay away from the management work. A good example is the HDB flats in Singapore. Besides, the Government is also the largest single owner, so it should be responsible for the management, as dictated by reason and morality. Therefore, I support the original motion calling on the Government to actively promote the enhancement of property management and maintenance standards for TPS units. It is my belief that as long as the Government intervenes, the aforesaid problems can be properly solved.
Meanwhile, I would like to point out that today, as Hong Kong implements “patriots administering Hong Kong”, the governing team led by the Chief Executive is full of energy and there are no more opposition forces to launch malicious attacks on the Government, so government departments should be impervious to negative emotions and aware of the fact that Hong Kong is now at the crucial stage of advancing from stability to prosperity, and all officials should work together to enhance their governing capability. I often cite Singapore as an example precisely because of its government’s valiant efforts and self-motivation to solve problems for the citizens. Therefore, I would encourage housing officials not to detach themselves, but to shoulder the responsibility of managing TPS estates and take the initiative to solve problems for the public. Only in this way can the SAR Government win public support and trust.
Thank you, President.