From “Building More” to “Building Right”: A Comparative Look at Malaysia’s National Housing Policy and Hong Kong’s First Five-Year Plan

4 days ago

4 min read

16 October 2026

Introduction

2026 marks an important year for housing policy in two Asian places. In August 2026, Malaysia launched the National Housing Policy 2026–2035 (Dasar Rumah Negara, DRN), themed “People-Centred Housing,” with the goal of providing 1 million affordable homes by 2035. In September 2026, Hong Kong released its first Five-Year Plan (2026–2030) and simultaneously updated the Long Term Housing Strategy, explicitly adopting a “4:3:3” ratio—public rental housing accounting for 40%, subsidised sale flats for 30%, and private housing for 30%—for planning housing supply over the next decade. Although the two policies arise from different contexts, both confront the shared challenge of “how to enable more people to live securely and live well,” making them worthy of comparative examination.

Core of Malaysia’s Policy: Demand-Oriented Approach and Institutional Reconstruction

Malaysia’s policy encompasses six key focuses, 17 strategies and 59 action plans. The core shift is from “increasing quantity” to “precisely matching demand.” The government will use big data and AI to plan supply according to local income levels, demographic structures and actual needs; affordable housing prices will no longer be uniform nationwide. For example, Housing Minister Nga Kor Ming has noted that reasonable affordable prices in Kelantan and Kuala Lumpur are inherently different; in the Klang Valley area, the figure is around RM500,000 (approximately HK$960,000).

The policy also strengthens buyer protection: phased implementation of “build-then-sell” (targeting 30% by 2030 and 50% by 2035), with a goal of “zero abandoned projects” by 2030. As of August 2026, the government had revived 1,726 private housing projects involving nearly 200,000 units. On financing, the Housing Credit Guarantee Scheme (SJKP) had assisted more than 93,000 first-time buyers by mid-year, particularly those in the gig economy.

Hong Kong’s Five-Year Plan: Accelerating Supply and Optimising the Housing Ladder

Hong Kong’s first Five-Year Plan places solving the housing problem as a key priority for improving people’s livelihood, with the goal of basically resolving the problem of inadequate subdivided units in residential buildings by 2030. Over the next five years (2026–27 to 2030–31), public housing supply, including Light Public Housing, is targeted at approximately 196,000 units. The average waiting time for public rental housing has fallen from a peak of 6.1 years to 4.8 years, with targets of further reducing it to 4.5 years in 2026–27 and below 4 years by 2030–31.

Approximately 30,000 Light Public Housing units are expected to be completed by the end of March 2027, serving as transitional accommodation to allow families waiting for public rental housing to improve their living conditions earlier. In terms of the long-term supply structure, the next decade is based on “public rental housing accounting for 40%, subsidised sale flats for 30%, and private housing for 30%,” meaning home ownership will account for 60%. The government has also shortened the resale restriction period for subsidised sale flats (from 15 years to 10 years) and intensified efforts against abuse of public rental housing (having recovered around 10,000 units).

Main Comparisons Between the Two Policies

	Malaysia (2026–2035)	Hong Kong (Five-Year Plan 2026–2030)
Core approach	Shift from quantity to “building the right homes,” emphasising data-driven matching of actual demand.	Supply-led approach, substantially accelerating and increasing public housing supply while optimising the home-ownership ladder.
Supply targets	1 million affordable homes by 2035.	Of the total housing supply target of about 420,000 units over the next 10 years, public housing supply target is 294,000 units and private housing supply target is 126,000 units.
Definition of affordability	Dynamically adjusted according to local income levels; no longer one-size-fits-all.	Measured by public rental housing waiting times and opportunities for subsidised sale flats; emphasises ladder mobility.
Transitional measures	Rent-to-own, shared ownership, SJKP guarantees.	Light Public Housing (transitional), elimination of inadequate subdivided units.
Buyer / tenant protection	Phased build-then-sell, new tenancy legislation, strengthened stratified management.	Combating public rental housing abuse, optimising resale restrictions, Simple Basic Housing system.
Main challenges	Cost pressures on developers, risks of transitioning to build-then-sell, inter-governmental coordination.	Pace of land supply, public rental housing waiting times still require time, enforcement of subdivided unit elimination.

Malaysia places greater emphasis on “market and institutional reconstruction”—using data to reduce mismatch and employing legal and financing tools to expand choices. Hong Kong, by contrast, stresses “government-led acceleration of supply”—directly addressing the urgent housing needs of grassroots households through clear public housing quantity and waiting-time targets, while encouraging upward mobility through ladder design.

Shared Challenges and Differing Insights

Both places face the problem that “increasing supply does not automatically equal meeting demand.” Malaysia still has more than 33,000 completed but unsold residential units (first half of 2026). Although Hong Kong’s public rental housing waiting time has declined, private housing affordability and the subdivided unit problem still require time to resolve. Malaysia’s experience reminds Hong Kong that even if supply accelerates, mismatch in location, supporting facilities and actual payment capacity can still lead to unsold units. Hong Kong’s experience shows that clear quantity targets and transitional housing (such as Light Public Housing) can more quickly alleviate the pressing needs of grassroots households.

In addition, both places are attempting to make “living” options more flexible—Malaysia emphasises the rental market and diversified financing, while Hong Kong strengthens subsidised sale flats and ladder mobility. This reflects a common trend: relying solely on “everyone buying a home” can no longer fully solve the problem; a more complete residential safety net is needed.

Conclusion

The value of Malaysia’s policy lies in honestly confronting “mismatch” rather than mere “shortage,” and attempting to correct it through data and institutions. The value of Hong Kong’s Five-Year Plan lies in responding to long-accumulated grassroots housing needs with clear supply pacing and waiting-time targets. The two approaches are not mutually exclusive; rather, they can usefully inform each other. If Malaysia can draw on Hong Kong’s transitional housing thinking, it may more quickly ease existing unsold stock and waiting pressures. If Hong Kong, while accelerating supply, can more systematically introduce localised demand assessment and diversified living options, it may further enhance living quality and sustainability. For citizens in both places, these policies are not merely government documents but important windows for observing “how to make housing truly serve people.” The effectiveness of implementation in the coming years will matter more than the blueprints themselves.