Summary Report - Home - Civic Exchange

Summary Report

May 2015

Michael E. DeGolyer Mandy Lao Man-lei Carine Lai

2

About Civic Exchange

Civic Exchange is an independent Hong Kong-based public policy think tank that was established in September 2000. We promote research, dialogue and solutions towards building a liveable and sustainable Hong Kong to enhance resident’s sense of well-being. With the mission to advance civic education and engage society to shape public policy, Civic Exchange undertakes research in air quality, nature conservation, urban environment, and well-being. For more information about Civic Exchange, visit http://www.civic-exchange.org.

About the authors

Michael E. DeGolyer is a political economist, Professor of Government & International Studies and Director of the Masters in Public Policy Programme at Hong Kong Baptist University. Hong Kong Baptist University is ranked in the top 300 universities globally by the Times Higher Education Supplement. He is Director of the Hong Kong Transition Project, a long-term study begun in 1988 of Hong Kong people’s transition from colonial subjects to Chinese citizens with right to amend their constitution and elect their executives and representatives. He has been President of the Hong Kong Political Science Association, a Hong Kong Country Reports and Country Forecasts Expert Contributor to the Economist Intelligence Unit (1996-2006) and a weekly columnist for The Standard (2000-2008) writing over 400 columns. He has written 14 books or e-books, contributed 75 book chapters or refereed journal articles, 200+ commissioned research reports and research papers and conducted over 130 public opinion surveys, mainly on Hong Kong political development but also including several pioneering surveys on environmental issues and in this report, on the Small House Policy. He has given over 5,000 briefings on Hong Kong and China affairs including over a thousand television and radio appearances and over 3,000 press interviews, as well as hundreds of briefings to Hong Kong and international consular and government representatives and business, NGO and academic researchers. His e-book, The Changing Faces of Hong Kong: Women in the Community and National Context, 1994-2010 released February 2013, was commissioned by Goldman-Sachs and The Women’s Foundation, and is available on the Civic Exchange website as part of the most comprehensive generational study of Hong Kong from a gender perspective yet conducted.

3

Mandy Lao Man-lei is a senior project manager at Civic Exchange. She graduatedfrom Cardiff University with a master’s degree in city and regional planning(specialising in urban and built environment). Mandy has rich experience indirecting and managing social and policy research projects. She is the co-authorof Rethinking the Small House Policy published by Civic Exchange in 2003. Shealso co-authored Walkable City, Living Streets in 2012 and authored SmallHouse Policy II: An Update in 2013. Her major research interests include urbanbuilt environment, public space design, community planning and sustainabledevelopment.

Carine Lai is a project manager at Civic Exchange focusing on urban liveabilityand well-being. She is also a graphic artist who creates infographics to makecomplex data accessible to a wider audience. She has an MSc in urban planningand a dual BA/BFA in political science and studio art. Carine is also the co-authorof From Nowhere to Nowhere: A Review of Constitutional Development HongKong 1997-2007 and Reflections of Leadership: Tung Chee Hwa and DonaldTsang (1997-2007).

4

Preface and acknowledgements Civic Exchange published two research reports on the Small House Policy in 2003 and 2013 aiming at helping the general public better understand the Policy and highlighting the problems and issues involved. However, there has not been much information about how people view the Policy. Civic Exchange therefore embarked on a year-long follow-up study, which aimed to examine through a public opinion survey how much people, including the general public, indigenous villagers, family members of indigenous villagers, and non-indigenous people who live in small houses, knew about the Small House Policy, their views on the Policy and its impacts on the community as a whole and the rural New Territories, their preferred changes to the Policy and their expectations towards new development for the rural New Territories. This survey is groundbreaking as no one else in Hong Kong has published any study using these methods to understand the attitudes of interest groups with a stake in the Policy. It represents Civic Exchange’s continuous effort and interest in stimulating societal discussions on ways to resolve the unsustainable nature of the Policy. We hope that this report can help stakeholders grasp the current atmosphere, and consider how best to approach this seemingly sensitive topic in order to initiate an inclusive community dialogue on the way forward. This summary report captures the essence of the full survey report. For those who would like to gain a deeper understanding on the rich insights provided by respondents, you are highly recommended to study the accompanying full survey report, which was compiled by Professor Michael DeGolyer of Hong Kong Transition Project (Hong Kong Baptist University). We thank Professor DeGolyer for working with us on this challenging but meaningful project, Mandy Lao and Carine Lai for putting together this summary report, Carine Lai and Rae Leung for designing and laying it out, and Bill Leverett for editing it. We also thank the Advancement of Social Sciences Research Centre (Hong Kong Baptist University) for conducting the fieldwork, and the individuals who helped facilitate focus group discussions, including Sunny Lam, Mandy Lao, Karen Lee, Stephen Tong, Michelle Wong, Keith Wu, and Wilson Yuen. The project team went the extra mile to bring this project to fruition. We thank them tremendously for their tireless efforts, patience, and contributions. We also benefited from the valuable insights shared by focus group discussion participants. We are grateful to the WYNG Foundation for supporting this project.

Yan-yan YipChief Executive OfficerMay 2015

5

Table of Contents

1. Introduction..........................................................................................6

2. TheSmallHousePopulation ................................................................8

2.1 How many small house interested persons are there?

2.2 Demand for small houses construction

2.3 Desire for small house

3. Knowledge about the Small House Policy ...........................................13

3.1 Awareness of the Small House Policy

3.2 Knowledge of sale restrictions

3.3 Knowledge of SHP origins

4. AttitudestowardstheSmallHousePolicy...........................................16

5. AttitudestowardsPossibleChangesintheSmallHousePolicy............19

6. PrioritiesforNewTerritoriesDevelopment........................................24

6.1 Differing priorities between SHIP groups

6.2 Differing priorities among the general public

6.3 Comprehensive planning

7. Support for Reforming the Small House Policy ...................................27

7.1 Unconsidered and considered support for changing the SHP

7.2 Differences between SHIP groups

7.3 Differences among the general public

7.4 Participation in public consultations on New Territories issues

8. Conclusion..........................................................................................34

8.1 Key findings

8.2 Recommendations

Appendix:Methodology...............................................................................36

Endnotes......................................................................................................38

6

1 Introduction

The Small House Policy (SHP) grants sons of indigenous villagers born through the male line a once-in-a-lifetime right to build a 700 square foot house on village land (references to 'small house' in this report will mean houses built under this policy). Though first enacted in 1972 to address the housing needs of indigenous villagers, it has ended up being viewed as a right guaranteed by the Basic Law.1 The claims to land grants ensuing from this policy pose a growing challenge to the government’s ability to make effective and timely land use and planning decisions for the New Territories, and thus for most of Hong Kong.

