HONG KONG URBAN COUNCIL
problem exists where there are aged persons in need of care and assistance which, for one reason or another, cannot be provided by their families or their friends and neighbours. The size of this problem is not necessarily related directly to the total number of aged persons. Mr. LOBO is I think referring to the provision of homes for the aged. This question was raised in the Legislative Council Debate in October when Mr. Wilfred WONG suggested that consideration should be given to the establishment of and encouragement for more homes for the aged. I then replied and I quote:
"it is Government's policy to encourage the provision of non-profit-making homes for the aged by grants of land by private treaty at nil premium, by the provision of capital grants for building and equipment from the Lotteries Fund, and by the provision of subventions for recurrent expenditure. Not all old people of course require special homes to care for them. In Hong Kong at least, the great majority of old people are cared for by their families or are capable of looking after themselves and prefer to do so. I hope this will always be the case. But there does exist the need in the case of those old people who, for one reason or another, are incapable of looking after themselves and have no one to care for them; and more homes for the aged are required to meet this need. There are at the present time 15 non-profit-making homes for the aged with a total capacity of 2,334 persons. It has been estimated that in the next 5 years some 2,000 additional places will be required. There are at the present time 7 new homes or extensions to existing homes already planned. On their completion, which will be in about a year's time, these will provide an additional 1,050 places."
I have quoted fairly fully, Sir, because Mr. Solomon RAFEEK chooses to represent this reply in the following words "Yet when we ask for this (a provident fund scheme) in Hong Kong, the Director of Social Welfare tells us to be satisfied with additional homes for the aged that will take care of another 2,500". I must protest; for this is clearly a mis-representation both of what I said, and the context in which I said it.
However, to restore at least some small part of the context on this occasion, the question of the introduction of further measures for social security has been raised by a number of members. Dr. Denny HUANG advocates "the early introduction of a social security scheme (a project on which Singapore spends over 30% of its budget) in lieu of the outdated Public Assistance programme". I suspect that Dr. HUANG has never had a look at the Singapore budget. If he did, he would see that the Singapore Government does not spend 30% of its budget on a social security scheme. Indeed, it would be absurd if it did. The Singapore Government spends about 30% of its budget on
HONG KONG URBAN COUNCIL
357
the provision of social services in the broad sense; so does the Government of Hong Kong. If in fact he is referring to the Central Provident Fund Scheme in Singapore, then I can tell him that the Singapore Government does not spend a cent on it. It is a scheme entirely separate from the Government and the Government budget, and self-financed; which is to say that the costs of administration and the benefits are derived from the contributions of the employers and employees affected. I quite fail to understand Dr. HUANG when he suggests that the provision of a social security scheme should be in lieu of a public assistance programme. Social security is a broad term, descriptive of various different measures directed towards securing the life and liberty of an individual, and his protection against those vicissitudes of life which he could not ordinarily be expected to provide for. A considerable degree of social security is already provided for in Hong Kong, and further measures are always under consideration. Public assistance is in itself a measure of social security, and it will be required whatever further measures of social security are introduced. As regards the introduction of a provident fund scheme, as advocated by Mr. James Wu, this question was as he says raised in the Legislative Council Debate in October by Mrs. Ellen LI. I then replied, and I quote:-
"I know she appreciates, as I am sure do all members of this Council, that first priority is being given to the introduction of a realistic and more comprehensive scheme of public assistance and that this is a matter of greater need. In considering still further measures of social security, it is I think necessary to determine carefully the relative importance and priority of other needs as well as the merits of alternative measures to meet them.
"I am myself doubtful whether a contributory provident fund scheme merits first priority at the present time, or whether it would itself be appropriate to circumstances of need at the present time. Also, and quite apart from other factors, I am doubtful whether people themselves, who would be required to contribute to it, would consider it a measure of high priority. It is interesting to note that one of the questions asked by Dr. MITCHELL in the recent Urban Family Life Study was on the lines of If an old age pension scheme were introduced, would you be willing to contribute to it?' Of those who answered this question, some 50% said 'No.'”
(Mr. Peter P. K. NG arrived at this point).
