MR CHAN KIN-POR (in Cantonese): Deputy President, according to government figures, there are some 92 000 subdivided units in Hong Kong with dwellers numbering at 210 000. They live in appalling conditions, enduring not just serious overcrowdedness and poor hygiene, but also the major problem of fire safety. Apart from layouts of units that clearly contravene the Fire Safety (Buildings) Ordinance, the fire extinguishers placed at the fire exits of these premises may well have expired, as I have discovered in a recent visit to the subdivided units in Sham Shui Po with a television crew. What should the occupants do in the event of a fire?
Most of the people living in subdivided units are waitlisted for public housing, but the waiting time is growing longer and longer. As the number of public housing units constructed has fallen short of demand in recent years, it is estimated that the waiting time will extend further still. In other words, it is inevitable that subdivided units will continue to exist in the short term. Hence, I find it necessary to subject them to a certain degree of regulation, particularly in respect of hygiene and fire safety. For the consequence of a fire broke out in subdivided units could be dire indeed.
In fact, it really takes time to resolve the housing difficulties. In order to address the most urgent needs, the development of transitional housing should be undertaken without delay. In the Policy Address, the Chief Executive floated the idea of allowing the conversion of industrial buildings for transitional housing. I find such a proposal bold and groundbreaking. Such an initiative, if successfully implemented, would go some way towards easing the housing needs of grass-roots families, combat illegal subdivided units in industrial buildings and rein in the rental of subdivided units through an increase in supply. Regrettably, this Council, with its incessant obsession with political hype, has no time for a thorough discussion on such a measure that can truly help our people.
According to a study conducted by the Society for Community Organization, there are some 1 000 industrial buildings through out Hong Kong, and 124 of them are situated in the urban area and suitable for conversion into transitional housing. Assuming the conversion of each would yield 150 units, the potential supply would be around 20 000 units, accommodating over 70 000 persons. Given that the relevant units will be available for leasing after only a year or two of conversion works once granted government approval, this is indeed a very attractive proposition that offers quick, effective and efficient solutions. However, it would be a great pity if the initiative, for all its immense benefits to society, fails to attract the participation of industrial building owners and others.
Coming back to the government proposal, the Government will charge a nil waiver fee, exercise flexibility in the application of planning and building design requirements and encourage owners to collaborate with non-governmental organizations. Meanwhile, a task force under the Transport and Housing Bureau will provide one-stop, coordinated support. While the Government may consider such a proposal highly groundbreaking, implementing the initiative in such a passive manner is essentially no different from encouraging the community to take matters into their own hands. As this day and age, such a manner of implementation can hardly be a recipe for success, especially when there is not much economic incentive on offer. The conversion of industrial buildings nowadays requires substantial investments by owners, with potentially great difficulties in seeking approval and returns that are not necessarily lucrative. Under such circumstances, how can owners be incentivized to participate actively? There are times when we should really follow the example of Singapore, which government is always hands-on and proactive in its approach to all undertakings, be it economic stimulation, livelihood initiatives or investment promotion activities, invariably with good results.
Hence, for the initiative to succeed, the Government must be bold enough to break away from past frameworks, seizing the initiative by itself or by quasi-government organizations, negotiating directly with owners and providing tailored assistance. It is estimated that the conversion costs of a building range from tens of millions of dollars to over $100 million. By providing owners with subsidies or loans, assisting them in applying for approval and relaxing the time limit of waiver application from the initial five years to ten years, the Government should be able to attract more owners to participate.
With the Government’s plan of allocating $1 billion to developing transitional housing, it should be a good time for conversion of industrial buildings. However, the Government must require owners to set reasonable rentals and provide transitional housing with more floor space than subdivided units, better hygiene and fire protection facilities. By doing so, nearly 20 000 units could be released to the market in the next few years, resolving the various problems set out in today’s motion in one go. These are all good initiatives that will help solve public problems. I hope the Government will consider them seriously and press on despite difficulties.
Deputy President, our discussion today only focuses on short-term issues. To resolve the housing problem in the long term though, we ultimately need a dramatic increase in land. The Lantau Tomorrow Vision has provoked a heated debate in the community recently. As the saying “the more truth is debated, the clearer it becomes” goes, financial experts have made a compelling case time and again for the feasibility of the project. Past experiences also point to the insurmountable difficulties in developing brownfield sites and agricultural land, while the resumption of the Fanling Golf Course arouses many disputes which would require lengthy discussions. Hence, the Lautau Tomorrow Vision is the most effective way of resolving the housing problem in Hong Kong. I hope that the public can listen to the views from all quarters, which will help them to judge the rights and wrongs. Moreover, one reason behind the ineffectual development of brownfield sites and agricultural land in the past was that sites owners saw value in hoarding. Yet, with the implementation of the Lantua Tomorrow Vision, there will be an abundant supply of land in the future, making hoarding pointless. This will in turn improve the prospect of developing brownfield sites and agricultural land and provide greater assurance of land supply in the short and medium terms.
I so submit.