In addition, as earlier studies by Civic Exchange have documented, the SHP has also been criticised for being open to abuse and corruption, encouraging speculative development, damaging the natural environment, and discriminating against women and the non-indigenous population. The SHP has long been a politically thorny issue, and although the government has at various times since the mid-1990s attempted to review the policy, only minor adjustments have been made since the transfer of sovereignty. Civic Exchange first published a policy review of the SHP in 2003 in Rethinking the Small House Policy, which provided an overview of the problems associated with the policy and the implications of modifying or repealing it. This was followed by the publication of Small House Policy II: An Update in 2013, which also provided an analysis of major stakeholders’ positions. However, as important as this issue is, there is little hard data on the attitudes of either people directly impacted by the SHP, or the general population, toward the SHP and land use issues in the New Territories. This report therefore aims to fill that gap.

This survey, the first of its kind, randomly surveyed about 600 small house interested persons (SHIPs) with a direct stake in the SHP through family or residence about their knowledge and attitudes towards the SHP and rural land development in the New Territories. A separate sample of about 600 members of the general public was also interviewed to serve as a comparison group (see methodology section for details). This survey’s respondents therefore fall into five categories, shown in Table 1 on the next page.

7

Category Definition

SHIP A Male indigenous villagers with the right to file a claim, or those who have already filed or exercised that claim.

SHIP B People living with a family member who holds small house rights. Mainly female.

SHIP C People with a family member living elsewhere or outside of Hong Kong who holds small house rights.

SHIP D Non-indigenous people living in village houses.

General Public

Non-indigenous Hong Kong residents who neither live in a village house nor are related to any rights-holding indigenous villagers.

Throughout this report, the 4 SHIP groups will be referred to as SHIPs A-D. Please refer back to the table above for clarification.

FOCUSGROUPBOX1:SMALLHOUSES,SMALLGROUPDISCUSSIONS

After the survey was conducted, 30 respondents were recruited to participate in a focus group on 7 March 2015. The participants were divided up into subgroups consisting of the general public (two subgroups), indigenous villagers (one subgroup), and non-indigenous village house dwellers (one subgroup). The subgroups first discussed the issues on their own, then were brought together for a plenary session. Viewpoints from the focus group discussions will be highlighted in boxes like this one throughout this report.

Table 1: Respondent categories

8

2 TheSmallHousePopulation

2.1 How many Small House Interested Persons are there?

There is a lack of reliable data on the size of the indigenous population. In 2003, the Heung Yee Kuk claimed that there were 240,000 indigenous villagers eligible for small house grants,2 but this figure could not be independently verified. The only relevant official statistic available dates from the 2011 census and states that there were 146,872 households living in traditional and modern village houses3 at the time. Unfortunately, the official figures do not show how many village house dwellers are indigenous villagers, nor how many small house rights holders do not live in villages. This report therefore uses the random sample taken in this survey to estimate the size of the indigenous population and the non-indigenous village house dwelling population.4 Based on this survey, the SHIP groups together make up about 10 per cent of households in Hong Kong. Figure 1 shows the breakdown of SHIP groups and extrapolates the approximate number of households in each category.

The survey also found that between 6.7 per cent and 7.1 per cent of Hong Kong’s population, both indigenous and non-indigenous, lived in modern and traditional village houses (see Figure 2), which translates to between 163,512 and 173,148 households in Hong Kong.5 This is quite close to the official census figure.

Figure1:EstimatednumberofhouseholdswithsmallhouseinterestedpersonsinHongKong6

2,437,000 householdsin Hong Kong

10.2-10.6% SHIP89.4-89.6% General public

est. 2.17-2.18 million households

SHIP D

est. 2.0-2.7%

est. 1%

est. 1.9-3.0%

est. 4.5-4.6%

of households

109,665 - 112,102

46,303 - 73,110

24,370 - 24,370

48,740 - 65,799

*At least 1 right holder at home

SHIP C

*SHIP B

*SHIP A

9

Just over 60 per cent of rights holders and their family members live in village houses. However, for SHIP C (relatives of rights holders not living with them), only 12 per cent actually live in village houses. Their housing patterns are very similar to those of the general public. This shows that there are many rights holders, some living overseas, whose houses are not occupied by themselves or their relatives, but which have been sold or rented out.

Figure 2: SHIP groups by housing type

FOCUSGROUPBOX2:NOMOREABSENTEEAPPLICANTS

Many general public participants expressed indignation that indigenous villagers who had emigrated overseas were still permitted to apply for a small house as long as they could prove their indigenous villager ancestry through the male line. Even some indigenous participants objected to small house applications being made by absentee descendants for profit. All groups generally agreed that residence in Hong Kong should be a condition for small house applicants.

2.2 Demandforsmallhouseconstruction

Respondents in SHIPs A to C were asked how many male family members they had who had filed a claim or were planning to file a claim to build a small house. From these answers was derived a conservative estimate of how many outstanding (pending or yet-to-be-filed) small house claims there may be – 85,600 to 91,700 outstanding claims (see Figure 3). These

% %

General public

%

SHIP A SHIP B

SHIP C SHIP D

Small house (modern)

Private (owned)

Private (rental)

Home Ownership Scheme

Public rental

Other (include villa, temporary, employer provided housing)

% %

10

houses would occupy 5.5-6 km2 of land in house footprints alone. After including access, clearance and parking space, approximately 11-12 km2 of land would be needed.

Adding that to the approximately 33.4 km2 of existing occupied village land (see Figure 4), the roughly 45 km2 of land needed for village development would equal about 16 per cent of all of Hong Kong’s built-up urban land (275 km2). In addition to putting an enormous amount of pressure on land use planning and conservation, this would require a major sacrifice of land premiums on the part of the government, since small house land is granted, not leased. Fulfilling all currently outstanding claims would also likely require that village boundaries be expanded to accommodate demand since not all of the remaining vacant village land is usable.7

Figure3:EstimatedoutstandingsmallhouseclaimsinHongKong

2,437,000 households in Hong Kong

groups A, B and C as percentage of Hong Kong

Q: How many in your family are males who plan to or have applied to build a small house?

