【明報專訊】THE LONG-TERM REHOUSING CHALLENGE at Wang Fuk Court in Tai Po is knotty for a simple reason: no home can be conjured up that matches, square foot for square foot, year for year and dollar for dollar, what was lost. At best, there can only be an approximation. Compromise, not perfection, is the only route to consensus. That calls for empathy on both sides—government for the victims, and victims for the wider public.
In a recent questionnaire circulated to Wang Fuk Court residents, the government sketched out three broad options. First, a public buy-back of ownership: $6,000 per saleable square foot for flats with premiums unpaid, $8,000 for those with premiums settled. Second, a ''flat-for-flat'' swap—new units of comparable value under the Home Ownership Scheme (HOS) or the Green Form Subsidised Home Ownership Scheme (GSH) in any district. Third, rebuilding HOS flats within Tai Po, on one of three sites: a cleared Public Rental Housing (PRH) site at Chung Nga Road West, land at Kwong Fuk Park, or an in-situ redevelopment of the original Wang Fuk Court site.
Residents' demands vary wildly, and rehousing solutions must therefore be flexible. But different options come with wildly different price tags. The government must weigh the wishes of the affected households against the cost to the public purse.
The ''Support Fund for Wang Fuk Court in Tai Po'' totals around $4.3 billion. After deducting $1.2 billion in immediate relief, including two years of rental subsidies, and setting aside reserves for other possible aid, just over $2 billion remains. Add up to $2 billion more in insurance payouts, and the deployable sum tops out at $4 billion—still well short of the $6 billion needed for buyouts. Other rebuilding schemes, too, carry fiscal and social costs that cannot be underestimated.
Some owners argue that lax government supervision was one of the sparks that turned Wang Fuk Court into an inferno. The government, they argue, should ''wade in'' to help rebuild. Yet when taxpayers foot the bill, public opinion becomes part of the equation.
Earlier, some Wang Fuk Court residents took part in an online petition calling for in-situ redevelopment. Although the questionnaire clearly states that redevelopment would take nine to ten years, merely listing the option has inevitably raised expectations. If the government believes on-site rebuilding is unwise, it should have said so from the outset.
Some owners fear the buyout offer would not stretch far enough to purchase a similar-sized flat in the same area. A flat-for-flat swap may send them far from home, with no guarantees on size, surroundings or views. Rebuilding on site looks, on paper, the safest bet—but a decade of rent subsidies would test taxpayers' patience. Even if rebuilt, a ''new Wang Fuk Court'' would inevitably be worth more than a 40-year-old HOS block, placing mortgages beyond the reach of older owners.
Another suggestion, allowing victims to move into PRH flats while receiving a cash top-up, runs into snags of its own: the compensation might push assets beyond eligibility limits, while waiving means tests would invite accusations of double standards.
No rehousing plan can ever offer true ''like-for-like'' compensation. Even an ''approximate equivalent'' defies any precise formula that could command universal agreement. Only by returning to first principles and acting with empathy can all sides arrive at a solution that is both fair and reasonable. The government must acknowledge the trauma of those who lost their homes and help them rebuild their lives, and victims, in turn, must recognise public concern over the use of public money. That balance between compassion and credibility is the key to a long-term solution that both victims and society can live with.
明報社評 2026.01.13：政府要體諒災民心情 災民要理解公眾看法
大埔宏福苑長遠安置問題複雜，在於不可能為災民提供一個無論面積、樓齡及價值都跟大火前一模一樣的單位，只能取其「近似值」，各方須妥協，才能達成共識。為此政府需要體諒災民，災民亦要體諒公眾。
政府日前向宏福苑居民派發問卷，提及的長遠安置方案包括：由政府出錢收購業權，未補價單位實用呎價6000元，已補價單位8000元；以「樓換樓」方式，換取另一價格相若而不限地區的全新居屋或綠置居單位；第三個方向是原區興建居屋，3個選址分別是頌雅路西公屋「熟地」、廣福公園地皮，以及宏福苑原址重建。
宏福苑居民訴求人人不同，安置方案應力求多元，惟不同方案成本不一，政府需要顧及災民想法，亦要考慮開支成本。
大埔宏福苑援助基金總額約43億元，減去已動用的12億元援助（包括為期兩年的租金補助），及預留資金（其他可能援助項目），基金剩餘20多億元，加上屋苑財產保險賠款最多20億元，能動用資金約40億元，惟收購業權就要近60億元。其他重建方案，財政成本及社會成本，同樣不能低估。
有業主指出，宏福苑大火，政府監管不到位是慘劇發生原因之一。災後重建，政府確有責任「落水」，可是安置方案涉及公帑，政府亦須顧及社會大眾看法。
早前有宏福苑居民參與網上聯署，希望原址重建。政府問卷雖已註明屋苑重建需要9至10年，但這一選項，難免提高了部分災民對原址重建的期望。如果政府認為原址重建不好，應一早明言。
有宏福苑業主關注，業權回購所得款項，不足以在區內買回呎數相若單位，「樓換樓」則可能要遷往他區，單位面積、社區環境及景觀坐向亦無保證，原址重建，理論上「最可靠」，但要政府補貼災民租金10年，社會大眾未必接受。另外，就算原址重建，「新宏福苑」的價值，一定高於40年樓齡的舊居屋，長者承做按揭恐有困難。
有提議讓災戶選擇入住公屋並領取差價補償，但領取補償後，其資產未必符合入住公屋資格；豁免資產審查，又會引發雙重標準一類爭議。
沒有任何安置方案，可以完全「等價補償」，跟原來一模一樣；即使「近似值」亦難有各方認同的精密方程式。回歸初心，各方本着同理心，才能尋求合情合理的解決方案，政府需要體諒災民心情，協助他們重建家園，災民亦要了解公眾對公帑運用的關注。這對於災民及社會大眾都能接受的長遠安置方案，尤其重要。
■/ Glossary 生字 /
conjure up：to make sth appear as a picture in your mind
wade in：to enter a fight, a discussion or an argument in an aggressive or not very sensitive way
snag：a problem or difficulty, especially one that is small, hidden or unexpected
發表評論