This paper is a brief reflection based on the views exchanged from various stakeholders including the Housing Authority and offers an analysis by the PRI Housing Policy Concern Group on the subject matter.

Members of PRI's Housing Policy Concern Group agree in principle the need to reform the production processes and procedures of the public housing sector. The 40 recommendations are reasonable and are found to be acceptable to most of the stakeholders. These suggestions are seen as the means to deal with an emergency situation in order to achieve effective bleeding-control. They are therefore seen as a measure of crisis management and not a comprehensive reform. It is also conspicuous that there has been a lack of a strong statement from the Housing Department to pledge its support for reform. The consultative document, which lacks an implementation plan to give priorities and time schedule, is not convincing as a call for support from society. (This is greatly improved by the issuance of an implementation plan on 13 April.)

• Firstly, it has now entered into a period of peak production and the volume is likely to be even higher in the next year.
• Secondly, it has to ensure the construction of the existing 394 blocks to go on without delay at the time when crisis has already occurred and fundamental reform cannot wait any longer.
• Thirdly, it has to manage political pressures from the Legislative Council and the community after the loss of public confidence.
• Fourthly, HA's relationship with the stakeholders in the construction industry has been damaged. These stakeholders commonly conceive that partnering is the right direction. Nevertheless, they feel that the general atmosphere is not conducive to genuine and effective partnering. Once problems have been highlighted, tension and mutual distrust (rather than partnership) between the HD and the stakeholders have been built up. Moreover the stakeholders think that the Housing Department has put most of the blame on the industry and the established practices without admitting that the problems have resulted from the system failure vested with the bureaucracy.

During our meeting, Ms Rosanna Wong and her HD colleagues admitted that the problems partly vest with the Housing Department, which is too big, too bureaucratic, too rigid with too many layers of procedures and lack of clear sense of responsibility. A few paragraphs have been mentioned in the consultative document relating to Departmental Reform,they have not, however, addressed the crux of the problems, that is the size of the bureaucracy and the system mal-functioning resulted from it. Without addressing the contents of a system reform, HA will not be able to fully convince both the general public and the stakeholders the prospect of having a successful partnering.

PRI appreciates that HA is confronted with a sizable and complicated task. We should also praise the courage of the HA and its HD colleagues to tackle such a complex reform. We are glad to see that an implementation plan comprising of 50 recommendations has been drafted and presented for approval in the Housing Authority on 13 April. It shows that HA has a determination to put reform into action. PRI wishes HA success and hopes that full cooperation from various stakeholders and society as a whole will be achieved.

Having reviewed all the plans for reform and implementation, PRI still feels the need to raise a few questions: (i) Is such a complicated task too big for the Housing Authority to manage. (ii) Are more changes necessary beyond the 40 recommendations and the 50 implementation plans. (iii) Does such a big operation need more fundamental change, i.e. change at the policy level.

Many people criticize the Housing Authority as too big and over-extending beyond the original concept of providing assisted housing. The Housing Authority has recognized the problem and initiated in a few occasions in the past to generate public discussions on its own roles and functions. After all, it has been taking up multiple functions, including policy formulation, planning, development, financial incentives and subsidies and service procurement as required by statute. The question is whether it is effective for the Housing Authority to comment on its own roles, while continuing to be responsible for fulfilling the functions delegated by the Housing Bureau and taking up all the load to produce low-cost housing. We consider that policy change is necessary. It is important that the Housing Bureau should undergo a critical review regarding the housing policy, the functions, the workload and the structure of the Housing Authority and its implementation arms. It should consider initiating a strategy of policy change, which will ultimately reduce the roles and functions of the Housing Authority and propose a framework, which encourages greater private sector participation in the provision of public sector housing.