The lawmakers who compose the Third Standing Committee of the Legislative Assembly (AL) have major objections to fixing and disclosing the acquisition price of the housing units to be built under the new type of public housing, commonly known as “sandwich-class housing.”
The concerns were mentioned yesterday by the chairman of the committee, lawmaker Vong Hin Fai in a press briefing following the second committee meeting to scrutinize the bill that will regulate this new type of public housing.
In the media briefing, Vong noted that many lawmakers are very concerned about the procedure, especially the date when will the acquisition prices will be announced by the government.
“While addressing Article 14 of the bill concerning the public tender advertising, some lawmakers questioned why there is no reference to the price per square meter of the housing units, a matter that also related to Article 26 that we also addressed today,” the chairman said. Vong also noted that, following on the discussion that started at the plenary meeting for the first reading of the bill, the lawmakers want to know exactly how and when will the prices be published, a matter that is unclear in both the bill and in the government’s explanatory note to the AL which accompanied the bill’s introduction.
“The lawmakers are asking questions such as when is the price going to be turned public? Will it be via a dispatch from the Chief Executive? Will this be the same dispatch or at the same time that the tender is launched?”, Vong asked. The chairman reiterated that the matter is unclear, adding also that the majority of the lawmakers share the opinion that the selling price should be disclosed together with the tender opening and application procedures. This would prevent people who cannot afford to buy the units from wasting their time with futile applications.
In a related matter, the committee members are concerned with the factors to be used and weighted in the calculation of the final price.
“On number 2 of Article 26, it is said that the price weighing factor mostly depends on the price of private market units in the surrounding areas. This is very different from the rules applied for the affordable acquisition housing that follows completely different criteria,” Vong said. He noted that for the current types of public housing, when it comes to the economic acquisition, the cost of construction and the land premium are major factors taken into account in the definition of the selling price, something that seems not to be taken into account in this case.
“This seems to be a political decision and a choice by the government that lawmakers want to see clarified,” he remarked.
Housing for the younger generation?
Another of the many problems and questions raised by the committee concerns the government’s statement in the explanatory note that this type of housing is aimed mostly at the younger generation.
In this sense, the committee said it fails to understand how the government is giving preference or incentives for young people to acquire these housing units. “There seems not to be any particular factor that takes age into account, nor is there any incentive as occurs with other types of public housing where there is an exemption from stamp duty and other [measures],” Vong noted. Vong added that this is another topic on which the committee has many questions for the government.
“Maybe for this type of housing, the dispatch [from the Chief Executive that will launch the tenders] will state something similar to the [dispatches] for the applications for other types of public housing. [These] include number and composition of the household, time of permanence in Macau and other factors. But we don’t know exactly,” said the chairman. Vong predicted that it might also include some special criteria or markup for younger people. “In reality, at this moment, we don’t know!”
Weaker law comparedto other publichousing regimes
After the first scrutiny of the 54 articles that compose the bill, the members of the AL committee consider that this law seems to be “weaker” and less specific than the current laws on the other types of public housing.
“On economic housing, even after signing the pre-contract agreement, candidates can quit. There is a mechanism for the refund of the security deposit and also for the repayment of expenses related to the process, but with this [scheme], there is no such mechanism. We need to ask if the intention is to follow just the general rules of the civil code or if there are any other criteria,” Vong said.
With a long list of questions to put to the government, the committee chairman also explained that several problems have also been found by the AL’s juridical advisory regarding the application method for the tenders (exclusively online) and some inconsistencies between the draft legislation and the explanatory note which accompanied it.
The government is also yet to explain how the exclusive online submission process will operate. Lawmakers questioned whether this will be done via the Macao One Account system, or through a standalone platform like the one to be used for applications for the new talent recruitment scheme, or even the one to be used by the lawyers to submit court documents.
16 years is too long for the resale ban
The members of the committee appear to agree that the proposed ban on the resale of the units acquired under this scheme within 16 years is too long.
Lawmakers are calling on the government to introduce a less restrictive system since there are already other provisions to guarantee that such housing units stay in the possession of permanent residents of Macau.
The lawmakers also want to enforce a less “rigid” system that allows that in an extreme case, such as the death or severe disease or disability of the applicant, that the family can lift the ban before the 16 years in order to meet unexpected expenses.
Regarding the stipulation in Article 38 that the housing unit cannot be seized or pledged as security or for repayment of debts, lawmakers want to ask the government whether this rule applies in every situation, including cases in which the creditor is the government.
