原載於：《明報》

「公屋輪候時間」是目前房屋局最重要的績效指標。過去數年，政府為縮短公屋輪候時間投入了極多的公共資源，著力增加公屋供應量，預計在未來五年提供11萬間公屋單位及3萬間簡約公屋單位，並興建了1.8萬多間過渡性房屋單位。

然而，以縮短「公屋輪候時間」為導向的房屋政策，存在著根本性的構思和理念缺陷。香港如今已經擁有八十五萬間公屋單位，規模冠絕全球各大城市；只是當前居屋短缺其實遠比公屋短缺更為嚴重，大量市民因為無法購買居屋向上流動，唯有選擇輪候公屋並因此減少工作以符合公屋資格，人為地製造輪候公屋的需求。單方面側重增建公屋的房屋政策，是治標不治本。

現今香港出現「得公屋者得天下」的社會怪現象，不僅對力爭上游的年輕人不公，更扭曲了香港經濟社會發展，也令到政府財政惡化。最近政府開始重視居屋的供應和流通度、調整了公屋與居屋的建築比例，是良好的改變，但還需進一步深化。

居屋短缺遠比公屋短缺嚴重

居屋政策一直是香港房屋階梯和市民向上流動至關重要的一環。1976年，政府推出居屋政策，目標就是資助中低收入家庭和公屋租戶成為業主。

可是，在2002年，政府因應亞洲金融風暴對物業市場的嚴重打擊而停售及停建居屋。其實當年已經有論者建議政府可以只停售不停建，預留彈性；可惜政府沒有採納。其後私樓價格長期急升，政府遲遲在2011年才宣布復建居屋，到2014年才再次出售新居屋單位。

十年停建居屋造成置業階梯斷層。2014年至2024年間，現居公屋的綠表居屋申請者每次平均超額近12倍。符合收入和資產限制的一般買家，即白表居屋申請者，則平均超額63倍。2014、18和19年三年的白表申請者更超額破百倍：一百個家庭，僅一戶有望中籤，機會渺茫。

抽籤次數的期望值在統計學上可以當作是「居屋平均輪候時間」。假如申請者每年都抽籤，抽中的機會率不變，超額倍數就等同平均輪候年數。因此筆者推算，2014年至2024年間，綠表申請者的平均輪候時間是12年，而白表居屋申請者的平均輪候時間則為64年。

2024年，白表居屋申請者數目有所回落，平均輪候時間為18.2年，但最新公屋平均輪候時間只是5.3年。這數據顯示，居屋短缺遠遠比公屋短缺嚴重，置業階梯依然斷層。

居屋短缺誤造成「得公屋得天下」之局面

房屋局以降低「公屋輪候時間」為工作核心，側重於大力增建公屋，而忽視「居屋輪候時間」，使得居屋供應持續嚴重短缺，是錯誤的長遠策略。原因有六個：

首先，錯誤的理論基礎。市民排公屋，不單只因為公屋短缺，更是因為居屋供應不夠，導致房屋階梯斷層。大批市民無法向上流動，不得不選擇減少工作、輪候公屋。

第二，房屋市場被扭曲。一味增建公屋而忽略居屋的後果，就是市民越住越小，生活質素一代不如一代。

第三，勞工市場被扭曲。大批市民為符合公屋入息刻意減少工作時數，且受制於公屋地點而無法就近就業，導致勞工資源浪費，香港的經濟活力、競爭能力因此被犧牲。

第四，對力爭上游的年青人極不公平。年青人難以入住公屋，需要背負私人市場昂高的居住成本。他們上有老，下有小，還要承受這般的居住成本壓力。這「得公屋得天下」之局面，變相懲罰了力爭上游的青年。

第五，違背了香港的經濟發展方針。現今香港要「打造國際人才高地」，需要的是高端人才；可是單方面側重興建公屋，忽視居屋及重建市民置業階梯的房屋政策，不利于擴大優質單位的供應，妨礙吸引高端人才。

第六，令政府財政急速惡化。大量建公屋，造成財政虧蝕。政府目前承諾加速興建公屋，預計需興建約20個新單位，總開支或逾2,000億港元。公屋的租金收入僅足夠應付日常維修開支，遑論收回建筑成本。反之居屋售價不但足夠收回建筑成本，還有可觀剩餘。新建的出售資助房屋每一單位的建造成本為 115 萬港元，但在公開市場上的售價高達 400 萬港元。即使以 75 折出售，每年建設 25,000 個單位，可帶來 462.5億港元的淨利。

具體建議：增建居屋、深化房屋改革

如今私人市場無法滿足經濟和社會發展的房屋需求，港府須主動出手解決居屋和高質素樓房的短缺，重新設計不公平又不合時宜的房屋政策，以助經濟發展和青年上流。

幸好，房屋局已經展開改革。局長何永賢女士一片苦心為民請命，秉持「提量、提速、提效、提質」四大目標，致力提升市民的「幸福感」，她提出的德政包括打擊公屋濫用、修正富戶政策等，堪稱模範的改革者。局長也多次重申增建居屋、增加居屋流通性之重要性。

