weekly
Written by: Liu Yanwen
2021-05-05 17:57
The last update date: 2021-05-05 17:57
The dispute over Ding Quan has been harassed for many years, which has caused chaos in the New Territories such as "Ding Ding", "Flying Ding", and selling small houses. After the "Village House King" Wang Guangrong was arrested on suspicion of "Ding Ding" by the ICAC earlier, Another investigation by a local research agency found that there are about 177 hectares of land in Hong Kong for potential "slotting" activities. For example, the division of land means that the suspected "slotting" land will be doubled in the future; however, the Development Bureau even responded that the sale of private lots The division and division are all private agreements, and the authorities cannot and should not intervene.
This blatantly lazy attitude is quite ridiculous. In fact, the central government has repeatedly asked the SAR government to solve the land and housing issues. If the authorities continue to turn a blind eye to the loopholes in the power of Ding, I believe the central government will never ignore it.
The housing problem in Hong Kong is in dire straits, but the SAR government has for many years shied away its responsibilities on the grounds of "less land and more people", ignoring that there are still large tracts of land in the New Territories that can be repossessed for development to increase housing supply and are reserved for "village-style development" One example is the land used for small houses.
Although the High Court ruled that Ding Quan was constitutional at the beginning of this year, this "privilege" is not only unfair, it has long been reduced to a profit-making tool.
In the judicial review case of Ding Quan the previous year, the defense representing Heung Yee Kuk and the government used Article 40 of the Basic Law "The lawful traditional rights and interests of the indigenous inhabitants of the New Territories shall be protected by the Hong Kong Special Administrative Region" as a defense. In the end, the High Court also defended it. The ruling of the original trial court was overturned and Ding's power was ruled as constitutional.
However, legal "constitutionality" does not mean that the policy is "reasonable." What's more, whether the policy is truly "constitutional" is still questionable, but the SAR government thinks it can rest assured from then on.
Another investigation by the local research agency found that there are about 177 hectares of land in Hong Kong for potential "dating" behavior, and Lankou Village is one of them.
(Photo by Zhang Haowei)
To understand the irrationality of the Dingquan policy, one should first understand the reasons for the policy that the British Hong Kong government formulated in the first place.
The Heung Yee Kuk has declared for many years that before the British leased the New Territories, the indigenous inhabitants of the New Territories owned the "permanent ownership" of the land, that is, the original residents did not need official approval to build houses, and the land holders had no restrictions on land use clauses.
After the United Kingdom leased the New Territories, it changed the New Territories housing policy to "Block Crown Lease" (collective official approval), setting a lease term for the land and causing the indigenous residents to "lost their traditional rights and interests." The British Hong Kong government "compensated the indigenous residents." In 1972, the "New Territories Small House Policy" was formulated to allow male indigenous inhabitants of the New Territories who have reached the age of 18 to build small houses, forming a "district right" unique to New Territories.
"Ding rights" derived from the original life of the residents to improve
the policy of non-long-term
The above historical context seems reasonable, but during the judicial review, the declassified British Hong Kong government secret document revealed the truth about the origin of Ding Quan.
Confidential documents from the Department of Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs of the United Kingdom show that the "Six-Seven Riot" has caused the British Hong Kong government to have a sense of crisis in governing Hong Kong. It believes that the government has a chance to be forced out of Hong Kong and intends to discuss how to reform social policies before the lease ends.
In order to advance towards this goal, the British Hong Kong government drafted the "New Territories Development Strategy" in 1971, and subsequently formulated the "Ten-Year Development Plan" based on this. The "Small House Policy", that is, the small house policy, appeared.
The then Director of Civil Affairs of the New Territories, Lai Dun-yi, once said that the development planning of the New Territories was messy and that most residents lived in simple village houses. Therefore, it was necessary to "in the interim" (in the short to medium term) to reorganize the small houses in the New Territories.
An earlier review of the local research agency also pointed out that in the 1980s, when Liu Huangfa, the chairman of the Heung Yee Kuk of the New Territories, became a member of the Drafting Committee of the Hong Kong Basic Law, the Heung Yee Kuk made the small house policy discourse as the "traditional rights and interests" of the indigenous inhabitants.
The Heung Yee Kuk should have long understood the existing loopholes in the small house policy, but for many years it has insisted on retaining the right to the outside world.
(Photo by Luo Guohui)
According to various historical documents, it can be seen that the so-called "traditional rights and interests" were not the focus of the policy laid down by the British Hong Kong government, and the rights policy was not long-term at the time, and it highlighted the irrationality of the fashionable rights deposit policy.
Even if the policy is ruled legally, it is only because of the original "wishful thinking" of the Heung Yee Kuk that the policy was forcibly added to the Basic Law.
Furthermore, the British Hong Kong government set a policy to comprehensively plan the development of the New Territories and improve the housing environment of the indigenous inhabitants of the New Territories. After more than 30 to 40 years of changes, the living environment and quality of the indigenous inhabitants of the New Territories have been greatly improved. Hong Kong also has the need to develop new towns.
