Last week, as many people were paying attention to the government’s reaction to a controversial urban renewal project in Taipei City’s Shilin District (士林), few people noticed that another housing issue was in the making, albeit involving less confrontation, as the government was considering changes to its public housing policy, prompting many to ask whether it was capable of implementing an effective and feasible public housing policy.
On Thursday, Minister of the Interior Lee Hong-yuan (李鴻源) told the legislature’s Internal Administration Committee that the nation’s overall demand for social housing — about 190,000 households — was more than the government could afford. Because the government lacks the funds and the land for public housing projects in urban areas, amid a high nationwide rate of unoccupied apartment units, Lee told lawmakers the government would have to adjust its housing policies.
Based on Lee’s remarks, a new policy was announced encouraging lower-income people to “rent” suitable housing rather than “buy” low-cost units subsidized by the government. The government would prioritize the use of empty houses instead of the construction of new ones, while it would stop building public housing, including projects under the categories of “social housing,” “quality housing” and “modern housing.”
In short, the government will no longer provide public housing to balance the market’s supply and demand, but will continue to give incentives to the private sector to build low-cost units. In the future, the government will simply play the role of “matchmaker” to help low-income households find suitable housing, Lee said.
Since 2010, the government has launched several public housing projects in urban areas and introduced a luxury tax, aiming to curb real-estate speculation and help low-income families deal with skyrocketing real-estate prices. However, no matter what the government’s housing programs are called and how they are built and sold, Lee’s remarks indicated that the government’s public housing initiative did not achieve its goals. It also raised suspicions that all policy initiatives regarding public housing over the past two years were nothing but government-led election campaign tools.
The public has many doubts and negative perceptions about public housing — which tend to focus on inferior construction and poor public safety. People living near public housing units or buildings also strenuously object to the policy. Therefore, if the government no longer plans to build public housing, its policy focus should be shifted to improving public infrastructure to provide faster and more convenient services to people living in suburban areas as well as expanding the scope of housing subsidies to low-income households.
Furthermore, the government should recognize that promoting balanced development between suburban and urban areas, as well as between southern and northern Taiwan, would be an effective way to discourage people from moving to urban areas, especially Taipei. The government needs to build a better public transportation network and promote local economic sectors to improve regional employment.
The government should use this opportunity to review the management mechanism for the nation’s public housing, because it currently lacks a centralized body to take overall responsibility for public housing.
For instance, both the “quality housing” and the “social housing” programs are under the management of the Ministry of the Interior, while the “modern housing” program is organized by the Council for Economic Planning and Development. Meanwhile, the Public Construction Commission is responsible for the youth housing program, and the Taipei City Government has its own public housing program. Without a centralized agency, the government will find it difficult to either integrate public resources or establish a comprehensive and effective strategy on public housing management.
A few weeks ago in Kaohsiung, tech mogul turned political pundit Robert Tsao (曹興誠) joined Western Washington University professor Chen Shih-fen (陳時奮) for a public forum in support of Taiwan’s recall campaign. Kaohsiung, already the most Taiwanese independence-minded city in Taiwan, was not in need of a recall. So Chen took a different approach: He made the case that unification with China would be too expensive to work. The argument was unusual. Most of the time, we hear that Taiwan should remain free out of respect for democracy and self-determination, but cost? That is not part of the usual script, and
Behind the gloating, the Chinese Nationalist Party (KMT) must be letting out a big sigh of relief. Its powerful party machine saved the day, but it took that much effort just to survive a challenge mounted by a humble group of active citizens, and in areas where the KMT is historically strong. On the other hand, the Democratic Progressive Party (DPP) must now realize how toxic a brand it has become to many voters. The campaigners’ amateurism is what made them feel valid and authentic, but when the DPP belatedly inserted itself into the campaign, it did more harm than good. The
For nearly eight decades, Taiwan has provided a home for, and shielded and nurtured, the Chinese Nationalist Party (KMT). After losing the Chinese Civil War in 1949, the KMT fled to Taiwan, bringing with it hundreds of thousands of soldiers, along with people who would go on to become public servants and educators. The party settled and prospered in Taiwan, and it developed and governed the nation. Taiwan gave the party a second chance. It was Taiwanese who rebuilt order from the ruins of war, through their own sweat and tears. It was Taiwanese who joined forces with democratic activists
Chinese Nationalist Party (KMT) Chairman Eric Chu (朱立倫) held a news conference to celebrate his party’s success in surviving Saturday’s mass recall vote, shortly after the final results were confirmed. While the Democratic Progressive Party (DPP) would have much preferred a different result, it was not a defeat for the DPP in the same sense that it was a victory for the KMT: Only KMT legislators were facing recalls. That alone should have given Chu cause to reflect, acknowledge any fault, or perhaps even consider apologizing to his party and the nation. However, based on his speech, Chu showed
RSS