3 Feb 2010

Members' Motions 'Alleviating poverty and helping the disadvantaged with care and concern’

President, first of all, I would like to thank Mr TAM Yiu-chung for proposing this motion, so that this Council can once again remind the Financial Secretary of the 3Ls in society ― the least, the last and the lost, before the release of the budget of the new financial year by the end of this month.

Around this time every year, the Government will announce its fiscal situation of the first nine months of that financial year. At the end of January, the Government has just announced that the fiscal deficit for the first nine months of this year is only $1.2 billion. In fact, I already pointed out a few months ago that the fiscal situation of this year would have a much lower deficit than the $39.9 billion as anticipated in the budget released last year. On the contrary, there would even be a surplus of over $10 billion.

I bring up this point on the fiscal situation of the Government without any intention to comment on whether its budget is right or wrong. The global economic environment was extremely poor last year, and the financial tsunami had also dealt a great blow to the economy of Hong Kong. We were all very worried about it, not knowing when we could see the light at the end of the tunnel. It is understandable that the Government made a conservative estimate. However, upon the release of the budget last year, I pointed out immediately that even though the economic environment was poor, the relief measures proposed in the budget were really too conservative and the Government was too mean. Public finance should not be tied down by a deficit or a surplus of the year. Rather, the Government should have foresight, and the vigour and confidence to lead social development. As we all know, in a poor economic environment, the most vulnerable group in society will be hit the hardest. In other words, the poorer the economic environment, the more concerns we should show to the poor and the disadvantaged in society, and there is a more pressing need to offer them support and assistance. As such, in encountering difficulties, they know that they are not alone and there is still love and care in this world. Even they have experienced hardship in their lives, they can still face up to it calmly and confidently.

Subsequently, the Government allocated $16.8 billion to implement relief measures. But we cannot help but ask: Why does our Government always fail to sense public sentiments and social pulse in a timely manner? In fact, many organizations have already put forth a lot of recommendations to alleviate poverty and help the disadvantaged, and a consensus has even been reached on some of them in society. They all urge the Government to consider and implement their recommendations. Why does our Government always react so slowly? Do public officers really understand the minds of the public? President, as an old saying goes, "Ashamed of receiving pay when people flee the state". Have the senior officials, who are paid punctually every month, ever thought of the poor and the disadvantaged who can hardly sustain their basic living when they wake up in the middle of the night? When they think of them, do they feel uneasy at all? We do not only ask Secretary CHEUNG of the Labour and Welfare Bureau and his colleagues to show their care, concerns and empathy for the poor and disadvantaged in society. Public officers of higher ranks ― the Secretaries of Department and the Chief Executive should do the same.

President, although I understand that we cannot merely rely on the Government to tackle the problem of poverty, the public have to know and feel that the Government does care about the disadvantaged. Even if only a small step is made, it should still do so. Let me elaborate by using two points in the original motion which I have all along supported, which include providing subsidies on Internet access charges for poor school children and extending the coverage of the transport subsidy scheme to the whole territory.

As early as in 2005, the Hong Kong Council of Social Service (HKCSS) released a study entitled "Basic Needs of Children in Hong Kong". As proposed in the study, all households with children attending school should be provided with a personal computer which can be connected to the Internet. Subsequently, in 2008, it was also proposed in the report of the Legislative Council Subcommittee on Review of the Comprehensive Social Security Assistance Scheme that the Government should consider the recommendations put forth by the HKCSS, which include providing each CSSA household comprising children attending school with special grants to purchase a computer and pay for the monthly Internet charges.

President, prior to this, that is, at the end of 2004, the Subcommittee to Study the Subject of Combating Poverty was set up by the Legislative Council. After discussing and conducting studies for more than one year, the Subcommittee released the Report on Working Poverty in early 2006, proposing that the authorities should grant cash subsidies on transport expenses for working-poor households, so that members of these households need not worry about the huge transport expenses and lose the incentive to work.