The problem is that the policy loopholes left by the colonial era have become one of the major reasons for Hong Kong’s lack of land reserves. The Hong Kong government must deal with the retention and abolition of the rights of Ding and reclaim the land to free up more land.
Policy tools become mercenary
lost function to protect "legitimate interests" of
Article 40 of the Basic Law stipulates the preservation of the "legal traditional rights and interests" of the original inhabitants, with the emphasis on the word "lawful".
There are loopholes in the Ding Right policy that allow private developers to "illegal arbitrage", which is no longer a protection of "legitimate rights and interests."
It is true that the indigenous residents have housing needs, but the small house policy can no longer protect their housing, only turning their place of residence into a tool for real estate developers to make money.
According to the investigation of the local research agency, the Lianhuadi Village in Patxiang is a suspected "spot". The land has a total area of 5.38 hectares. It is estimated that 272 small houses can be built. If the price of each house is between 14 million and 15 million, it will be 100 million yuan. Yuanji's business.
According to the investigation of the local research agency, Lianhuadi Village in Baxiang is suspected of being an important place for "Tao Ding".
(Photo by Zhang Haowei)
The so-called "settlement" stems from the fact that many developers actually already own the land but do not have the right to build houses, so they will choose to purchase the right of ownership from the original residents at a low price; and the owner of the right of ownership may not have enough funds to apply for land to build a house. Therefore, there is a chance to sell the Ding rights to the developer in the early years.
In 2012, Yuen Long District Councillors Wong Wai-yin, Kwong Chun-yu, Kwok Hing-ping and Zhang Xiantang consulted the high-level organization "Cultural Committee" on the issue of indigenous residents’ application for public housing. It is unknown whether it was used to build a small house and had never owned a small house. Later, when he wanted to get married and applied for public housing, he was rejected because he had a small house. As a result, it was used as a policy to protect the "legitimate traditional rights and interests" of the indigenous residents. , Which is distorted by the gray area of commercial developers and turned into profitable real estate projects.
The problem is that the Heung Yee Kuk should have long been aware of the existing loopholes in the policy, but for years it has insisted on retaining the right to the outside world, which really makes people question their intentions.
The original intention of the policy was to improve the lives of the indigenous residents. Perhaps it did improve their living quality at the beginning, but is there any need to retain the policy whose use has deteriorated?
The government's attitude in dealing with land issues is "harmony"
Li Guangde, the convener of the Public Professional Alliance who participated in the investigation of the local research agency, said at the research conference that the problem of "setup" stems from the government's "soft heart and soft feet", and the response of the Development Bureau a few days ago (May 3) echoed Having said that, the Development Bureau stated that the sale and division of private lots are private arrangements and agreements. Unless the terms of individual land leases are bound by provisions, the government cannot and should not intervene. The authorities also pointed out that the sale and division of private land is not itself. It is not necessarily an indicator or evidence of "spotting".
It can be said that the authority’s legal definition of the Ding Power policy may not be wrong, but this is showing the gray area in the policy and the source of illegal "spotting". It can be seen that the government has turned a blind eye to the Ding Power issue for many years. "Thin mud" attitude.
Li Guangde (second from left) stated at the research press conference that the government on the issue of "spotting" is "soft-hearted."
(Photo by Zhang Haowei)
The government has always been extremely "sluggish" in land planning, choosing to use old areas to rebuild and clear up land to reduce people's living space and clear other people's homes to squeeze out land.
In fact, there is still a lot of land in Hong Kong that can be used to build public housing and develop public facilities, such as the Kwai Chung Container Terminal.
When Chief Executive Carrie Lam Cheng Yuet-ngor attended a question in the Legislative Council last month, the New Democratic Party Chairman Ip Liu Shuyi asked about the planning of the Kwai Chung Wharf.
Suk-yee Ip said that the supply of terminals has exceeded demand. People in the industry also said that the terminal industry is just "living and dying." She asked Carrie Lam whether the terminal would be rebuilt for housing.
Carrie Lam only stated that the Kwai Chung Wharf is a sensitive issue and "sooner or later must be dealt with," but there is no mention of when "sooner or later" will be.
The redevelopment of the Kwai Chung Pier involves complicated technical, title, and resettlement issues. Therefore, planning studies should be conducted earlier, but the authorities seem to have no plans.
In fact, whether it is the container terminal or the land for small houses, these land should be recovered and re-developed as soon as possible, and the only things that deter the government are probably the squires and dignitaries.
[Ding Quan Review Case] The government should reflect on three major lessons that policies deviate from the original intention
Dingquan case | The Court of Appeal ruled that the small house is not unconstitutional, but can it ignore the three major drawbacks?
[Ding Quan issue.
1. The Appellate Tribunal failed to clarify the disputed rights and return to the starting point
[Ding Quan issue.
2) Why does the arbitrage issue harm the inaction of all Hong Kong citizens' governments?
[Ding Quan issue.
Three] Interview with Li Yongda: What basic steps are needed to solve the Ding Quan problem?
In-depth report on the policy of Ding Quan’s original residents to set up small houses and small houses. Heung Yee Bureau