270 claimants reported by 287 SHIPs A, B and C households

5.6% lower est.136,427 households

6% higher est.146,220 households

128,346 to 137,558claimants:

85,600 to 91,700 claimants

(of which approx. 10,000 have already registered claims according to

Secretary of Development in 2011)8

to

136,427 x 146,220 x 270287

270287

11

Figure4:EstimatedbuildingfootprintofSHPinHongKong

2.3 Desire for small houses

The survey also found that 21 per cent of the general public said that they had a desire or intention to live in a small house. This is much larger than the proportion of the overall population that currently lives in a small house (around 7 per cent, see Section 2.1), or which supported the continuation of the SHP when initially asked (18.3 per cent, see Section 7). The main reasons given for wanting to live in a small house include a better environment, more space, lower cost, and better air quality. If the government wished to reduce the attractions of small houses, then clearly, improving the environment and air quality of flats in urban areas would be the best way to do this, as well as addressing the size and cost of urban flats.

12

Figure5:Whatthingsdoyouconsiderwhenlookingforasmallhouseflat?

0

20

10

30

40

50

Better environment

Larger net floor area (more living space)

Cheaper rental or purchasing cost

Better air quality

Used to live/grow up in rural area

Other

General public SHIP C SHIP D

383735

28

15

2325

4542

19

15 14

85

3

15

10

18

13

3 Knowledge about the Small House Policy

3.1 Awareness of the SHP

Respondents were asked three questions to gauge their level of knowledge about the SHP. Around 70 per cent of the general public and SHIPs C and D had heard of the SHP. Among the general public, those with higher education, incomes, and managerial occupations were aware of the SHP’s existence. However, a surprising finding was that in spite of being related to small house rights holders, SHIP C respondents under the age of 30 had even less awareness of the SHP than those of a similar age in the general public cohort. Additionally, in all occupational categories other than blue collar workers, retirees and homemakers and professionals, fewer SHIP C respondents had heard of the SHP than their counterparts in the general public.

Figure6:Percentageofrespondentsunderage30whohaveheardofSHP

Figure7:PercentageofrespondentswhohaveheardofSHPbyoccupation

Age 18-29 Overall

General public SHIP C SHIP D

0

20

40

60

80%

6673

47 46

7173

Chi-square = 12.28 with 5

df p = 0.0312

Chi-square = 10.10 with 8df p = 0.2580

0

20

40

60

80

100

%

8779 75 72 68 69 67

717379

43

52

83 77

92

63

40

75

Managers and admin.

General public SHIP C

Professionals

Assoc. professionals

Service

Blue collar

Homemakers Unemployed

Student

14

3.2 Knowledgeofsalerestrictions

Among those who had heard of the SHP, the vast majority of respondents did not know that there are restrictions on the sale of small houses within the first three years, and that when sold, the seller has to pay the full market premium to the government. Only rights holders themselves could name either of the restrictions in any significant numbers.

Figure8:Knowledgeofsalerestrictionsonsmallhouses

3.3 Knowledge of SHP origins

Among the general public, the knowledge that the SHP had been introduced as a temporary measure was more prevalent among those of higher income and educational attainment, and those in professional and associate professional occupations. However, older respondents (who were alive during the 1970s) were not any more aware of this history than younger respondents.

General public

SHIP A SHIP B

SHIP C SHIP D

Paying market value premium to government

2%

6%

6%

1%92%

29%

12% 17%

65%

13%

87%

57% 80%

3%

15

Figure9:KnowledgethatSHPwasoriginallyashort-termmeasurebyincome(generalpublic)

Figure10:KnowledgethatSHPwasoriginallyashort-termmeasurebyoccupation(generalpublic)

None $5,000-19,999 $20,000-39,999 $40,000-69,999 $70,000+

Know SHP was a short-term measure

0

20

30

40

50%

10

HKD

30 31 34

43 44


Chi-square = 34.47 with 16 df p = 0.0047

Figure11:KnowledgethatSHPwasoriginallyashort-termmeasurebyeducation(generalpublic)


Primary and below


0

20

30

40

50

%

10

Lower secondary Upper secondary Some university University graduate

Post-graduate

2730 29 28

4540

0

10

20

30

40

50

%

Managers and admin.

Professionals


Service

Blue collar


Student

60


38

52 50

32

40

20

35

2225

16

Respondents were invited to consider how important it was for the community to deal with a number of issues related to the SHP. They were then asked to name their top issue of concern (Figure 12).

While a majority of all groups agreed that it was important or very important to deal with the lack of comprehensive planning for the New Territories and the fact that there was a finite amount of land to fulfil an unlimited number of claims, SHIP groups A and B differed sharply from the general public on most issues.

Much smaller proportions of SHIP groups A and B placed importance on the problem of villagers profiting from small house rights, environmental damage, discrimination against women, discrimination against non-indigenous Hong Kong residents, unequal enforcement against unauthorised building works, and lack of government review of the policy. They also placed substantially more importance on the Basic Law’s guarantee of small house rights.

There is no clear consensus on which issue should take priority. However, there is strong agreement that the government should review the policy either immediately or before 2017. Only three per cent of the general public and six per cent of all SHIP respondents believe that there is no need to review the policy.

4 AttitudestowardstheSmallHouse Policy

FOCUSGROUPBOX4:VILLAGEDWELLERS’CONCERNS

In addition to the issues mentioned by the questionnaire, focus group participants living in village houses also named the following issues of major concern: erosion of the village living environment due to poor planning, inefficient use of land, inadequate sewerage infrastructure, fire safety problems and right of way disputes. They also expressed worries about small house applications by overseas indigenous descendants and triad influence in villages.

17

Figure 12: Importance of SHP issues by SHIP category

82

66 6778 7579

66

36

5162 5762

80

44

60

756668

58

7784

62 6662

69

40

6171 6771

66

37 39

6155

61

69

2327

57 5569

82

5245

7064

70

Lack of comprehensive planning in New Territories rights

Discriminates against female villagers

Discriminates against non-indigenous Hong Kong people

Unequal enforcement against illegal structures

No government review of policyGuaranteed by Basic Law

Damage to environment

Unlimited claims, limited land

General public

SHIP A

SHIP B

SHIP C

SHIP D

All SHIP

% of respondents saying the issue is very important

6571

65 65 6563

%

%%

%%

%%

%%

50%

Percentage of respondents who say the issue is very important or important for community to address

18

Figure13:Numberonesmallhouseissueforcommunitytoaddress,bySHIPcategory

Figure 14: When should the government review the SHP?

