Editorial | Public housing in Hong Kong has no room for ‘lying flat’
A fair and firm policy on asset and income limits remains the best way to screen out those who are less deserving of Hong Kong’s subsidised homes
There is something amiss when those on low incomes are said to have rejected promotions and pay rises to remain qualified for social welfare. Exactly how many Hongkongers have opted for the so-called “lying flat” lifestyle – doing the bare minimum to get by – to apply for, or not to be kicked out of, a subsidised rental home remains unclear. But the government has good reason to resist calls to be more accommodating in the allocation of scarce public housing.
The suggestion that the Housing Authority may combat the phenomenon by allowing applicants to exempt certain “genuine and reasonable one-off income” in their declaration is debatable. There are also calls to exclude the earnings of grown-up children when assessing ceilings of household incomes. The proposals certainly have an appeal to many who marginally exceed the limits, but such flexibility and leniency also mean a greater burden on public funds.
Given the scarcity of public housing, a fair and firm policy on asset and income limits remains the best way to screen out those who are less deserving. If applicants’ total incomes – be they bonuses or standard salaries – are above the ceiling, they should not be allowed to remain in the queue for homes. The same goes for existing tenants. They have had the chance to better themselves and should be encouraged to move out and make way for those still waiting. The crackdown on the abuse of public flats by requiring households to declare incomes and other property is in the same spirit.
We do not know how many people would actually turn down pay rises and bonuses to meet the qualification. The truth is that no matter where the line is drawn, some people are bound to lose out. A more flexible approach on applicants’ bonuses and other personal circumstances is arguably unfair to many in the queue who may have greater housing needs. It may also encourage more people to get around the rules and remain in subsidised units while earning more.
Lying flat is a wider social problem that calls for policy intervention at a higher level. A more sympathetic and tolerant approach to homes may only encourage more people to turn to public housing and reinforce the trend of lying flat, which is hardly good for social mobility and development.