President, those front-line social service organizations and this Council are supposed to be most capable of gauging public sentiments and pulse in society. Moreover, the above suggestions, being supported by concrete studies, are also viable. But very regrettably, after the launch of the pilot Transport Support Scheme in 2007, the Government simply turned a deaf ear to the request for further relaxing the eligibility criteria and extending the coverage of the scheme to the whole territory. It is most infuriating that regarding the learning needs of school children, especially the provision of subsidies on Internet access charges, government actions, though long overdue, were not taken until the release of the policy address by the Chief Executive last year, and all it had said was that the Financial Secretary would be tasked to co-ordinate the efforts of relevant bureaux to study the proposal. When can it be implemented? When can those children with genuine needs obtain such assistance? I sincerely hope that the Government should not keep them waiting anymore. Moreover, I also hope that the implementation of the relevant measures can be announced in the budget this year.

President, as for most of the points raised in the original motion, particularly those measures to alleviate poverty and help the disadvantaged, I do hope that the Government can take them into serious consideration and will no longer be lagging behind the public sentiments and pulse in society. As for the part proposed in the original motion on "resuming the construction of HOS flats on an appropriate scale", I had mentioned during the debate on the Motion of Thanks on the policy address last year that we should act prudently. It is because the lands of the Housing Authority are allocated by the Government. If the construction of HOS flats would affect that of public housing, this may not be able to assist the grassroots to tackle their housing problem and may even bring about an adverse impact on them. This problem should be considered cautiously. However, I do not think that the main theme of the original motion and most of its content should be opposed for this reason.

Regarding the proposal put forth in Mr WONG Sing-chi's amendment "to expeditiously implement a 'universal retirement protection scheme' whereby all citizens aged 60 or above are eligible for receiving an 'old age pension'", during previous motion debates on "Old age allowance and universal retirement protection system" in the Legislative Council, I have given my support for conducting a thorough study on universal retirement protection and working out a suitable proposal, so as to enable the elderly to enjoy a dignified life in their twilight years. In fact, to a very large extent, Hong Kong's achievements today are attributed to the lifelong efforts made by our last generation and the elderly. However, in implementing these measures, we should be mindful of not imposing excessive burdens on our next generation.

A joint alliance for universal retirement protection has proposed that the monthly MPF contributions made by all employees and their employers in Hong Kong should be increased by 2%. Such additional contributions will not be credited into their personal accounts. Rather, they will be pooled together for use by all retirees. This is equivalent to increasing the salaries tax and profits tax, and as such contributions are made before deducting the allowances, a very heavy burden may be imposed on individuals and employers. For this reason, I cannot support this proposal.

Regarding Mr WONG Sing-chi's amendment, as he has neither mentioned how to determine the amount of old age pension nor made a detailed projection on the affordability of society and the public, I cannot support his amendment for the time being.

President, my amendment is in fact very simple, that is, "to allow owner-occupiers to claim full deduction of the home loan interest paid for their properties and to re-launch the Home Starter Loan Scheme". The former mainly targets at owner-occupied properties valued at $5 million or below. I believe that this is not very much different from the amendment made by another Member to my amendment. It is because under the prevailing environment, it is very difficult for the middle class to repay their home loan principal and interest within 10 years. In allowing owner-occupiers to claim full deduction of the home loan interest paid for their properties, their burden can be reduced. This can also show the Government's sympathy for the pressure faced by the sandwich class in their living.

As for "re-launching the Home Starter Loan Scheme", I think this proposal is feasible and do not agree to the reasons for rejecting it. I have no intention to request the Government to act as a lender. Rather, I only ask it to assist those who wish to purchase their own flats, especially young people. As we all know, even two university graduates who have been working for 10 years may not be able to save up enough money for the down payment to purchase a small flat. If we do not lend them a helping hand, how can they take the first step and improve their living gradually? In putting forth this suggestion, I have no intention to aggravate speculations in the property market. Therefore, I agree with Mr LEE Wing-tat that we should be mindful of the supply of private properties when re-launching this scheme. In implementing the measures concerned, the Government should assess the property market and the trend cautiously.

President, I so submit.