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
The Chinese Nationalist Party (KMT) has a good reason to avoid a split vote against the Democratic Progressive Party (DPP) in next month’s presidential election. It has been here before and last time things did not go well. Taiwan had its second direct presidential election in 2000 and the nation’s first ever transition of political power, with the KMT in opposition for the first time. Former president Chen Shui-bian (陳水扁) was ushered in with less than 40 percent of the vote, only marginally ahead of James Soong (宋楚瑜), the candidate of the then-newly formed People First Party (PFP), who got almost 37
The three teams running in January’s presidential election were finally settled on Friday last week, but as the official race started, the vice-presidential candidates of the Chinese Nationalist Party (KMT) and the Taiwan People’s Party (TPP) have attracted more of the spotlight than the presidential candidates in the first week. After the two parties’ anticipated “blue-white alliance” dramatically broke up on the eve of the registration deadline, the KMT’s candidate, New Taipei City Mayor Hou You-yi (侯友宜), the next day announced Broadcasting Corp of China chairman Jaw Shaw-kong (趙少康) as his running mate, while TPP Chairman and presidential candidate Ko Wen-je
On Tuesday, Taiwan’s TAIEX stock index peaked at 17,360 points and closed at 17,341 points, surpassing Hong Kong’s Hang Seng Index, which fell to 17,303 points and closed at 17,541 points. A few years ago, the gap between the Taiwanese and Hong Kong stock indices was more than 20,000 points, but this was before the 2019 anti-extradition protests. Hong Kong is one of the world’s most important financial centers, but many Chinese Internet users joke that it is only a ruin today. When asked by a legislative councilor whether he would communicate with social media platforms in the mainland to request
Chinese Nationalist Party (KMT) presidential candidate and New Taipei City Mayor Hou You-yi (侯友宜) has called on his Democratic Progressive Party (DPP) counterpart, William Lai (賴清德), to abandon his party’s Taiwanese independence platform. Hou’s remarks follow an article published in the Nov. 30 issue of Foreign Affairs by three US-China relations academics: Bonnie Glaser, Jessica Chen Weiss and Thomas Christensen. They suggested that the US emphasize opposition to any unilateral changes in the “status quo” across the Taiwan Strait, and that if Lai wins the election, he should consider freezing the Taiwanese independence clause. The concept of de jure independence was first