* Percentage for the “overall population” was constructed from the SHIP and general public figures. Since the SHIP population is estimated to be 10% of Hong Kong’s households, the “general public” figures were multiplied by 0.9 and the “All SHIPs” figure were multiplied by 0.1, then the two products were added.

0

10

20

30

40

50

60

70

80

90

100

General public SHIP A SHIP B SHIP C SHIP D All SHIPs Overall

%

Immediately Before 2017 No need to review Don’t know/Don’t care

59

4336

55 59 54 58.5

21

729

1512

14

20.3

11.7181721

17

22

11

106 8 6 8 7 6.13

208

3 5 6 3.3

% %

General public

%

SHIP A SHIP B

SHIP C SHIP D

% %

All SHIP

%

All

%Unlimited claimsVillagers profiting

No comprehensive plan

Environmental damageDiscriminates against women

Unauthorised building worksNo government review

SHP guarenteed by Basic Law

Other/Don’t know/No preference

Discriminates against non-indigenous people

* rounded to nearest 1%

19

Respondents were then asked to what extent they agreed or disagreed with eight policy options for reforming the SHP.

1. Restrict small house transactions by imposing a permanent moratorium on the resale of small houses to “outsiders”, (i.e. non-indigenous people).

2. Allow high-rise buildings to accommodate more villagers on the same land.

3. Give public housing to villagers instead of land for houses.

4. Stop receiving applications, with compensation to eligible villagers who have not yet received grants.

5. Set an expiration date for the policy after which no further registration will be accepted.

6. Repeal the authority of village representatives and chairmen of rural committees to certify the status of indigenous villagers, and have the government keep the register.

7. Abolish the policy immediately without compensation or extension.

8. Make no change to the policy.

As the figures 15 to 22 show, there were strong disagreements between the general public and the SHIP groups on all of the policy options. In many cases, there were significant disagreements between SHIP groups A and B (small house rights holders and their household members), and SHIP D (non-indigenous village house dwellers).

Unsurprisingly, SHIP groups A and B expressed less support for measures with a bigger negative impact on small house rights. Over 70 per cent of the general public agreed with giving villagers public housing instead of land, setting an expiration date for the SHP, and transferring the authority to certify indigenous status from village leaders to the government. However, only between one quarter and one half of SHIPs A and B respondents agreed with these measures.

60 per cent of the general public agreed that the government should stop accepting applications and compensate eligible villagers, but only 27 per cent of SHIP A and 42 per cent of SHIP B agreed.

5 AttitudestowardsPossibleChanges in the Small House Policy

20

One measure that received strong support from the general public (70 per cent) and majority support from SHIPs A and B (56 per cent in both cases) was to impose a moratorium on resale to outsiders. However, this option was met by opposition from 60 per cent SHIP D respondents, which is perhaps unsurprising considering that they have an interest in retaining the ability to rent or buy small houses.

The only reform which received more support from SHIPs A and B respondents than from the general public was to allow high-rise buildings to be built on village land in order to accommodate villagers more efficiently. This policy would leave small house rights intact and even increase the value of village land. The idea receives weaker, but still majority support from the general public, with 61 per cent expressing agreement. However, among age groups below 50, opposition to this idea is around 37-38 per cent, compared to 23-24 per cent for respondents over 60.

The option most favoured by SHIPs A and B were to leave the SHP unchanged, which received over 70 per cent support. However, this option is unpopular in all other groups, with only 34 per cent of SHIP C, 24 per cent of SHIP D, and 21 per cent of the general public agreeing or strongly agreeing.

The only thing that majorities of all groups agreed on was that the SHP should not be abolished immediately without compensation, although in the case of the general public, it was by a bare majority of 52 per cent.

Figures 15 to 22: Agreement or disagreement with suggested reforms to SHP

FOCUSGROUPBOX5:ENDSPECULATION

The general public and non-indigenous village house dwelling participants supported a moratorium on resale. This idea also received support from some of the indigenous villager participants because they opposed developers buying up village land to be sold to outsiders.

They also complained of triad involvement and illegal activities, saying that they knew of villagers being pressured to sell their small house rights and of small house speculation being used to launder money.

Figure 15: Moratorium on resale

*Figures may not add up to 100% due to rounding.

Strongly agree Somewhat agree Somewhat disagree Strongly disagreeDon’t know

General public SHIP A SHIP B SHIP C SHIP D All SHIPs Overall Population

%

Size of dots is proportional to the size of subgroup as percentage of overall population.

0

20

40

60

80

100

46

3121

4032 32

43.6

25

25

25

252426

35

8

6 10

7

9 9

8.1

15

2525

2029 26

16.114

6 10 7 7 8 6.2

21

FOCUSGROUPBOX6:BUILDTALLER

Several participants from all subgroups were supportive of allowing taller buildings on village land. Some suggested allowing each family to add additional storeys to their own house, while others suggested accommodating villagers in large-scale housing blocks on village land.

Figure16:Allowhighrisebuildingsonvillageland

0

20

40

60

80

100


%

size of subgroup as percentage of

2432

28 2124 23 23.9

3738

36.9363537

39

76

7

195

2420

22 2119.2

18124

15 13 14 12.2

6 7 7

6

FOCUS GROUP BOX 7: SMALL HOUSESTOPUBLICHOUSING

General public participants expressed some support for giving villagers expedited public housing instead of land as long as they met the income and asset requirements. Some argued that public housing blocks for villagers should be built on village land, given Hong Kong’s land shortage.

Several indigenous villager participants argued that it was unfair that villagers are currently not allowed to apply for Home Ownership Scheme housing without giving up their small house rights, yet waiting for a small house land grant might take up to 20 years. They also felt that the government should offer public housing to villagers in urgent need of housing.

Figure 17: Give public housing to villagers instead of land



0

20

40

60

80

100


%size of subgroup as percentage of

3018 15

2424 23 29.3

42

31

41.2343734

28

5

3

6

18

3

35

25 2124

18.623

619

11 10 13 6.7

74.6

525

22

FOCUSGROUPBOX8:COMPENSATIONCHALLENGES

Focus group participants were divided on this idea. One indigenous villager participant argued that buying back small house rights from villagers would be an easy solution for the government, saying the current going rate for small house rights varied from HK$50,000 to HK$3.5 million.

However, some general public participants opposed compensation on the grounds that there is no clear way to assess the value of land that has not yet been granted. Some even feared that indigenous villagers might seek a judicial review to preserve their small house rights, prompting another Basic Law interpretation by the National People’s Congress Standing Committee. They preferred to set an expiry date so that villagers would have a chance to apply before the cut-off date. Others also opposed the idea because the government would not only have to compensate all currently eligible villagers, but all sons born into the male line until 2047.

