01 point of view
Written by: Review Editor Room
2020-06-08 17:30
Date of last update: 2020-06-08 17:31The epidemic has hit the economy of Hong Kong. In recent months, society has advocated the government to set up unemployment assistance funds for the relief of the people. However, the Hong Kong Government has always refused and applied the unemployed citizens to relax the threshold for CSSA. The effect has been widely questioned. The Secretary for Labour and Welfare, Luo Zhiguang, wrote a blog this weekend to compare the unemployment assistance systems of the United Kingdom and Hong Kong to demonstrate that Hong Kong's current practice of providing unemployment protection with CSSA is actually not bad. However, the systems of the two places are quite different, and it is really difficult to compare in essence. Not to mention that it is "proof" that our system is better.
Luo Zhiguang believes that Hong Kong provided an effective system of unemployment assistance early in the morning, such as the public assistance program established in 1971 (that is, the current comprehensive social security assistance program), which was designed to include the lack of income due to unemployment The family provided assistance, and later added "severance payment" in the "Employment Ordinance" in 1974, and then joined the "long service payment" in 1986.
Is unemployment protection the same as CSSA?
Luo Zhiguang then compared the above unemployment assistance and security systems with the British approach. Regarding unemployment assistance, Luo Zhiguang believes that the unemployment allowance provided by the CSSA system in Hong Kong is not only higher in amount than that of the United Kingdom, but also looser in terms of assets and income ceilings. For example, to receive unemployment benefits (Jobseeker Allowance), British employees must first contribute more than two years to National Insurance, which is also contributed by the employee’s employer, in order to receive an average monthly unemployment assistance of approximately HK$3,142, otherwise They must face certain income and asset thresholds; the period for receiving the allowance is only six months, and the recipient must meet certain requirements, such as promising to find a job. In contrast, Hong Kong does not have a similar unemployment insurance system that requires contributions. Under the government’s wholly-owned CSSA system, the standard monthly amount of single persons in need is $2,615, plus rent allowances and other allowances. It is up to $5,000, and the CSSA system takes into account the total needs of the family. If calculated as a four-person family, the average level of CSSA in Hong Kong can reach $16,000. Therefore, Luo Zhiguang believes that the unemployment benefits in Hong Kong are higher than those in the United Kingdom.
Luo Zhiguang emphasized that the current unemployment benefits in Hong Kong are higher than those in the United Kingdom. (Information picture/photograph by Ou Jiale)
But in essence, the original intention of the CSSA system in Hong Kong is to provide safety nets to individuals or families in need, so that their income can reach a certain level to meet the basic needs of life. The CSSA’s subsidy goal has always been "self-help", such as people with low income, 年老 and the disabled who are in desperate need of assistance, and the unemployed also fit the scope of the above assistance, which is naturally and purely unemployed. People provide moderate allowances to help them re-enter the job market as soon as the unemployment assistance is different, which also teaches that the comparison of the amount of benefits becomes meaningless. For example, if Luo Zhiguang wants to prove how "generous" the CSSA is in the Hong Kong Government, it should be compared with the UK-like safety net system, such as the "Universal Credit" that takes care of the needs of people in need as the basis.
Even if we take a step back and say that although we regard CSSA as unemployment assistance, it is unlikely that the unemployment benefits of the United Kingdom will be inferior. After all, as long as there are citizens who have contributed to the national insurance for two years, they can basically apply for unemployment assistance once they are unemployed, and there is no asset requirement involved. It can be seen that the design of unemployment assistance is not only aimed at caring for the needs of the unemployed, but also to make more Unemployed people in need are easy to apply. In contrast, CSSA, even if the government relaxes the asset limit for sound individuals to apply for CSSA, the application threshold is still quite high (for example, the asset limit for single and healthy adults is not more than 66,000 yuan). In other words, CSSA is only for low-income people. Unemployed people provide subsidies, and it is self-evident how high the unemployment benefits provided by the Hong Kong Government. In addition, those who applied for unemployment assistance in the UK can also apply for other benefits (such as housing allowance) as needed, and the amount of unemployment assistance alone may not be accurate.
Even more tragic, Luo Zhiguang even questioned the discussion style of unemployment assistance in the two places, pointing out that although the unemployment benefits in Hong Kong are high and loose, the parliament only criticized the level of CSSA and the restrictions on assets and income. Inferior to Hong Kong, the local council mainly discusses whether the penalties for receiving unemployment benefits for not keeping promises are too lax. Even if we don’t say whether Hong Kong’s welfare is better than that of the UK, the UK’s economy has been in a downturn in the past decade, but the government has advocated the continuous reduction of welfare. This practice has been controversial, and Luo Zhiguang used this to argue that Hong Kong’s voice for improving welfare is unreasonable. It's wrong, not to mention that the Hong Kong government is sitting on trillions of reserves, and the government has no reason to stand still.
How can one forget the MPF hedge?
In addition, Luo Zhiguang also believes that the employment and unemployment protection in Hong Kong is better than that of the United Kingdom. Even if the latter has the same severance payment (but there is no long-term service payment), its calculation will be divided into three levels according to age. One year’s seniority can get half a week’s wages for severance, 22 to 40 years old can get one week’s wages, and 41 years old or above can get 1.5 weeks’ wages, so we think that Hong Kong can get 2/3 months for every year of seniority The better wage arrangement also proves that the employers in Hong Kong have a higher commitment, so the employment and unemployment protection functions generated by the local severance payment/long service payment are therefore higher.
But did Luo Zhiguang forget the existence of an MPF hedging mechanism? Under current arrangements, employers must use their contributions to employees to offset long-term service payments or residual expenses. If MPF is one of the important pillars of the retirement protection of Hong Kong people, the severance payment or long service payment for wage earners once they are unemployed is nothing more than the early withdrawal of pensions. From this point of view, employers have no responsibility for employee unemployment. What's more, the Legislative Council passed the government's cancellation of the MPF hedging program is still far away, and it can be seen that this gap will only continue to exist in the future.
It is true that the establishment of a healthy and sustainable unemployment protection system requires "depressing hands" from employers and employees and increasing the contribution burden of both. But for the benefit of wage earners, it is necessary to establish a perfect unemployment protection system. It is really necessary for the government to carry out research as soon as possible and engage in discussions in society. Luo Zhiguang wanted to use the British example to prove that Hong Kong does not need to improve the unemployment protection system.
01 depth
Unemployment rate Luo Zhiguang Labor and Welfare Bureau 01 views