Both lawmakers and government should reflect on welfare feud
- The raising of the minimum age for elderly social security payments was not unjustified at a time when Hong Kong people are living longer, but the finger-pointing that followed was
It is no secret that Chief Executive Carrie Lam Cheng Yuet-ngor does not always see eye to eye with pro-government lawmakers on everything. But there is every reason for both sides to stop pointing fingers over the elderly welfare adjustment saga and risk the dispute snowballing further into a full-scale war that jeopardises governance. As in other ageing societies, it is not unjustified for the Hong Kong government to raise the age limit for elderly Comprehensive Social Security Assistance (CSSA) to 65. In any case, existing recipients will not be affected when the change takes effect next month. Adult CSSA will still be available for those aged up to 64, albeit with the payment one-third lower. But with the public coffers flooded with so much money, the change is a hard sell. The cross-party opposition against the change makes it even harder to implement. That is why Lam was forced to announce a new cash allowance and other measures to smooth resistance.
Elderly to get new welfare payment after Lam admits ‘room for improvement’
Given the sensitivity of the matter, officials should have come up with a well thought out strategy and fully engaged stakeholders earlier. Instead, the change was just bundled into the government’s budget in a separate document last year. Whether the change was deliberately played down remains unclear; but the backlash proved the government wrong not to have flagged it for wider discussion. Lam made another faux pas using herself as an example to show people above 60 can still work. Worse, she lamented that the change was part of the budget that had already been approved by lawmakers, giving the impression that she was shirking the blame. She later clarified that she was merely responding to the suggestion of withdrawing or delaying the change. But her remarks have undoubtedly fuelled the fire, with loyalist lawmakers bearing the brunt of having blindly endorsed unpopular policies. This was not helped when Dr Law Chi-kwong, an academic-turned-minister in charge of labour and welfare, sought to redefine elderly. As people could live up to 120 nowadays, 60 was just middle age, he said.
It would be politically naive for officials to assume everything mentioned in the annual budget as automatically approved, but those who routinely rubber stamp government proposals have only themselves to blame. Although the change was just mentioned in a line in a 900-page document summarising the expenditures of all bureaus and departments, it was picked up by at least one pro-government lawmaker during the scrutiny; and had been discussed in the Legco welfare panel over the past two years. It would be disingenuous for lawmakers to claim they have been kept in the dark. At stake is cooperation between the administration and the legislature. There may well be more disputes as elections draw near. Both sides should reflect and avoid running into similar feud.