Figure18:Stopacceptingapplicationandcompensateeligiblevillagers

Figure19:SetexpirationdateforSHP

0

20

40

60

80

100



45

9 7

3339

30

43.5

37

20

36.2

293332

18

5

7

8

11

2

43

1514

19

11.8

45

325 13

614

4.1

9

8.1

5.3

25

Figure20:Transferresponsibilityforcertifyingindigenous villager status to government

0

20

40

60

80

100



40

20 14

2937 30

39

37

15

36.3

3032

31

29

8

8

9

13

8

28

1916

18

13.534

3

2111 8

134

8

8

8

23



0

20

40

60

80

100



179 18 11 15 14 16.7

43

18

42.13439

3324

7

8 7

24

9

38 3124

28

24.435

10 13 17 14 16 10.6

78

7.1

28

23

FOCUSGROUPBOX9:WHENSHOULDITEND?

The two general public subgroups agreed that the SHP should be given an expiration date. The indigenous villager subgroup was divided, with some arguing that the SHP should be ended as it was unfair to non-indigenous Hong Kongers, while others said that it should continue until the expiration of the Basic Law in 2047. The non-indigenous village house dwellers group generally agreed that the SHP should be retained to preserve Hong Kong’s rural traditional culture, but stricter conditions should be applied to the construction and resale of houses in order to curb speculative profit-making.

FOCUSGROUPBOX10:DONOTGOOUTWITHABANG

In spite of their unanimous opposition to the SHP in principle, the participants of one general public subgroup feared that abolishing it immediately without compensation might provoke a socially destabilising conflict between villagers and the government.

Figure 21: Abolish SHP immediately without extension or compensation

Figure22:Nochange

0

20

40

60

80

100



5

42

26 136

13 5.8

16

32

16.6

2218

21

46

7

7

938

2

18

3139 32

37.4

9

34

3

25 30 23.3 32.9

7

7.1

7

15



0

20

40

60

80

100



226

113 18 14.1 21.2

22

6

21.1

1315

12

7

4

7

9

41

42

4341

40

40.972

11

43

23 19 2912.8

66

4.2

15

24

6 PrioritiesforNewTerritoriesDevelopment

6.1 DifferingprioritiesbetweenSHIPgroups

When asked how much they supported or opposed developing the rural New Territories to fulfil the housing needs of Hong Kong people, 78 per cent of the general public and 67 per cent of all SHIP groups said they “supported” or “strongly supported” the idea. However, this does not mean that housing was the first priority for the majority of respondents. Figure 23 below shows the general public and the 4 SHIP groups prioritised various land uses for the New Territories. While a plurality of respondents put housing first, only among SHIP A respondents was housing prioritised by a clear majority. A significant minority placed the highest priority on conserving country parks.

Figure23:WhenconsideringNewTerritorieslanduse,whichoftheseshouldbethetoppriorityforthe government?

General public

SHIP A SHIP B SHIP C SHIP D

All SHIPs

Overall Population

24

47

55 3139 43

42

46.5

1121 28 22

22

23.8

3

56

5

54

3.2

9

9

15

10 11

11

9.2

7

10

7 9

8

7.1

8

1517

10 8

10

8.2

1

1

5 3

2

1.8

1.1

Conserve country parks

Housing

Transport, malls, business parks

Recreational facilities

Agriculture

Remain unchanged

Tourist facilities

25

6.2 Differingprioritiesamongthegeneralpublic

Among the general public, there were also significant differences in views.

• Respondents under 30 stood out sharply from other age groups, with 51 per cent of them putting country park conservation first. As many as 14 per cent of under 30s also wanted to retain the New Territories for agricultural use. These figures may reflect the beginnings of a “back to the land” movement among the younger generation.

• Putting conservation instead of housing first also increases with educational attainment. Since income is also correlated with education, the theory of Maslow’s hierarchy of needs leading to different priorities, such as quality of life becoming more important as material needs are met, appears to apply to this issue.

• Among different occupational groups, associate professionals and students placed the highest priority on conservation. Blue collar workers, homemakers and retirees placed the lowest priority on conservation.

Figure24:ToppriorityforNewTerritorieslandusebydemographiccategories(generalpublic)

0

20

40

60

18-29 30-39

Housing Agriculture

40-49 50-59 60-69 70-92

0

20

40

60

0

20

40

60

27

50

3845

51

30 3222

12 9

8 8

212

6 38 9 6

11 9

97 5 7 4

18 2029 31

56

145 3

8 7 3

Primary and below

Lower secondary

Upper secondary

Some university

University graduate

Post-graduate

Managers and admin.

Professionals


Service

Blue collar


Student

Age%

%

%

3642

53 5258

3932

5867

28

41485048

63

4537

2737

2820 17

11

28

5050

26

6.3Comprehensiveplanning

While there are significant disagreements on planning priorities, large majorities do agree that the government should have a comprehensive plan. 81 per cent of the general public, and 76 per cent of the SHIP respondents said that the government “definitely should” produce a comprehensive plan for rural New Territories development.

FOCUSGROUPBOX11:POLARISEDPLANNINGPRIORITIES

Most focus group participants prioritised housing for New Territories development and felt that it would be acceptable to rezone green belt land and less ecologically valuable portions of the country parks for housing. Nevertheless, they said this should be done in addition to, and not instead of reforming the SHP. Some indigenous villagers voiced complaints about “radical environmental groups” placing wildlife habitats before people. However, a minority of participants insisted that country parks should be preserved and argued that development should follow the railway lines instead of being scattered all over the New Territories.

Figure25:ShouldthegovernmentproduceacomprehensiveplanforruralNTdevelopment?

0

10

20

30

40

50

60

70

80

90

100


%of subgroup as percentage of overall

Maybe should

Maybe should not

Don’t know/Don’t care

8174

65

75 79 76 80.5

1317

2519 15 18

13.51.9111

122 1

23 1 3 2.7 2.12 5 7

3 2 3.5 2.2

27

7 Support for Reforming the Small House Policy

7.1 Unconsidered and considered support for changing the SHP

Respondents were asked twice in different ways whether or not they supported or opposed making changes to the SHP. Close to the beginning of the survey, respondents were asked how much they supported or opposed leaving the SHP unchanged. Replies to this question should be seen as an initial first impression response. At the end of the survey, after answering many questions about their views on various SHP and New Territories problems, they were asked how much they were for or against changing the SHP. These replies should be seen as a considered response.

