Deputy President, the motion we are discussing today is “Establishing a Low-Income Subsidy Scheme”. The Government is now studying the relevant details with the Commission on Poverty. There are reports that the Government’s idea is to help low-income households with children, apply income and assets tests, and use the poverty line as a threshold, while waiving the residence requirement, so that low-income new-arrival families can also benefit. Since the scheme aims at encouraging employment, it requires members of families applying for the subsidy to work at least 140 hours a month. They are also considering to set the amount of monthly subsidy at less than $1,000 per child.
In my view, the Government is going in the right direction in helping the poor, and deserves our support. On the one hand, the relevant suggestions target at the working poor families and encourage their members to work. On the other hand, they focus on helping those with children, in order to facilitate their upward mobility in future and to avoid inter-generational poverty. According to the relevant data, there are some 157 000 working poor households in Hong Kong, the equivalent of nearly 540 000 people. Among them, there are 140 000 poor children. Society is highly concerned about whether these 140 000 children can break away from poverty in the future. Hence, it is imperative to help them.
Actually, I have repeatedly suggested to the Government to help low-income households and encourage them to become self-reliant through the provision of subsidies or even a negative income tax. As many overseas studies have pointed out, if recipients of welfare benefits are better-off than low-income families, not only will these recipients have no incentive to work, even the low-income families will gradually lose the motivation to work. Therefore, helping the low-income households is critically significant to the entire social security system.
The concept of a low-income subsidy comes from that of “workfare”, that is, even if their members are employed, low-income households can still enjoy benefits to support and encourage them to continue to be self-reliant, so that they will not be forced to apply for Comprehensive Social Security Assistance (CSSA). Another objective is to attract those receiving CSSA who are able-bodied to take up employment again. That is why there are also views in society that the Government should adopt a “workfare” policy to substitute some benefits given unconditionally.
Now, the Government is beginning to formulate its welfare policy based on “workfare” thinking. In addition to the low-income subsidy scheme, there are also the Work Incentive Transport Subsidy Scheme already implemented, and the one-off living subsidy given to the “N have-nots” under the Community Care Fund. In my view, in the long term, the Government should consider putting together a “workfare” system to replace piecemeal “workfare” measures, in order to more comprehensively support the low-income households, so that they can make use of the subsidy flexibly according to their actual needs.
I have always believed that the low-income subsidy system has a deeper meaning other than being a kind of financial assistance. The subsidy system can help poor children, increasing their chance of shaking off poverty in the future. It also conveys to them the message that despite their hardship, their parents still insist on “earning their own bread” with their own hands. Even so, they can still receive social assistance. This will help them establish positive values, and generate positive energy in society and reduce the harbouring of grievances.
Likewise, the CSSA system also has room for optimization. While we understand that society needs a safety net system, certain parts of the system can be optimized to encourage those able-bodied recipients to become self-reliant. For instance, the Support for Self-Reliance (SFS) Scheme under the CSSA system encourages able-bodied recipients to rejoin the workforce. Apart from raising the maximum limit of Disregarded Earnings under the SFS Scheme, we can also consider lowering the amounts to be deducted, requiring the recipients to deposit the surplus amount into designated accounts, which they can only withdraw when they have actual needs. This will give recipients a greater incentive. I believe such optimization measures can also strike home positive messages in the community.
Lastly, I must point out that apart from giving assistance to the low-income households, Hong Kong also needs to provide them with a labour market full of opportunities. Otherwise, no matter how strong the incentives are for them to work, they cannot be self-reliant if they fail to land jobs. Moreover, whether poor children can break away from poverty in the future depends on whether the labour market can provide plenty of job opportunities with good prospects. Therefore, the promotion of economic development and enhancement of competitiveness is a fundamental task. If economic difficulties arise like those after the financial tsunami, when one had to tighten one’s belt, how would the community be able to help the poor?
I so submit.