Ding house outlook

This week, the court ruled on two cases of judicial review of the small house policy and occupation of Central Action, which led to a polarized discussion in society. Although the two cases have nothing to do with each other, they all involve “rights”. The former is Ding Quan and the latter is civil rights. The rulings of the two cases will have an inestimable impact on social harmony and economic development and political situation. The account of the case has attracted more international attention. The ruling was announced for less than half a day. European and American politicians on the other side of the globe have been eager to warn the SAR government to use the rule by law to influence the international image of Hong Kong. Foreign businessmen in Hong Kong expressed concern about the government’s amendments to the extradition regulations. The author estimates that Hong Kong’s various rankings in global cities in the future, such as economic freedom, competitiveness, and livable cities, should be assessed through political openness, social stability and legal perfection. Factors will fall as a result.

Talking about the old problem of the small house policy, “the legitimate traditional rights and interests of the indigenous people in the New Territories” is not only as simple as the housing problem. In some people’s eyes, what is more important than “rights” is “benefit”. “Prosperity.” When the Ding House policy was implemented in 1972, the Government stated that the purpose was to improve the living environment of the indigenous residents and to help them preserve the tradition of living in a village. Although it did help many indigenous residents improve their living environment, with the long-term land price of Hong Kong More and less, the cheaper New Territories Ding House is an alternative to non-indigenous residents. The normal and illegal sale of small houses or the illegal transfer of Ding (the so-called “typing”) has become a legitimate and even illegal means of making money for many years. Many industries have also obtained considerable profits from the business of small houses. It is precisely because many villages in the New Territories have stayed in non-indigenous inhabitants that the two sides have not been able to get along with each other and friction. Finally, the government has set up a double-village system to resolve a crisis that is enough to cause social and political turmoil. Half a century ago, Hong Kong and British officials came up with the policy of small houses to solve the difficulties of the government’s massive land reclamation in the New Territories. How can we foresee that this expediency will last for nearly half a century and have created various new problems?

Since the Ding House policy is difficult to sustain and has various abuses, the return of Hong Kong can provide an opportunity to abolish the policy of the British Hong Kong Government. However, the benefit of the situation is that the New Territories Heung Yee Kuk has used its political influence to assist the smooth handover of the Chinese and British sides and successfully pursued the Basic Law for a minimum of 50 years of life for the small house policy until 2047. Although the SAR Government is reluctant to do so, it lacks the political courage and strength of the New Territories who are not afraid of anger and patriotism. In the face of the voice mainly from the Pan-People’s request to abolish the policy of small houses, the Government can only use the “policy review in progress” as a shield to endeavour.

The judicial review initiated by the non-governmental people actually helped the government in a secret way. The Chinese government was in the midst of it. In particular, the court ruled that the government reserved the official land for the construction of small houses and then leased them to eligible inhabitants in the form of private agreements. The practice is unconstitutional and illegal. In spite of the loss of the case, the Government should be happy in private. It is more than enough to revoke the more than 900 hectares of land reserved for village development. Even if the Development Bureau is not suitable for co-operating with high-density public housing, it should be converted to other suitable uses. If the Government “respects the court’s decision” and does not mention the appeal, it is completely understandable. As for the Heung Yee Kuk, in the face of a credible court ruling, the Government cannot always accuse the Government of bullying and fearing the succumb to the pan-people pressure against the small house policy. But if it does not appeal, how can it still be in the New Territories? Civil servants? I am afraid that it is inevitable to pose. As for the person who raised the judicial review, since the appeal may involve political considerations, the author has nothing to speculate.

On the other hand, since the original inhabitants can only build small houses on privately owned land, in theory, they should stimulate the price of land that has not been acquired by the major developers in the New Territories. However, if the existing flats with an area of ​​700 square feet and a three-storey building are still being built as required, the cost will become uneconomical due to the high land price and even exceed the economic burden of the prospective homeowners. Many years ago, the Government had studied the use of rural land to build a multi-storey building. As a result, it was estimated that the lack of infrastructure support was one of the reasons. However, at the beginning of the year, the Government had set a development strategy for infrastructure development, and the multi-storey Dingxia was expected to be resurrected. Will the Government and the Heung Yee Kuk consider using the villages with larger land areas and redeveloping them to dismantle the original three-storey small houses and rebuild the medium-density Ding Building?