7.2 DifferencesbetweenSHIPgroups

Initially, about 16 per cent of the general public and 39 per cent of SHIP respondents said that they supported leaving the SHP unchanged. SHIP A and SHIP B were the most strongly in favour of retaining the SHP (79 per cent and 55 per cent, respectively), while the general public expressed the weakest support (16 per cent). This works out to 18.3 per cent for the population as a whole.10

From Figure 27, it can be seen that after considering the issues involved, support for leaving the SHP unchanged dropped in all SHIP categories. Only 7 per cent of the general public still said that they opposed changing the SHP. Among SHIP A (direct rights holders), resistance to changing the SHP was still strong, but fell from 79 per cent to 52 per cent after considering the issues involved. Opposition from SHIP B fell from 55 percent to 39 per cent.

It is important to keep in perspective that despite the strong opposition of small house rights holders to reforming the SHP, they make up a very tiny proportion of the overall population. SHIP A and SHIP B make up only 11 per cent and 12 per cent, respectively, of the total SHIP population, who in turn, make up about 10 per cent of Hong Kong’s population. Small house rights holders and their household members therefore only make up 2.3 per cent of the population. The size of the pie charts in Figures 26 and 27 put into perspective the size of the respective SHIP groups.

28

Figure26:HowmuchdoyousupportoropposecontinuingtheSHPasitisimplementednowunchanged?(Unconsideredsupport)

Strongly support

Strongly oppose

Don’t know

Oppose

Support

11% 12% 25% 53%SHIP A SHIP B SHIP C SHIP D

10%Overall SHIP

90%General public

16.328.5

2

32.821

24

11.5

22

1128

251545

35

28 20

2719

53

Total population

% of SHIP:

1

29

3422

15

2821

26

2243

132222

29

Figure27:AreyoufororagainstchangingtheSHP?(Consideredsupport)

Very strongly against changes

Strongly for changes

Don’t know

Neutral/ No stance

11% 12% 25% 53%SHIP A SHIP B SHIP C SHIP D

10%Overall SHIP

90%General public

5

Total population

% of SHIP:

Strongly against changes

Very strongly for changes

3117

35 134

61722 32

22

57

32

54

4

3520

32

53

25

28

2

37

310

9 33

17

28

36.1

2.83

26.9

25.85.4

1239

1

30

7.3 Differencesamongthegeneralpublic

Figures 28 to 31 illustrate shifts in support for or opposition to changing the SHP among different demographic categories in the general public:

• Age: Opposition to reforms was the highest in those aged 50-59 both before and after consideration. However, the responses of 18-29-year-olds were swayed substantially in the direction of reform after considering the issues.

• Education: Respondents with a lower secondary education expressed the highest levels of strong support for continuing the SHP and opposition to changing it. Above the lower secondary level, support for reforming the SHP rose with education. Those with post-graduate education came out especially strongly in favour of reforming the SHP after considering the issues.

• Occupation: Managers expressed the strongest support for reforming the SHP, while blue collar workers expressed the strongest opposition. Students appeared to be substantially swayed in the direction of reform after being asked to consider the issues.

• Support for changing the SHP tended to rise with family income, both before and after considering the issues. The correlation seems to have become even more pronounced after consideration, with an especially high proportion of respondents with family incomes of HK$70,000 a month or more saying that they were very strongly for changing the policy.

Figure28:SupportandoppositiontochangingtheSHPbyage(generalpublic)

Unconsidered Considered



Very strongly against changes Strongly against changes

Very strongly for changing the policy

Don’t knowNo stance or against/neutralStrongly for changing the policy

Are you for or against changing the SHP? (Considered support)

Strongly support Support

Oppose Strongly oppose

Don’t know

it is implemented now unchanged? (Unconsidered support)

0

20

40

60

80

100

%

18-29 30-39 40-49 50-59 60-69 70-92Age

1 1 327 16 12 15 12

9

26

37

21 29 29 27 32

3634323632

1030

21 24 25 23

0

20

40

60

80

100

%

18-29 30-39 40-49 50-59 60-69 70-92Age

2 2 233 5 1 6 7 4

33 23 2526 21 24

21

4 8

48

3042 35

3336

16

3928 29 32 28

31

0

20

40

60

80

100

%

Very strongly against changes Strongly against changes No stance or against/ neutral

None $5,000-19,999 $20,000-39,999 $40,000-69,999 $70,000+

HKD

4 112 6 3 4 4

2626

2919 21

2

30 39 38 4643

21

2624

27 28 30

55

2

61

3 2

4 1 2


Considered


Figure29:SupportandoppositiontochangingtheSHPbyeducation(generalpublic)

Figure30:SupportandoppositiontochangingtheSHPbyoccupation(generalpublic)

Figure31:SupportandoppositiontochangingtheSHPbyincome(generalpublic)


Very strongly for changing the policy

Don’t knowNo stance or against/neutralStrongly for changing the policy

Are you for or against changing the SHP? (Considered support)

Strongly support Support

Oppose Strongly oppose

Don’t know

it is implemented now unchanged? (Unconsidered support)

0

20

40

60

80

100

%

None $5,000-19,999 $20,000-39,999 $40,000-69,999 $70,000+HKD

11

2011

28 25

21

39

32

1731 21 23 28 30

215

36

34

13

16

18

31

3616

16

38







0

20

40

60

80

100

%

Managers and admin.

Professionals


Service

Blue collar


Student

1 1715 21 18 13 15

42

2525 27

29 28

243537

3127

35 31 21 15 23 30

214

31

47

8

325

25

41

9

210

44

30

16

17

Unconsidered

0

20

40

60

80

100

%

Managers and admin.

