The recent controversy over housing prices began with a public opinion poll by the Research, Development and Evaluation Commission showing surging housing prices topping the list of public complaints. The Cabinet’s attempts to address the issue were criticized as harming property prices, however, with critics branding the moves an unwise political move that would undermine the assets of most home owners and hurt the local economy.
Premier Wu Den-yih (吳敦義), who has promised to listen to public opinion, was at a loss as to how to deal with the complaints, and government policy kept swinging back and forth. Wu’s wavering is a reflection of how a dearth of information on the real-estate sector has made decision-making difficult. The “home ownership rate” is one of the most distorted and misunderstood data points, and this has directly affected the administration’s judgment.
The official home ownership rate refers to homes registered as “self-owned.” That rate is currently about 88 percent. However, given that some individuals own more than one property, the home ownership rate does not directly translate into the number of households owning a home. Equating the two is either an honest mistake or a deliberate distortion. To investigate the source of the complaints, we need to know the real home ownership rate based on the number of households that own a house. Unfortunately, no such data exist, so one can only make estimates.
The total number of households in the country — registered households — is about the same as the total housing stock, which is about 7.8 million. What does Taiwan’s home ownership distribution look like? Following are my estimates based on a national census conducted 10 years ago, an Academia Sinica survey involving home ownership from many years ago and the semi-annual telephone surveys on housing demand conducted by the Institute for Physical Planning and Information that I work for.
For every 100 registered households, about 30 do not own a home. Among these 30, 12 households either rent or stay in dormitories, and 18 either share a home with other households or individuals such as relatives and friends, mainly parents or children. The other 70 households own a total of 88 houses, and this is the source of the government’s home ownership rate. Among those 70, 60 households own one home each, seven households own two homes each, and three households own three or even more homes each.
Assuming these estimates are correct, how do high housing prices affect the public? For the 30 households that do not own a house, one-third are likely part of the socially and economically disadvantaged group who have long lost hope of owning their own home and are indifferent to politics. The remaining two-thirds want to, but have given up hope of ever owning a home — these make up the most angry group. At the other end of the spectrum are the 10 households who own two or more homes: Rising home prices mean a continued expansion of their assets.
The situation for the rest — those in between these two extremes — is more complicated. Although their wealth increases in value on paper, it is difficult for them to make use of this wealth since they still live there. Rising home prices also make it difficult for them to raise their standard of living by moving to a bigger or better place. Generally speaking then, they are also victims. Surging housing prices are also squeezing out small investors, leaving the wealth concentrated in the hands of the rich.
In short, there is reason for the public complaints. This evaluation looks at the overall situation in Taiwan, so there is likely to be even more and stronger complaints in urban Taipei.
How can we make the government aware of this issue? Those who have the ability to influence government policy are mainly business lobbying groups and the minority who own two or more houses. Still, democratic politics is based on individual votes, and this is still a good way to express public discontent. The housing issue looks set to be a contentious issue in the five special municipality elections in November and the 2012 presidential election. Instead of a chaotic political battle between the ruling and opposition camps, we should rationally discuss the situation and public opinion to formulate a clearer and more decisive housing policy.
Hua Chang-i is a research fellow at the Institute of Physical Planning and Information.
TRANSLATED BY EDDY CHANG
China has not been a top-tier issue for much of the second Trump administration. Instead, Trump has focused considerable energy on Ukraine, Israel, Iran, and defending America’s borders. At home, Trump has been busy passing an overhaul to America’s tax system, deporting unlawful immigrants, and targeting his political enemies. More recently, he has been consumed by the fallout of a political scandal involving his past relationship with a disgraced sex offender. When the administration has focused on China, there has not been a consistent throughline in its approach or its public statements. This lack of overarching narrative likely reflects a combination
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