屋有所值

不论是过去或现在,各式各样的廉价屋都在兴建中。可惜的是,多数的单位情况不堪理想,其居住环境和情况,可说只是比外劳营 “好一点点”。试问,在这种卫生差劲、基设破坏不堪的情况下,要孩子们如何有一个良好的成长环境?

虽然我不是掌管房屋的行政长官,不过我却透过多次工作访问,亲自上门及目睹许多廉价屋或中廉价屋(统称平民屋)的惨状,以研究该如何协助住在那里的居民。

从2009年杪起,槟城政府透过州财政预算,年拨1千万,维修州内所有政府平民屋。我们从核心建设开始,先逐步把组屋的代步工具电梯修好。对于私人发展的组屋,则以政府80对居民20的比例拨款维修电梯。

有人问,这些因没还管理费而让电梯闹罢工的组屋,为什么政府还要花人民的血汗钱去协助?其实,我们的政策是“只此一次”,电梯若再损坏,管理机构需自行负责了。

除了电梯,另一重要部分是水槽。水槽生锈、漏水,会直接影响居民的健康,州政府就拨款替换。

至于“仅供眼看”的外部粉刷,基于并不是维修政府组屋的核心,因此政府就建议以政府对居民80:20的比例承担重漆费用。

无可否认,平民屋今天面对棘手问题,除了居民心态,并不代表政府可以坐视不理。目前属于政府的平民组屋,共欠下472万维修费。只希望州政府在教育和“出手相助”改善基设后,居民醒悟偿还管理费的重要性。

目前情况最可怜莫过于私人发展商建的平民屋了。放眼望去,当前发展商兴建平民屋,都是抱着得过且过,表面“应酬”政府条规的心态,随便弄一个四四方方的结构来交代,根本不去理会到底这是否是理想的居住环境;有者甚至在建构的时候,整个设计就是不鼓励良好管理的模式,这个所谓的“居者有其屋”口号,原来那么敷衍了事。

槟城地价超贵,往往一间平民屋,单是承建价就远超售价的两倍(不包括地价),加上发展商为了符合经济效益,只建少部分未达理想基设的平民屋。这样的平民屋,真的“屋”有所值吗?

我们的问题是,缺乏一个具权威的机构来监管,尽管槟城政府在州立法议会上通过成立房屋局来处理州内的房屋问题及负责承建平民屋,具备了法律上的地位。联邦政府虽口头赞成,但却以州房屋局的成立会冻结聘用新进公务员,”过不了公务员那关”来拒绝了我们。

接下来我的任务,是会见政府首席秘书丹斯里西迪,说服他以槟城人民利益为先,批准这个房屋局的成立。

平民屋是新手政府的烫手山芋,长时间累积下来的种种问题,像一个死结,缠着州政府,连之前有份打结的人,现在也矛头指向我们。唯一可做的,就是不放弃,再尝试把这个死结解开,还人民一个有尊严的平民屋,让住者真正感觉“屋有所值”。

Advertisements
Post a comment or leave a trackback: Trackback URL.

Comments

  • cheryl  On October 22, 2011 at 9:27 am

    I totally agree that affordable and low cost housing need a lot attention. As a graduate architect, I feel terrible for not able to do anything to convince developer to build proper design for the low cost houses. Anyway, it is not persuasive enough because what they really care is the profit rather than end users. I really hope government can do something on it as well as to create the awareness among citizens to be more demanding on their living condition.

  • rachenko  On October 23, 2011 at 4:50 am

    Segregation between the poor and those who are financially comfortable may not have been created purposefully. It may have emerged from the result of economic “push” factors concentrated in city centres. However, it is because of this perception that creates the demand of high income investors in the city centres, zoning CBDs as high end areas reachable only to the elite group of minorities, pushing those who couldnt afford it to the outer edge. One may argue that it is only the way of life, and only in this way could the economy be profitable and that it may grow. But it is equally a crude shove over created by these minorities simply because they can, without any concern to what is good to the rest of the people. Simply because it is just easier for them to ignore the impending social responsibilities that they actually carry as a developer.

    In addition to that, they simply do not realise the unseen factors regarding purchasers of this newly built properties. Due to the high demand, large quantities of these properties are produced. Since only a minority group of elites could afford these properties, the situation only allows foreign invasion into our soil, potentially giving them a strategic standpoint in gaining a foothold in our economy. In the long run, have they actually calculated the result of this scenario? Would the temporary profit of selling or even loaning of these property able to justify their future economic standpoint?

    Yes, it is true one of the main driving force of economy are generated by developers with economic viability and efficiency in mind, and that everything works in an open market basis. However, what is the difference then are developers to a normal business man then? Aren’t developers suppose to account for all the relevant factors in building a community such as cultural relevance, social tie other than the “main” factor of making a profit out of it? Maybe we should regulate the stature of being a “developer”, that having a significant capital may not necessarily grant one to be a certified developer. True there may already have such measure, but apparently and unfortunately it does not seem to be the case. Our land are still being hacked for profit.

    Therefore to my opinion, this debacle needs a concerted effort from policy makers and those executing them. Withholding my position as a fresh graduate architect, i see a possibility of a concerted effort among architects, planners, and designers in convincing developers and government alike to plan and design communities with the proper balanced considerations of social needs, and a bigger and farther vision of economic standpoint, since developers are not handling it well.

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s

%d bloggers like this: