“A Second Home in Name Only”: Hong Kong’s Subdivided Flats Crisis Exposed by Community Living Rooms

The Hong Kong government’s Community Living Room programme has been touted as a solution to the crisis of subdivided flats, but it may be merely a Band-Aid solution. These tiny dwellings, typically ranging from 50 to 100 square feet in size, are created by dividing existing flats into multiple units and often lack basic amenities.

The Community Living Room programme aims to provide residents with additional living space and opportunities to socialize with their neighbors. However, it does little to address the underlying issues driving this crisis. For example, Lily Chi and her family live in a subdivided flat nearby, struggling to make ends meet due to limited hot water supplies and cramped conditions.

The Community Living Rooms offer essential facilities such as kitchens, bathrooms, and laundry rooms, but they also reinforce the idea that a decent home is optional or supplementary to one’s primary dwelling. Casniti, an Indonesian resident who has lived in Hong Kong for 11 years, notes: “Before, I felt very lonely. So I was happy when my friend asked me to come here and introduced me to this place.”

The Community Living Rooms reflect the values of convenience, efficiency, and cost-effectiveness that prioritize specific needs over challenging the status quo. By providing amenities such as halal kitchens and play areas for children, these community centres cater to specific needs but do little to address the root causes of subdivided flats.

Funding is also a concern – or rather, the lack thereof. The DBS Foundation has committed a significant sum to help fund charitable programmes across Hong Kong, but it’s unclear how much of this money is being spent on addressing the root causes of subdivided flats.

Sebastian Paredes, CEO of DBS Bank (Hong Kong) and DBS’ head of North Asia, notes: “Through DBS Foundation, we are committed to supporting the community and fostering inclusion.” However, whose community is being supported here? Whose needs are being met?

The true test of this programme lies not in its ability to provide temporary respite from subdivided living but in its capacity to challenge the status quo. Can we do better than creating separate spaces for people to live? Must we perpetuate a system that prioritizes convenience over basic human rights?

The answer is complicated, as always in Hong Kong’s complex web of social and economic issues. But one thing’s clear: until we address the root causes of this crisis, our efforts will be nothing more than a Band-Aid solution – a “second home” in name only.

We must hold the Community Living Room programme up to scrutiny and demand answers about what it says about our values as a society, our priorities, our commitments, and our capacity for change. The future is uncertain, but one thing’s clear: we can – and must – do better than this.