Professionals


Service

Blue collar


Student

6 336

3 4 61223

3130

22

9

340

3941 39

37

24

4535 21 26 30

56

2 1

2

2

2 81 13

6 1314

56

22

35

29

25

5

27

52

11

4 33

20

30

4

23

30

27

0

20

40

60

80

100

%

Strongly support Support Oppose Strongly opposeDon’t know

Primary and below

Lower secondary

Upper secondary

Some university

University graduate

Post-graduate1 113

14 16 19 12 16

40

28

36 26 28 25 24

24363141

30

18 16 16 22 2836

1 4 0

20

40

60

80

100

%


Very strongly for changing the policyDon’t know

No stance or against/neutral

Strongly for changing the policy

Primary and below

Lower secondary

Upper secondary

Some university

University graduate

Post-graduate

6 310 6

3 4 4

3030

27 29 2020

2

24 3439 39

43

24

3019

27 26 30

56

1 1

5 5

22

32

7.4 ParticipationinpublicconsultationsonNew Territories issues

Support for the status quo among Hong Kong’s overall population is very low. Apart from direct rights holders and their household members, large majorities are in favour of changing the SHP. Large majorities agree that the government should review the policy immediately or before 2017. However, Hong Kong’s governing structure and processes may contribute to the status quo remaining in place. Figure 32 shows how only 3 per cent of the general public have participated in public consultations concerning the new Territories in the past year, but 9 per cent of SHIP A and 8 per cent of SHIP B have done so. SHIP participants actually outnumber the general public in consultations, and some of them have participated in multiple consultations. This allows a small and vocal minority to dominate the views heard by the government.

Figure32:PercentagewhoparticipatedinanypublicconsultationsrelatedtotheNewTerritoriesinthe past year

* Circles proportional to the size of the group in the population

9% 8% %3 %3

3 %4 %

3.1 %

SHIP A SHIP B SHIP D

Overall SHIP General public

SHIP C

33

Figure33:Numberofpersonsreportingthenumberoftimestheyparticipatedinpublicconsultations

0

2

4

6

8

10

12

General public SHIP A SHIP B SHIP C SHIP D All SHIPs

1 4 6+32 5

9

1

5

4

10

6

3

12

5

11

1 1 1

23

1* 1** 1**1

Note: * This respondent participated 6 times. ** These 2 respondents participated 15 times each.

34

8.1 Keyfindings

• The whole SHIP population, including non-indigenous village house dwellers, make up about 10 per cent of households in Hong Kong. Rights holders and their extended family members make up about 5.6-6 per cent of households. Less than 3 per cent of households have a rights holder living in them. Many small house rights holders who live outside of Hong Kong do not have family members living in their small house.

• Conservatively estimated, there may be 85,600 to 91,700 outstanding small house claims, 10,000 of which have already been filed. This will require another 11-12 km2 of land to fulfill.

• About a fifth of the general public expressed a desire to live in a small house, which is considerably larger than the proportion currently living in such housing. The four main reasons for wanting to live in a small house include a better living environment, more living space, cheaper rental or purchasing cost, and better air quality.

• About three quarters of respondents were aware of the SHP’s existence, but awareness varied by age and respondents under the age of 30 were the least aware. However, under 30s belonging to SHIP groups C and D (non-household family members of rights holders and non-indigenous village house dwellers) were even less aware of the SHP than members of the general public of the same age.

• Lack of comprehensive planning, lack of action to review the policy, and different enforcement approaches to illegal works between small houses and buildings in the urban areas were considered very or somewhat important by strong majorities (over 80 per cent) of respondents. Two related issues, villagers profiting from their land grants by selling to outsiders and that the SHP is discriminatory and unfair to non-indigenous persons came very close together, concerning strong majorities of around 70 per cent.

• Rights holders and their household members differ sharply from other SHIP respondents and the general public over the changes they want to see to the SHP. Most wish to retain the status quo and express strong opposition to policies supported by the general public, including setting an expiry date for the policy, no longer accepting applications and compensating eligible villagers, giving villagers public housing instead of land, and transferring the responsibility for keeping the register of qualified indigenous villagers from village leaders to the government. However a majority of all groups oppose abolishing the policy immediately without extension or compensation.

• While a plurality, 47 per cent, of the general public want to use the New Territories for housing, there is not a majority consensus. There are significant generational and socio-economic gaps in how people see development priorities for the New Territories, with younger and more educated respondents more likely to place conservation first.

8 Conclusion

35

• At first, 16 per cent of the general public and 39 per cent of the SHIP groups said that they supported continuing the SHIP unchanged. However, after considering the issues, many shifted towards supporting change or to a neutral view. At the end of the survey, 65 per cent of the general public and 63 per cent of the SHIPs said they were for changing the policy. Only three per cent of the general public and six per cent of all SHIP respondents believe that there is no need to review the policy.

• Proportionally, three times as many small house rights holders and their household members participated in public consultations on New Territories issues than members of the general public. Out of the 45 public consultation participants interviewed in this survey, 25 of them belonged to a SHIP group, despite SHIPs making up only 10 per cent of Hong Kong’s population. This gives the government a distorted picture of the public’s views.

8.2 Recommendations

• The government should restart a review of the SHP immediately.

• While there are strong disagreements between small house rights holders and the rest of the public on the future direction of the SHP, the government should realise that there is a high level of public support for reforms. Political will is needed in order to capitalise on this support to put pressure on entrenched rural interests.

• While disagreements were many, during the focus group, indigenous and non-indigenous participants still found areas they could agree on. The government should develop a stakeholder dialogue in order to identify, absent commercial interests, areas of common ground between indigenous villagers and the general public.

• The government should strongly consider imposing a moratorium on the resale of small houses. This measure receives support from roughly half of rights holders and their household members, as well as over 70 per cent of the general public.

• Requiring residency in Hong Kong for a continuous period in order to apply to build a small house may substantially reduce the demand for small houses. This suggestion received strong support in the focus group, and was even favoured by indigenous participants as it would shorten the waiting list.

• The Planning Department should halt its practice of periodically expanding village zones in response to rising demand for small houses. The right to apply for a small house does not equate to a right to an unlimited supply of land.

• Improving environmental conditions and air quality in urban areas, as well as addressing the size and affordability of housing in general will help to reduce demand among the general public for living in small houses.

• The government should create a comprehensive development plan for the New Territories in consultation with the public in order to work out compromises for future land use priorities and establish a strategic vision for the New Territories.

36

The survey questionnaire (see full report) was administered by the CASR telephone survey lab of Hong Kong Baptist University between October 2014 and January 2015.11 Interviews were carried out with over 1,200 households with residential landline telephones.

In order to obtain target samples of 600 members of the general public and 600 SHIP respondents, two rounds of calling were necessary. The first used random digit dialling to compile a sample of the overall population. After around 600 general public (non-SHIP) respondents were successfully interviewed, a second round of quota calling began. A screening question was used to identify only those who had the right or have family members with the right to build small houses, or who live in small houses. A final tally of the number of respondents interviewed in each category is shown in Table 2.