筆者十分贊同現行改革的方向，唯數據研究清楚顯示力度仍嫌不足。面對居屋短缺危機，筆者建議：

一、進一步調整公屋居屋建築比例。未來5年房委會及房委預計會興建，總計約16萬600個單位，當中包括11萬個公屋及5.65萬個居屋單位，總比例約為2:1，筆者建議儘快修改比例成5:5，然後在未來考慮再修改成3:7。

二、積極籌備進一步深化房屋改革，包括如何增加居屋市場之流通程度、改善居屋定價方式、增建高質素樓房、和建立能夠平衡供求的機制，目標是重建健全的置業階梯。

過往筆者在本欄發表的多篇文章曾指出房屋改革是香港「由治及興」的根基，也是香港未來經濟發展的關鍵，其重要性極大，刻不容緩。

表一：綠表居屋申請情況

表二：白表居屋申請情況

原载于：《南華早報》

The city badly needs new revenue sources, and selling public housing units to tenants offers a better solution than painful cuts or new taxes.

Hong Kong’s public finances are crumbling. For decades, the city’s fiscal health relied heavily on land sales. Between 2012 and 2022, land sales contributed an average of 14 per cent of government revenue. However, in 2024-25, land sales plunged to just 1 per cent of revenue, or about HK$6.6 billion (US$848 million), a stark contrast to the average of HK$77.9 billion for the preceding decade. At the same time, stamp duty revenues have also fallen off. A revival of these revenues is unlikely in the near term. 

Meanwhile, public spending continues to rise. Healthcare and pension costs – fuelled by a rapidly ageing population with more than 30 per cent of residents aged 65 or older by 2035 – are expected to balloon. Financial Secretary Paul Chan Mo-po’s recent budget is aimed at plugging immediate gaps, with measures including salary freezes and headcount cuts in the civil service, reductions in university funding and issuing HK$150 billion to HK$195 billion in bonds each year over the next five years. 

These measures provide short-term relief but risk mortgaging Hong Kong’s future while doing little to fix the city’s underlying structural problems. Borrowing could push public debt to 12 to 16 per cent of gross domestic product, while austerity threatens the city’s competitiveness. As the world enters a new wave of technological and industrial transformation, governments worldwide are increasing investment in strategic fields. Education funding is needed to build talent pipelines and university-driven innovation. Competitive salaries are necessary for maintaining public service quality and attracting foreign investment. The city needs to raise new revenue, but how? Some have suggested taxes on goods and services, value added or capital gains – topics long considered taboo in a city widely known for its low taxes. However, these would also undermine Hong Kong’s competitiveness. 

A potential answer lies in one of Hong Kong’s underutilised assets: its 850,000 public rental units, which house about a third of its population. Selling these units to tenants could generate transformative revenue. Even at a 25 per cent discount o\ the market price – which is roughly HK$2 million per unit – a decade-long sell-o\ could yield up to HK$1.3 trillion, which is enough to cover more than 14 years of the current deficit of HK$87.2 billion. 

This approach echoes the United Kingdom’s “right to buy” scheme, which empowered millions of tenants. Starting in the 1980s, about 2 million social housing units were sold through the programme, which boosted home ownership and injected vitality into stagnant housing markets. Right-to-buy receipts also generated £47 billion (US$61.6 billion) in revenue for the Treasury. 

Enacting such a policy in Hong Kong would bring several benefits. First, it would empower residents for whom home ownership remains out of reach. Selling public units at an affordable rate would provide a stepping stone to home ownership without sacrificing subsidies, allowing residents to build equity and improve financial stability. Ownership also enables greater mobility, allowing households to upgrade their living conditions. 

Second, it would reduce welfare traps. Low rents currently disincentivise upward economic movement. Income limits for public housing discourage many tenants from seeking higher-paying jobs. Ownership eliminates this barrier and incentivises asset-building and entrepreneurship. 

Third, it would fuel growth. Revenue could be reinvested in infrastructure, education and population expansion, which are critical for maintaining Hong Kong’s role as a global hub amid China’s continued rise as an innovative superpower. 

Shifting focus to building ownership homes, rather than subsidised rental housing, could further bolster the city’s finances. New public ownership flats cost about HK$1.1 million to build but sell at an average of about HK$4 million on the open market. Even if sold at a 25 per cent discount, building 50,000 ownership units annually would generate HK$92.5 billion each year. By contrast, building rental housing is a pure drain on public coffers. They cost HK$970,000 per unit and are leased at only HK$2,000 per month. Even without factoring in maintenance, it takes about 40 years to recoup construction costs. 

Expanding the sale of subsidised ownership housing would not only refill Hong Kong’s coffers, it could also help solve the city’s acute shortage of affordable homes – a crisis that has stifled economic growth and social stability for far too long. By repairing the broken housing ladder and alleviating the logjam in the rental market, a reformed fiscal model could revitalise upward social mobility and increase Hong Kong’s attractiveness to international talent.

Hong Kong’s fiscal woes stem from structural shifts, not cyclical dips. Reliance on land sales is untenable, and austerity and debt are unsustainable. 

By monetising public housing, the city can avert austerity, invest in growth drivers and foster social mobility. 

This strategy isn’t just fiscally prudent – it’s a catalyst for renewal. As global competition intensifies, Hong Kong must choose between short-term patchwork or visionary reform. The latter begins with reimagining its greatest asset: people’s homes.