View Poll Results: HK CE *lection - Who Would You Vote For?

Voters
35. You may not vote on this poll
  • Justice Woo

    9 25.71%
  • Regina IP

    0 0%
  • Carrie Lam

    8 22.86%
  • John Tsang

    5 14.29%
  • Someone Else

    13 37.14%
Like Tree67Likes

2017 Hong Kong CE *lection - Discuss

Closed Thread
Page 5 of 14 FirstFirst ... 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 13 ... LastLast
  1. #41
    I suggest you share the original source of the person who has solutions for Hong Kong's housing situation. Jake van der Kamp's drivel is terrible debating material.

    Yue Chim Richard Wong 王于漸 | Turning the Housing Challenge into the Housing Solution

  2. #42

    Join Date
    Aug 2008
    Location
    猴山
    Posts
    23,652
    Quote Originally Posted by civil_servant:
    I suggest you share the original source of the person who has solutions for Hong Kong's housing situation. Jake van der Kamp's drivel is terrible debating material.
    It is a policy that started in the 1970's to redistribute wealth in the UK.

    https://www.ifs.org.uk/uploads/publi.../bns/BN162.pdf

    There is a need for social housing but only for those who really need it rather than just want it (because it is cheap)

  3. #43
    David Smith

    Does anyone know anything about the Popvote on CE candidates?

    Hong Kong’s unofficial chief executive election opinion poll PopVote back online next week | South China Morning Post

    It looks like the HK government tried to shut it down through the privacy commission (just as happened in Macau in 2014 where people trying to copy Benny Tai's civil referendum were arrested https://www.ft.com/content/0effed3a-...a-00144feabdc0 )

    I tried going to the website, http://popvote.hk but seems server is not contactable (or I got the wrong address). Or perhaps it has been taken out by cyber attack.

    Almost nothing about it in the news.


  4. #44

    Join Date
    Aug 2008
    Location
    猴山
    Posts
    23,652
    Original Post Deleted
    Yes.

    Surely can't be the CCP as they are not allowed to interfere in local affairs.


    It is very sad that such effort is spent on such tedious and unimportant things. Appalling governance

  5. #45
    Quote Originally Posted by East_coast:
    It is a policy that started in the 1970's to redistribute wealth in the UK.

    https://www.ifs.org.uk/uploads/publi.../bns/BN162.pdf
    Huh? Jake van der Kamp outlines a solution to public housing by Richard Wong. I quoted a blog entry by Richard Wong. Ironically, Richard Wong never mentions flats to be sold for $1. That's just Jake's crazy talk.

    What does it have to do with the UK? I suggest you read up on their right-to-buy scheme. Doesn't sound like a roaring success to me. The UK comes dead last in the OECD for social mobility. I wouldn't choose them as an example for Hong Kong's social ills.

    The best performer for social mobility is Denmark where 20% of the population lives in social housing.

    Quote Originally Posted by East_coast:
    There is a need for social housing but only for those who really need it rather than just want it (because it is cheap)
    There's absolutely a need for social housing. It's gotten many people out of slum-like conditions and helped countries to build a successful and healthy workforce. As you are aware, Hong Kong hasn't reached its demand for public housing, hence the slums, aka subdivided flats, have returned. If you want to reduce social housing tenants, then work on wages. If people can afford something better, then they will choose better. Some may not choose to do so, but that doesn't mean we should pull the rug out from underneath everyone's feet. Did I already tell you? Bar benders, concretors, and people in IT don't need public flats. Groundskeepers for public parks and food stall workers do.

  6. #46

    Join Date
    Aug 2008
    Location
    猴山
    Posts
    23,652
    Quote Originally Posted by civil_servant:
    What does it have to do with the UK?.
    Again. It was a social policy that started in the UK in the 70's rather than in the mind of a HK professor in 2016

    Quote Originally Posted by civil_servant:
    What does it have to do with the UK? I suggest you read up on their right-to-buy scheme. Doesn't sound like a roaring success to me. The UK comes dead last in the OECD for social mobility. I wouldn't choose them as an example for Hong Kong's social ills.
    Yes the UK is bad at social mobility. The possibility of the rich becoming poor is extremely unlikely. But you are probably correct the schemes to try to create fairer society should not be tried in Hong Kong as they have not worked as well as they should of in the UK. There clearly is no need to try to break the cycle of poverty in Hong Kong. Just throw up a few more subsidised houses and all will be good. Oh dear
    Last edited by East_coast; 22-02-2017 at 06:12 PM.
    TheBrit likes this.

  7. #47
    Quote Originally Posted by East_coast:
    Again. It was a social policy that started in the UK in the 70's rather than in the mind of a HK professor in 2016



    Yes the UK is bad at social mobility. The possibility of the rich becoming poor is extremely unlikely. But you are probably correct the schemes to try to create fairer society should not be tried in Hong Kong as they have not worked as well as they should of in the UK. There clearly is no need to try to break the cycle of poverty in Hong Kong. Just throw up a few more subsidised houses and all will be good. Oh dear
    Now you're talking strawmen. There's lot of stuff that can be done. Why not improve public housing by giving residents more say in the running of their communities. This would be a lot more communal and introduce a democratic process into those communities. It's a lot better than just giving ownership to those people and creating a market that will just as easily exploited by developers as the private market.

  8. #48

    Join Date
    Aug 2008
    Location
    猴山
    Posts
    23,652
    Quote Originally Posted by civil_servant:
    Now you're talking strawmen. There's lot of stuff that can be done. Why not improve public housing by giving residents more say in the running of their communities. This would be a lot more communal and introduce a democratic process into those communities. It's a lot better than just giving ownership to those people and creating a market that will just as easily exploited by developers as the private market.
    Given the current political climate any a cynic would guess that monies will be funneled through DAB friendly associations. Transferring wealth is surely much better than giving a seat on a committee dominated by the establishment political party. Also far less public housing is needed and vouchers given to allow people to rent in the private sector getting rid of the stigma of living in a government project

  9. #49

    Because the stigma of cage homes and subdivided flats is so much better? There's nothing to be ashamed about social housing especially when enjoying some ownership via democratic rights. If instead of ownership, people put their focus on livelihood issues, they'd be a lot more successful at creating successful community. As I said previously, the focus should be on improving incomes, not whether or not they live in public housing. Diversifying the job market, raising the minimum wage, regulating working hours, and compensating additional work is all part of that.


  10. #50

    Join Date
    Aug 2008
    Location
    猴山
    Posts
    23,652
    Quote Originally Posted by civil_servant:
    Because the stigma of cage homes and subdivided flats is so much better? There's nothing to be ashamed about social housing especially when enjoying some ownership via democratic rights. If instead of ownership, people put their focus on livelihood issues, they'd be a lot more successful at creating successful community. As I said previously, the focus should be on improving incomes, not whether or not they live in public housing. Diversifying the job market, raising the minimum wage, regulating working hours, and compensating additional work is all part of that.
    "A study by the Hong Kong Professional and Senior Executives Association (HKPSEA) in 2010, found that 21 percent of the post-80s generation had experienced downward mobility and 74 percent had experienced no mobility over the past five years. Over half of them believed that social mobility was worse than 15 years ago. "

    But isn't Hong Kong "down streaming" with the middle and lower streams gradually getting worse in real terms and social mobility also getting worse. Yes concrete has been poured but society is poorer overall.
    TheBrit and shri like this.

Closed Thread
Page 5 of 14 FirstFirst ... 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 13 ... LastLast