Home
The reason ordinary Hongkongers acted so swiftly and generously to help the victims of the Tai Po fire is because they understood instinctively just what a traumatic effect the tragedy must have had on their fellow citizens. The loss of the family home would arouse the deepest emotions at any time. In circumstances where the loss was sudden, in an extreme situation, not in any way the fault of the individuals themselves, and accompanied by the deaths of scores of neighbours, feelings would be particularly intense.
There is a fundamental difference between a mere “house” – in Hong Kong usually a flat of course – and a “home”. As we enter an era when literally hundreds of residential tower blocks will need to be extensively refurbished or demolished, it is vital that our policymakers and legislators fully understand the difference and bring that understanding to bear in their work.
A flat is basically a void in a concrete block. It has certain dimensions – overall size, length, breadth, number of rooms, ceiling height etc. It may be fitted out simply or lavishly, there may or may not be a view, the complex may contain facilities such as a clubhouse or swimming pool, provision of parking spaces will vary. Different districts have their own distinctive features. All these factors will have a bearing on the value of the property and a whole industry of bankers and agents exists to help any individual assess what constitutes a fair price.
A home is a flat with special qualities. It is where a family lives, where parents raise children, where a student does homework, where a weary breadwinner rests at the end of the day. Whatever the trials and tribulations the world has thrown at the family members during the day, once they are inside and have closed the front door, they are safe and can relax. They are at home. These qualities are not so easy to put a price on.
It is clear to me that what the Tai Po victims require most urgently (now that short-term needs have largely been met) is a new permanent home to replace the one they have lost. The feedback to the government on the various options they were invited to consider seems to be running in the same direction. Whether the new home is in an entirely different district, or in a new estate to be built in the Tai Po area, or a redeveloped Wang Fuk Court, let the victims decide for themselves and let the government accommodate the choices as far as possible.
I do not think this has to be a complicated process. I was surprised to read at one point that it would be expensive to buy out all the existing interests in the estate. The estimate of $6 billion was floated. Why are we talking of buying out with money at all? You get a replacement flat, you surrender the old one, as simple as that.
Turning to the future, the whole issue of dealing with our aging housing stock is going to become more problematic whether it arises from government-mandated inspections and the cost of ensuing repairs, or from initiatives by private developers under the Land (Compulsory Sale for Redevelopment) Ordinance Cap 545. When this law was first enacted a private developer wishing to enforce compulsory purchase had to acquire 90 per cent of the property. Through various amendments over the years, this share – depending on location and age of the building -- can now be as low as 65 per cent.
The problem as always will be compensation. Essentially the systems used at present value the flat as a property albeit younger than its actual age. What they do not do, in fairness what they cannot do, is measure the property as a home including those intangible factors that mean so much to the individuals concerned. The calculations produce a number which becomes a sum of money. But whether that amount is sufficient to buy a replacement home of similar size in a similar location is doubtful.
I do not pretend to have a magic wand here. This is a complex situation which requires great wisdom to address. But I think we can put together some principles on which future policies should be based, drawing in part on the Tai Po experience.
First, demolition should not be the default option. If possible and financially sensible, an older building should have its useful life extended with existing home owners staying put. Some might need financial assistance to meet their share of the refurbishment costs, in the form of low interest loans. Existing schemes should be reviewed and maintained.
Second, as far as possible, existing owners required to give up their property for the greater public good (because deterioration is so severe as to present a danger, or to capture the bonus of a site’s unused development potential) should be offered a replacement flat of similar dimension in exchange, with cash compensation as an alternative option at their discretion.
Third, the benefit to society of having a substantial portion of the population owning their own home should continue to be recognised and preserved. It is socially stabilising and in its own way contributes to national security.
The last thing we want as a socially responsible community is to produce a situation where thousands of people in their 70s and 80s have some cash in hand but nowhere to live.
As a sign on the wall in my grandmother’s parlour used to say “Be it ever so humble, there’s no place like home”.