- 22 -
"Our welfare programmes have a different purpose. They exist because this community believes that we have a duty to provide a safety net to protect the vulnerable and the disadvantaged members of society, the unfortunate minority who, through no fault of their own, are left behind by the growing prosperity enjoyed by the rest of Hong Kong.
"In recent years, the community's recognition of the need to help those disadvantaged by age, disability or ill-health has been reinforced by the contrast between their plight and the rising standards of living taken for granted by Hong Kong as a whole."
Mr Patten commented that a few critics said Hong Kong was hobbling itself on the journey to an even brighter future. They argued that increased democratisation had gone hand-in-hand with galloping and unaffordable welfarism, that Hong Kong was becoming a welfare state.
He said: "It seems to me to be preposterous to claim, as some do, that to respond to the community's desire for a little more compassion is to strike at the heart of the Hong Kong success story. That to channel a little of our new wealth to help the elderly, the sick, the disabled and the disadvantaged, is to undermine our public finances and our system of government.
"This is propaganda dressed up as prudence, cant disguised as conviction. Let me, for a moment, subject the "Hong Kong is going broke through the welfare burden" thesis to a shower of cold fact:
Hong Kong currently spends on welfare about the same as it spends on perfume and cosmetics each year.
Public spending is still only about 18 per cent of GDP and will represent
a lower proportion of our forecast GDP for 1997 than in the early 1980s."
Mr Patten said Hong Kong had to keep a firm grip on public spending, and it had done so over the last five years.
"And I am well aware of the need for Hong Kong to avoid the massive problems caused by spiralling welfare costs in Europe. But we are not in that position in Hong Kong, and we are not going to be.
"So let's keep our position in cool perspective. Our provision is hardly lavish; you would be hard-pressed to live it up on Hong Kong social security.