XN000022-1995-07-12 — Page 60

- 48

Reply:

Mr President.

The Old Age Allowance (OAA) is a non-means-tested and non-contributory payment to elderly persons aged 65 and above. To be eligible for it, applicants must have resided in Hong Kong for at least five years (1,825 days) between the age of 60 and the date of application.

The 280-day absence rule referred to in the question works in practice as follows. If an application is made at 65 years of age, the applicant will be permitted to have been out of Hong Kong for a maximum of 280 days in the immediately preceding five-year period (in other words, to have a total residence of no less than 1,545 days rather than the full 1,825 days). In practice, for first applications made after 65 years of age, e.g. at 70 years of age, the applicant has to demonstrate that he or she has been resident in Hong Kong for a total of 1,545 days since reaching the age of 60 years.

Prior to April 1994, records of applications for OAA were kept manually and it would be very difficult and time-consuming to identify those applications which were rejected for not meeting the residence requirement. Since April 1994, records of applications have been kept in the computerised Social Security Payment System. According to our computerised records, 1,238 applications were rejected in 1994/95 on the grounds that the residence requirement had not been met. This represents about 2% of the total number of the applications made.

The reason for selecting a clear benchmark for the absence rule, measured in days rather than a more subjective test of e.g. "ordinary residence", is clear. The determination of ordinary residence is a matter of fact and degree which must be tested in each individual case. This would require the exercise of judgment and discretion by the staff of Social Welfare Department in each individual case, which could lead to inconsistent standards and unfairness.

Having then accepted the need for a clear benchmark, it is, nevertheless, not possible to set the number of days involved in any logical or scientific way. The 280 days selected and now in force would allow a person to be out of Hong Kong for as long as 8 weeks every year for each of the 5 years concerned. It would seem excessive for an elderly person, unlikely to have any business commitments overseas, to be regularly away from Hong Kong for longer than this. Indeed, evidence shows that very few elderly people need to be away from Hong Kong for more than this as can be demonstrated by the fact that only 2% of applicants in 1994/95 failed to meet this test.

Page 60Page 61