Marx

According to the 1990 Census and Statistics Department Study, 62% of

households admitted into public rental housing had incomes over the limits fixed for those on

the waiting list. A quarter of these households had incomes exceeding two or three times the

waiting list income limit (Lau 1997, p.101). By the Marxian concept of justice, these well­off

households should not have been allocated public rental housing because they could satisfy

housing needs themselves. These well­off households were mainly those rehoused because of

government clearance or redevelopment projects. They were allocated public rental housing

without going through a means­test so as to facilitate the smooth operation of squatter

clearance, thereby freeing for economic development valuable land occupied by squatters

(Keung 1985, quoted by Lau 1997). According to Lau (1997), “[p]ublic housing allocation policy

[was] regarded as a tool to aid economic development”. The allocation of public rental housing

in Hong Kong was not purely based on the just motive (in the Marxian sense) of meeting the

need to house the poor.

The allocation of public rental housing to wait­list households was largely based on time spent

on the waiting list, that is, on a first­come­first­serve basis. This established a kind of procedural

justice, as stressed by Hayek, as opposed to justice in results. Marx stressed resultant

distribution according to need. In line with their conceptions of justice, there should be a point

systems measuring the degree of overcrowding, availability of amenities and general

environment, to assess the applicants’ degree of housing need. It would be more just to allocate

rental units to those with the greatest housing need first, regardless of how long they have been

on the waiting list. According to Marx, the allocation of public rental units by the government

based on the length of waiting time, rather than the degree of housing need, was not very just.

In this period, “once a prospective tent [was] allocated a public housing flat, lifelong tenure was

guaranteed. Even if, later on, the household’s income increase[d] and exceed[ed] the income

limits, the household [did] not have to fear eviction or pay higher rentals” (Li and Yu 1990,

p.110). This created an unjust housing subsidies for well­off public housing tenants, occupying

housing units which could be allocated to those more in need on the waiting list. This led to an

unjust situation in which the already well­off were subsidized in public housing rather than the

poor and needy living in inadequate private housing. This outcome contravened the just

principle of needs in the Marxian sense.

In addition, “the right of tenure [of public rental housing] was hereditary, even though the next

generation [could] be many times better off than the present one” (Hong Kong’s Housing

Authority 1984, p.1; quoted by Li and Yu 1990, p. 110). This hereditary right of tenure of public

rental housing prevented the housing units of deceased tenants being allocated to more need

households on the waiting list. This indirectly caused another form of injustice (in accordance

with Marx’s principle of justice).