The current government has achieved certain achievements in social welfare policies, including the introduction of the high-value "longevity allowance" in 2018, the expansion of the applicable age range and types of means of transport for the "binary preferential scheme" this year, and the implementation of the bill to cancel the "hedging" of MPF funds at the beginning of the month. , and the Social Welfare Department has also announced that it will start to merge ordinary and high-level "longevity allowances" in September this year. However, in general, many measures are "icing on the cake", and a thorough reform is still lacking.
Law Chi-kwong, the outgoing Secretary for Labour and Welfare, published his last blog post, describing the current government as officially launching the "third wave of increases in social welfare spending in Hong Kong", because the current government's Social Welfare Department's expenditure is as high as 57.2%, which belongs to the "third wave of social welfare expenditure in Hong Kong". the highest ever,” and the main increase was social security spending.
At the same time, he also believes that the concept of the "surplus social welfare model" should not be used to understand the social welfare system in Hong Kong, and pointed out that in recent years, projects such as "fruit money" and "longevity Jin" are not this model.
The Legislative Council held a meeting, and Law Chi-kwong, Secretary for Labour and Welfare, accepted an oral question.
(Photo by Liang Pengwei)
The achievements of the current government should not be exaggerated
It should be pointed out that Law Chi-kwong's blog quoted the budget accounts of the Social Welfare Department this year, not the actual expenditures of the SAR Government and other public organizations on the entire social welfare area.
If we look at the total public expenditure of the Hong Kong government over the years since the handover, and do not double-count the fiscal situation in the year of the election, we can find that the social welfare expenditure of the first four governments increased by 38.8%, 5.4%, 24.3% and 48.5%, but the current government has increased by 38.8%, 5.4%, 24.3% and 48.5%. According to the revised estimate for 2021/22, the figure is only 47.8%, which is not the “highest ever” at all.
As for Law's attempt to use his own experience to prove that in the past 30 years, the academic community has not used the concept of "remaining social welfare model" to comment on Hong Kong policy, it seems to be contrary to the facts.
In his book "Financing Welfare State Systems in Asia" published last year, former CityU associate professor Chen Guokang directly wrote, "Although social welfare programs have expanded considerably since the 1970s, recent policy changes can be seen as a return to residualism and personal Evidence of self-management of risks”, it can be seen that Luo Zhiguang’s statement is more like the performance of leaving the academic world after moving into the government.
However, Law Chi-kwong's blog is quite right in saying that Hong Kong's social welfare services "are still only catching up, and there is still a long way to go with the needs of society."
It remains to be seen whether he and the current government can truly build the foundation they claim, but the new government does need to continue to work hard to improve social welfare policies and expand the responsibility of the authorities, and can no longer be satisfied with following the "residual social welfare model" " policy measures.
Limited progress in social welfare since the handover
In the 25 years since the handover, the disparity between the rich and the poor in Hong Kong has become more and more serious.
The Gini coefficients before and after tax deduction and welfare transfer in 2001 were 0.525 and 0.470, respectively, and the figures in 2016 were 0.539 and 0.473, both of which showed significant increases; although the latest figures for the 2021 census have not yet been released, it is estimated that Continuing the same uptrend.
In any case, since the Gini coefficient has not decreased but increased after the welfare transfer, it undoubtedly shows that the government has not done enough in social welfare.
The best example of the lack of progress in social welfare policies is the dispute over national surrender.
In the early years of the reunification, there have been sporadic voices trying to obtain universal retirement. Later, with the negative growth of the MPF and the intensified aging of the population, the relevant demands have become more intense.
The previous government conducted a public consultation on this, and the general public agreed with the uncensored "regardless of rich and poor" plan. However, the authorities pre-set their stance toward the "economically needy" plan. In addition, Law has been promoting self-purchasing "annuities", making the official Universal retirement has never been possible until now.
Zhou Yongxin accepted an exclusive interview with "Hong Kong 01".
(Photo by Li Zetong)
Furthermore, as pointed out by Emeritus Professor Zhou Yongxin of the University of Hong Kong, the huge increase in social welfare expenditure of the Hong Kong government in recent years is purely a "numerical illusion". Bury future financial worries.
In the long run, officials in charge must abandon the old-fashioned beliefs of the past, and cannot stick to the fiscal discipline of "living within their means". They need to consider drastic levying of new taxes to support the government in strengthening social security for the citizens.
In the final analysis, the results of any policy, including social welfare, should be measured by the efficacy that society actually feels, rather than officials who are self-satisfied by stacking up a bunch of numbers or personal understanding.
Especially if the government consumes more expenditures, but the public does not benefit more, it must mean that the past practices are flawed and should be changed as soon as possible, instead of only knowing how to stay in place and make small repairs on the old flawed foundation.
Quarantine sick leave is only available after the epidemic, why is the policy always "late"?
Budget | Deficits Turned into Surpluses