Mr. James Wu, in referring to this reply says "I was disappointed to learn of the terse reply in the negative given by the Director of Social Welfare to Mrs. Ellen LI.". Again I must protest; my reply may have been concise, but it is not in the negative. I was concerned to
Page 190
Page 191
237
Page 190 of 237
356
HONG KONG URBAN COUNCIL
problem exists where there are aged persons in need of care and assistance which, for one reason or another, cannot be provided by their families or their friends and neighbours. The size of this problem is not necessarily related directly to the total number of aged persons. Mr. LOBO is I think referring to the provision of homes for the aged. This question was raised in the Legislative Council Debate in October when Mr. Wilfred WONG suggested that consideration should be given to the establishment of and encouragement for more homes for the aged. I then replied and I quote:
"it is Government's policy to encourage the provision of non-profit- making homes for the aged by grants of land by private treaty at nil premium, by the provision of capital grants for building and equipment from the Lotteries Fund, and by the provision of sub- ventions for recurrent expenditure. Not all old people of course require special homes to care for them. In Hong Kong at least, the great majority of old people are cared for by their families or are capable of looking after themselves and prefer to do so. I hope this will always be the case. But there does exist the need in the case of those old people who, for one reason or another, are incapable of looking after themselves and have no one to care for them; and more homes for the aged are required to meet this need. There are at the present time 15 non-profit-making homes for the aged with a total capacity of 2,334 persons. It has been estimated that in the next 5 years some 2,000 additional places will be required. There are at the present time 7 new homes or extensions to existing homes already planned. On their comple- tion, which will be in about a year's time, these will provide an additional 1,050 places.".
I have quoted fairly fully, Sir, because Mr. Solomon RAFEEK chooses to represent this reply in the following words "Yet when we ask for this (a provident fund scheme) in Hong Kong, the Director of Social Welfare tells us to be satisfied with additional homes for the aged that will take care of another 2,500". I must protest; for this is clearly a mis-representation both of what I said, and the context in which I said it.
However, to restore at least some small part of the context on this occasion, the question of the introduction of further measures for social security has been raised by a number of members. Dr. Denny HUANG advocates "the early introduction of a social security scheme (a project on which Singapore spends over 30% of its budget) in lieu of the outdated Public Assistance programme". I suspect that Dr. HUANG has never had a look at the Singapore budget. If he did, he would see that the Singapore Government does not spend 30% of its budget on a social security scheme. Indeed, it would be absurd if it did. The Singapore Government spends about 30% of its budget on
HONG KONG URBAN COUNCIL
357
the provision of social services in the broad sense; so does the Government of Hong Kong. If in fact he is referring to the Central Provident Fund Scheme in Singapore, then I can tell him that the Singapore Government does not spend a cent on it. It is a scheme entirely separate from the Government and the Government budget, and self-financed; which is to say that the costs of administration and the benefits are derived from the contributions of the employers and employees affected. I quite fail to understand Dr. HUANG when he suggests that the provision of a social security scheme should be in lieu of a public assistance programme. Social security is a broad term, descriptive of various different measures directed towards securing the life and liberty of an individual, and his protection against those vicissitudes of life which he could not ordinarily be expected to provide for. A considerable degree of social security is already provided for in Hong Kong, and further measures are always under consideration. Public assistance is in itself a measure of social security, and it will be required whatever further measures of social security are introduced. As regards the introduction of a provident fund scheme, as advocated by Mr. James Wu, this question was as he says raised in the legislative Council Debate in October by Mrs. Ellen LI. I then replied, and I quote:-
"I know she appreciates, as I am sure do all members of this Council, that first priority is being given to the introduction of a realistic and more comprehensive scheme of public assistance and that this is a matter of greater need. In considering still further measures of social security, it is I think necessary to determine carefully the relative importance and priority of other needs as well as the merits of alternative measures to meet them.
"I am myself doubtful whether a contributory provident fund scheme merits first priority at the present time, or whether it would itself be appropriate to circumstances of need at the present time. Also, and quite apart from other factors, I am doubtful whether people themselves, who would be required to contribute to it, would consider it a measure of high priority. It is interesting to note that one of the questions asked by Dr. MITCHELL in the recent Urban Family Life Study was on the lines of If an old age pension scheme were introduced, would you be willing to contribute to it?' Of those who answered this question, some 50% said 'No.'”.
(Mr. Peter P. K. NG arrived at this point).
Mr. James Wu, in referring to this reply says "I was disappointed to learn of the terse reply in the negative given by the Director of Social Welfare to Mrs. Ellen LI.". Again I must protest; my reply may have been concise, but it is not in the negative. I was concerned to
Page 190Page 191
No comments yet.
Private notes are available after approval.