The housing system in Taiwan has three defining characteristics. First, it has been fully commercialized. Public housing originally fulfilled a social function, but almost every unit has since been sold off and privatized. As a result, public housing policy has been likened to a lottery. Second, the system ignores disadvantaged groups, social justice and low-income housing: rented housing accounts for only 0.08 percent of public housing. Third, the system encourages speculation, the biggest problems being an unreasonable tax system and a lack of property transaction transparency.
Pushed by the social housing movement, the government is now finally introducing a few new policies, but a close look at what is planned is discouraging.
Social housing is planned at five sites. Three projects in New Taipei City will be build, operate and transfer (BOT) projects, mainly targeting people between 20 and 40 years old. No decision has yet been made about the remaining two projects, but the city is turning a temporary housing project into public rental accommodation in Dalongdong (大龍峒) for people between 20 and 40 years old, with an annual income of less than NT$1.58 million.
Bidding for the government’s affordable housing project is finished and “lottery-style” public housing will be built next to the A7 station on the future airport MRT line. However, the Housing Act (住宅法) passed late last year does not define “social housing.” It states only that 10 percent of new social housing must be reserved for disadvantaged groups. The government shirks all responsibility for the project, which will be a BOT project favoring construction companies. Housing prices will be announced on a district-by-district basis so pricing is neither transparent nor based on real market prices.
The government’s housing policy shows no real determination to resolve the problem. If it was sincere the government would take a long hard look at those at the bottom of the housing system. Home ownership and vacancy rates are high across the nation, but only about 30 percent of low-income households own their homes.
These policies do not target the people most in need of housing resource redistribution, nor do they try to understand their living environment and needs. Ultimately talk about housing justice or fair living standards is just hot air.
In recent years, neighboring countries have increased their share of social housing. From 2000 to 2010, South Korea increased the proportion of social housing from 2.5 percent to 6.3 percent of total housing stock, building an average of 240,000 units every four years.
Although Hong Kong suffers from serious social inequalities, the percentage of public housing remains at about 30 percent, and this is likely to increase as a result of strong social demand.
Providing stable housing to low-income households means caring for the next generation. According to data from the Ministry of the Interior, at least 120,000 children and teenagers live in low-income households. Given the declining birthrate, these “masters of the future” are a precious social asset because the task of supporting an ageing society will ultimately fall to them.
Perhaps we can get by without building affordable housing, but we cannot stop building social housing. Most importantly, before such construction projects begin, we must listen to disadvantaged groups.
For the sake of Taiwan’s future, let’s build some real social housing.
Chen Yi-ling is an assistant professor in the Department of Natural Resources and Environmental Studies, National Dong Hwa University.
Translated by Eddy Chang
Ideas matter. They especially matter in world affairs. And in communist countries, it is communist ideas, not supreme leaders’ personality traits, that matter most. That is the reality in the People’s Republic of China. All Chinese communist leaders — from Mao Zedong (毛澤東) through Deng Xiaoping (鄧小平), from Jiang Zemin (江澤民) and Hu Jintao (胡錦濤) through to Xi Jinping (習近平) — have always held two key ideas to be sacred and self-evident: first, that the Chinese Communist Party (CCP) is infallible, and second, that the Marxist-Leninist socialist system of governance is superior to every alternative. The ideological consistency by all CCP leaders,
In the past 30 years, globalization has given way to an international division of labor, with developing countries focusing on export manufacturing, while developed countries in Europe and the US concentrate on internationalizing service industries to drive economic growth. The competitive advantages of these countries can readily be seen in the global financial market. For example, Taiwan has attracted a lot of global interest with its technology industry. The US is the home of leading digital service companies, such as Meta Platforms (Facebook), Alphabet (Google) and Microsoft. The country holds a virtual oligopoly of the global market for consumer digital
The US on Friday hosted the second Global COVID-19 Summit, with at least 98 countries, including Taiwan, and regional alliances such as the G7, the G20, the African Union and the Caribbean Community (CARICOM) attending. Washington is also leading a proposal to revise one of the most important documents in global health security — the International Health Regulations (IHR) — which are to be discussed during the 75th World Health Assembly (WHA) that starts on Sunday. These two actions highlight the US’ strategic move to dominate the global health agenda and return to the core of governance, with the WHA
Former vice president Annette Lu (呂秀蓮) on Saturday expounded on her concept of replacing “unification” with China with “integration.” Lu does not she think the idea would be welcomed in its current form; rather, she wants to elicit discussion on a third way to break the current unification/independence impasse, especially given heightened concerns over China attacking Taiwan in the wake of Russia’s invasion of Ukraine. She has apparently formulated her ideas around the number “three.” First, she envisions cross-strait relations developing in three stages: having Beijing lay to rest the idea of unification of “one China” (一個中國); next replacing this with
RSS