Potential respondents were considered eligible to do the survey if they were Hong Kong permanent residents and a member of the household reached. The estimated range of error at the 95 per cent confidence interval for each group of 600 cases is about +/- 3.5 to 4 points.

One objective of this survey was to estimate the size of the SHIP population in Hong Kong based on the proportion of SHIP respondents identified during the random calling round. As there may have been some differences in the willingness of different SHIP groups to be interviewed, (e.g. rights holders and close family members may have been less willing to answer questions than non-indigenous village house dwellers), both the contacted count and the completed count were used to estimate a population range, shown in Table 3.

Appendix: Methodology

Table2:ScreeningquestionandproportionsofSHIPsampleinquotacallinground

Screening question: We are seeking to compare the views of New Territories Indigenous Persons who now have or have had a right to build a small house and those who do not have such rights. Are you, or anyone in your family a person who has now or has exercised in the past the right to build a small house in the New Territories?

1. Yes, I am that person2. Yes, there is a person in my family living with me3. Yes, there is a person in my family not living with me or living outside Hong Kong4. No, and I do not live in a village house5. No, but I do live in a village house

Count % of SHIP sample1. SHIP A 65 112. SHIP B 72 123. SHIP C 150 254. General public12 627 N/A5. SHIP D 319 53

37

Table3:ContactedandcompletedcountsofrandomcallingroundforthepurposeofestimatingthesizeofSHIPpopulations

Group Contacted Count (1)

% Completed Count (2)

% Rangeofestimatednumberofhouseholds in Hong Kong (3)

SHIP A 12 2.2 18 2.7 53,614 - 65,799SHIP B 6 1.1 7 1 26,807 - 24,370SHIP C 18 3.3 13 1.9 804,214 - 46,303SHIP D 28 5.1 30 4.5 124,287 - 109,65General Public 541 89.4 604 89.8 2,178,678 - 2,188,426

Total 605 100 672 100

Total diallings: 20,064

Total valid contacts: 6,603

Total households contacted: 9,122

Total households contacted: 6,811

Contact rate: 605/6603 = 9.2%

Completion rate: 672/9,122 = 7.3%

(1) The Contacted Count was calculated at the point when 605 eligible respondents in all categories had been successfully identified.

(2) The completed count was calculated later, at the point when 604 general public respondents had completed random interviews, as well as 68 SHIP respondents who had completed interviews during the random calling for both groups, for a total of 672 interviews. The SHIP calling then excluded the public, but continued with random calls that screened out further interviews with members of the public without a direct interest in the Small House Policy. The SHIP sample is thus randomly proportioned among the 4 SHIP groups, but only the 68 SHIP respondents contacted during the time all calls were random can be used to estimate proportions of SHIP groups against the general public sample.

(3) Extrapolated based on 2,437,000 households in Hong Kong according to 2011 Census. The figure on the left is extrapolated from the contacted count; the figure on the right is extrapolated from the completed count.

38

development constraints. Additionally, a Civic Exchange report in 2013 calculated that there are 4.1 km2 of vacant private village land, an unknown proportion of which is suitable for small house development. Fulfilling all currently outstanding claims would at minimum fill up the remaining village zones, but the number of claims will continue to grow as more indigenous sons are born. See Information Services Department, Press Releases: LCQ18: “Village Type Development” sites, October 17 2012, Hong Kong: HKSAR Government, http://www.info.gov.hk/gia/general/201210/17/P201210170321.htm (accessed 7 May 2015). Also see Lao, M., Small House Policy II: An Update, April 2013, Civic Exchange, http://civic-exchange.org/en/publications/4292654 (accessed 7 May 2015).

8. Information Services Department, Press Releases: LCQ1: New Territories small houses, 11 January 2012, Hong Kong: HK SAR Government, http://www.info.gov.hk/gia/general/201201/11/P201201110359.htm (accessed 24 April 2015).

9. Ibid.

10. For an explanation of how the overall population figure was calculated, see the note under Figure 14.

11. There was some delay in the survey due to the student strike and Occupy Central. The survey lab at HKBU is obligated to use students as callers due to the terms of provision by the university.

12. General Public sample shown includes some of the SHIP cases which were gathered by quota calling, that is, once the General Public sample was completed, persons responding yes to responses 1, 2, 3, or 5 above were sought, up to the target of 600 cases.

Endnotes

1. Article 40 of the Basic Law states “The lawful traditional rights and interests of the indigenous inhabitants of the “New Territories” shall be protected by the Hong Kong Special Administrative Region.”

2. Legislative Council (2006), “Meeting of the Panel on Planning, Lands and Works: Background Brief on Processing of Small House Applications and Review of Small House Policy”, http://www.legco.gov.hk/yr05-06/english/panels/plw/papers/plw0228cb1-986-1e.pdf (accessed 20 April 2015).

3. The Census and Statistics Department has two categories of “village house”: “villas/bungalows/ modern village houses”, and “simple stone structures/traditional village houses”. It defines a “villa/bungalow/modern village house” as an individual house of one or multiple storeys built with full indoor plumbing and flush toilet facilities. Therefore, not all modern village houses were necessarily built under the SHP. A “simple stone structure/traditional village house” is defined as a usually one-storey house built of stone or other permanent materials.

4. The second phase of the survey, which targeted 600 SHIP respondents through quota sampling, found a somewhat different distribution of subgroups, shown in Table 2 in the Appendix. This sample is likely to be more accurate about the distribution of households within the four SHIP subgroups, but says nothing about the size of the SHIP groups relative to the general public. The proportions of the SHIP subgroups shown in tables throughout this report have not been adjusted to the proportions shown in Figure 1, in order to reflect the methodology accurately and transparently.

5. Calculated by proportion of the SHIP sample reporting living in small houses, applied to numbers of SHIPs persons in the contacted and completed samples at the approximately 600 case points of the survey.

6. See methodology section for a detailed explanation of the method used to estimate the upper and lower bounds of the number of SHIP households in Hong Kong.

7. In 2012, Development Secretary Paul Chan Mo-po reported to the Legislative Council that there were 9.3 km2 of government land within village zones reserved for small house development, excluding land with

23/F,ChunWoCommercialCentre,23-29WingWoStreet,Central,HongKong T(852)28930213F(852)31059713www.civic-exchange.org

© Civic Exchange, May 2015 The views expressed in this report are those of the authors, and do not necessarily represent the opinions of Civic Exchange.

Date post:	16-Oct-2021
Category:	Documents
Upload:	others
View:	1 times
Download:	0 times

Summary Report - Home - Civic Exchange

Documents