Who Suffers Most from Lai Qingde's Cancellation of 100,000 Social Housing Units? Civil Groups Expose the Truth Behind 'Broken Promises': Destroying Tsai Ing-wen's System and Dragging Local Governments Down

President Lai Qingde proposed a major social housing (SH) policy during the 2024 presidential election, pledging to add 130,000 units on top of the Tsai administration’s '200,000 units in eight years' (including direct construction, rental management, and rent subsidies). However, by early 2026, the policy had shifted dramatically, with direct SH construction adjusted to only 30,000–40,000 units, raising accusations of broken promises.

In response, civil groups including the Social Housing Promotion Alliance and OURs Urban Reform Organization held a joint press conference on the 7th, condemning the Lai administration for setting a dangerous democratic precedent—declaring campaign pledges invalid before even starting implementation. They criticized Taiwan for becoming the latest democracy to launch social housing, yet the first to abandon it within such a short timeframe, stating, 'This failure lies solely at the feet of President Lai.' The groups emphasized that this move not only damages the social housing system but also sacrifices the rights of vulnerable groups, youth, and families planning marriage or child-rearing.

### Has the Lai Administration Broken Its Social Housing Promise? What Are the Civil Groups Demanding?

The Social Housing Promotion Alliance and OURs, among others, stated they had repeatedly petitioned and protested the Lai administration through various channels, only to receive the response: 'We simply won’t build them.' As a result, they are making two key demands:

- Demand the Lai administration convene a 'National Housing Policy Conference' - Urge mayoral candidates in the six major cities to commit to continuing SH construction

### How Many Units Has the Lai Administration Cut? Was the Policy Abandoned Before It Even Started?

In their press release, civil groups detailed how the Executive Yuan revised the 'One Million Renting Households Support Plan' in July, slashing the direct SH construction target by 77% to approximately 30,000 units. They noted that the original 130,000-unit pledge, first rejected in the January 2025 draft plan, has already been delayed for over two years. Of the remaining 30,000 units, 25,000 are continuations of projects planned during the Tsai administration, meaning the Lai administration will only add fewer than 1,000 units annually starting from 2028. Moreover, even the 30,000-unit figure relies on 'complementary' counts from rent subsidies and rental management programs, making this a historic democratic failure and institutional dismantling.

The press release highlighted that the Tsai administration established a 'non-self-financing subsidy' system that enabled the six major cities to build social housing. However, the new plan cuts off central funding, meaning local governments receive zero subsidies for new projects.

### Does the New SH Plan Force Local Governments to Share the Burden? Is SH Construction Too Expensive?

The release further criticized that, except for Taipei City, the other five metropolitan cities are considered 'already met targets,' allowing the central government to design a perfect escape route: 'everyone lies flat together.' If local governments insist on building, they must fully self-fund. 'The blame for failing to deliver 130,000 units will be collectively borne.'

In response to the Interior Ministry’s claim that suitable public land is dwindling, civil groups questioned this reversal. They pointed out that the Executive Yuan had previously passed the 'Measures to Enhance Social Housing Land Supply,' requiring local governments to reserve land, only to later claim 'no suitable land available'—a self-contradictory performance.

Furthermore, the new plan relies on 'numerical games,' allowing shortfalls to be offset by rent subsidies and rental management. While direct construction requires higher initial investment, it creates permanent public assets benefiting future generations. In contrast, subsidies have clear limits and expire, leaving nothing behind. 'Spending more and leaving less' is the true nature of the Lai administration’s so-called 'better alternative,' the groups argued.

### What Are the Impacts of Losing 100,000 SH Units? Is the Reduction Driven by Electoral Calculations?

Civil groups warned that cutting 100,000 SH units devastates vulnerable households—people with disabilities, elderly living alone, single parents—who face rental discrimination. No amount of subsidies can replace the accessibility features and guaranteed inclusion that social housing provides. 'Without SH, these people have no options at all.'

With soaring housing prices, renting is the only option for most youth. Yet, shortly after the Youth Basic Act—mandating housing justice—passed, the government slashed SH construction, abandoning a key tool for implementation. Even with the 'Youth Marriage and Child-Rearing Rental Assistance Program' introduced to address the demographic crisis, without increasing SH units, it remains an empty promise.

The press release summarized four excuses the government uses to justify SH reductions:

- Insufficient capacity - Lack of land - Excessive fiscal burden - Alternative tools provide equal care

The groups dismissed all as baseless. The real logic behind the new plan, they argued, is short-term electoral calculation. Building a single SH unit takes at least four years from planning to completion—too late for the next election. In contrast, subsidies can be disbursed immediately, 'giving hundreds of thousands tangible benefits right away.' This logic—maximizing votes through short-term subsidies—has dictated the Lai administration’s policy. They choose to keep the subsidy benefits for themselves while passing the costs to the next administration, brutally dismantling the SH system built by the Tsai administration. The focus has shifted from solving housing issues and investing in infrastructure to chasing votes and distributing cash. Responsibility to the next generation has been replaced by responsibility to the next election. 'Short-sighted vote calculations have overridden long-term policy investment—that is the true reason the social housing policy has been destroyed.'