About 20 per cent of Hong Kong’s population are living below the poverty line, according to official figures released last November. The proportion of those considered destitute is even higher among the elderly. Photo: AFP
Opinion
Philip Yeung
Philip Yeung
Hong Kong must roll back its plan to raise age limit for elderly welfare. But will Carrie Lam admit she’s wrong?
Philip Yeung says it is cruel to target one of the most vulnerable groups in society to make a point about the need to prepare for an ageing population. Instead, the government should work harder at ensuring more elderly people find work
Another day, another piece of warped thinking. Some government policies are the product of a small mind and a cruel heart. To this ignoble list must now be added another ingredient: intransigence, and you have the perfect recipe for misgovernance.
The latest act of folly is the bizarre decision to push back the age of eligibility for elderly welfare recipients, from 60 to 65, on the twisted logic that Hong Kong must prepare for an ageing population. The chief executive cited her own case to prove her point that people are expected to keep working longer because they now live longer. If she can work 10 hours a day, why can’t other senior citizens, she reasons.
The problem with that argument is that only 44 per cent of the affected age group are gainfully employed. The rest can’t find work. Coddled policymakers forget that those pushing 60 are basically unemployable, if they are uneducated or eking out a living with their declining muscle power.
Even if work is available, the pay is pathetic. The secretary for welfare has said in the government’s defence that it will ease the rules for those in poor health and that, for the truly needy, there are still other Comprehensive Social Security Assistance schemes for the non-elderly. But it’s likely that for many, losing the elderly subsidy means losing about HK$1,000 per month, or one-third of the elderly benefit.
That sum is peanuts for overpaid civil servants, but for those out of work, it is deep into starvation territory. Lam went on to say that this new measure is not about saving money, but about sending out a signal on the need to prepare for a rainy day. She forgets that, for elderly destitute citizens, their rainy day is already here, every day of the year. Why must the government fight its demographic battle on the backs of the most vulnerable in society?
Besides, the money saved is a mere droplet in a city swimming in money. The higher age threshold hurts the needy without helping our overall economic planning. They become the sacrificial lambs for the government to make a statement about the need to think about the future. In a city already famous for elderly citizens toiling into their seventies or even eighties, this is an act of cruelty. Victimising the destitute doesn’t qualify as economic planning. Why don’t officials try surviving on HK$3,000 for a month? Then spout your self-righteous theories.
A sensible way to plan for a greying population would be to cancel all early retirement for civil servants and do away with mandatory retirement for academics (at 60 for the University of Hong Kong, for example). Those who live by their brains and not their brawn typically enjoy intellectual longevity. In the recent past, Nobel prizes for medicine and physics, for example, have gone to octogenarians.
Topping the world in life expectancy, Hong Kong should hire retirees for part-time work to tap into their experience, wisdom and desire to serve. Where is the imagination and creativity in government policymaking? In a complex modern society, the last thing it should do is impose rigid rules to shut the door on the poor. But what do you expect from a finance chief who was himself a player in the ethically queasy subdivided flats market and who is oblivious to the plight of the underclass?
Financial Secretary Paul Chan Mo-po attends an RTHK forum on January 5. While serving as secretary of development in 2012, Chan was found to have a family investment portfolio that included farmland and subdivided flats. Photo: Xiaomei Chen
There is an unwritten taboo in government: never admit you are wrong. Our current chief executive is known for hanging tough. She revels in her reputation for not backing down in the face of opposition or condemnation. But mindless obstinacy is a deadly sin, not a virtue. It takes humility and supreme confidence for a leader to walk back on a misguided policy.
Carrie Lam Cheng Yuet-ngor, however, seems to place loyalty to her team ahead of good governance or sound policy, often leaping to the defence of her beleaguered ministers when they are pilloried for their ill-conceived policies. Defending the indefensible may sit well with her subordinates, but it is the road to disenchantment with her leadership.
Two decades after the handover, Hong Kong has lost its lustre as a well-oiled city. That honour has gone to Singapore. Far too often, our senior officials think like timid civil servants living in a bubble and barricade themselves against the outside world, blindly rolling out policies that defy reality or real need. Is it too much to hope for leaders with compassion, imagination or bold vision? Oh, where is our own Zhu Rongji or Wang Qishan?
Philip Yeung is a part-time university lecturer and ghostwriter for university presidents and civic leaders. [email protected]
