The Tsang's administration ate the humble pie (or more aptly the banana pie).
The latest is prompted by Donald Tsang's policy speech in the context of the old age allowance (popularly known as fruits allowance in Cantonese). He proposed to raise the elderly's allowance from 705 dollars to 1000 dollars subject to a means test.
The allowance started way back in 1973 as a token of respect for elderly reaching the age of 65 and not intended as a welfare handout. The reality is that many elderly are depending on the allowance for living. The escalated cost of living and health care are two underlying reason for the increase in the allowance.
The legislators from both sides of the aisles criticize Tsang for demeaning the elderly on the introduction of means test. Tsang himself had a banana thrown at him at the Legco by a sensationist legislator from the League of Social Democrat. The opinion poll was against the imposition of a means test.
Facing popular backlash, the Tsang's administration withdrew the mean test today conceding to populism, one may say.
This maybe a reason of his lacking the popular mandate via a universal franchise.
The graver problem with Tsang's handling is one on policy execution lacking careful strategic thinking and political spinning.
The introduction of means test for what is actually a token of respect to elderly smacks of elitism and patronage. Means test is understandable and politically acceptable to reduce the likehood of abuse and to better distribute the welfare resources as the society is aging and the burden of the welfare spending is growing over times.
What Tsang should have done is to demarcate the fruit allowance without means test from other form of welfare allowance supporting the elderly.
Any elderly who satisfy the means test should be rightfully given more welfare allowance for living, however you name it as long as it is not called 'the fruit allowance'.
Further the imposition of means test is simply too costly for administering considering the high cost of civil service in Hong Kong. One proposal which should have been considered is to streamline and simplify various welfare scheme for more convenient and speedy application especially for elderly who maybe infirm, illiterate and without dependent.
The increase on welfare for elderly is popular. Yet, Tsang let the opponents win the kudos and ended up with the banana pie.
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
5 comments:
Firstly, I am pleased to see that you have again bounced into the blog after a hiatus (and a much deserved vacation)!
And furthermore I enjoy the bright green colour. It is the colour of nature and the doctors say is best for the eyes.
And on Tsang's raising of the "Fruit Allowance" that is something that we also have in Brunei - a legacy no doubt from British Administration. In Brunei it began with $125 a month in the 80s which increased to $250 more recently and now $300. Anyone above 60 who is either a permanent resident or a citizen can collect the money. I recall for my late grandmother, its a small sum but that was a highlight of the month.
No doubt HK$1000 is not a lot of money although sadly it makes a difference for many who live in poverty. So perhaps I can propose a novel approach to get around 'means testing' which sounds a bit nasty, implying that some old ladies can afford to buy fruits on their own and other's were not able to.
I would introduce a savings account (or debit card) for the old folks, which the government will credit HK$1000 per month, unless the old folk AND his/her family choose to opt out. If they opt out, their children will have to contribute tax-free HK$1000 a month to the account by direct debit from their account.
All the information on who opted-out (and for those whose children are delinquent in making their contributions) will be kept online. So there will be a deterrant effect. If anyone then skip their payment, they will get a reminder from the government, their delinquency will be public on the website so all the neighbours and relatives will know and after 3 months the government will step in to start paying the old folk again.
So we make use of the Asian values of filial piety (and the practical motivation of "face"). Presumably anyone with any self-respect will quickly rush in to opt out and offer to provide for their older family members.
The biggest and only beneficiary will be the old folks.
bro, rarely i disagree with you.
interestingly, as I was changing to the green color setting which find your liking ,i was also labelling our various entries.
When it comes to the confucianist topic, i choose the label of liberal confucianism instead of confucianism generally because liberal confucianism in my construction refers to adapting the best of confucianism in a modern and liberal setting.
I do this without conferring with you in advance and you are invited to change to a more suitable one, if any.
you raise an ingenious approach blending confucianism, social policy and the chinese characteristic/idiosyncrasy to solving the issue at hand.
As I understand, the current scheme is "opting in", presumably similar in Brunei. You propose "opting out". Presumably, this save a lot of paper works because the government has the data to grant those who reach the qualified age to get the allowance. This make workflow simpler and friendly to the old folks which is a big plus.
My question is what are the incentive for opting out? mere face saving alone in a society that regards fruit allowance as a token of respect are incompatible in objective.
If the purpose is a token of respect for the elderly whether or not he or she deserves it on merit is another question, in which case, there is no need for an opting out backed by a shaming mechanism. Your automatic and all-inclusive proposal is the best without the old folks, some maybe infirm, to put in the papers.
I disagree with the shaming element in your scheme because
it is exactly for this reason that many needy old folk or trouble family are not resorting to welfare safety net even when they need it and this has caused tragedy.
Further, shaming most likely the low income group, both mala fide and bona fide deliquent children, through online means (still less effective with this group ) or otherwise, is high handhanded and smack of elitism and paternalism in a capitalistic society with widening wealth gap in Hong Kong.
the last sentence on "self respect" maybe offensive to those who want but cannot afford to support their parents.
Even in its classic mode, confucianism takes the view of shaping a society through education rather than policy. I am not persuaded to use the punitive element to instill filiel piety however noble the intention.
The difficulty as i said is really why the opt out in the first place if the objective is a token of respect as distinct from welfare. who doesn't want respect?
Actually i have some problem with giving respect for elders who don't deserve it, for leading, said, a criminal or irresponsible life. I always believe respect has to be earned. Anyway, we cannot run a merit test here.
in every scheme of things, I concede that there has to be a tolerance for margin.
Bro, you made several good points.
What, after all, is the purpose of such welfare handouts? Its to show respect and to a secondary degree, to provide some assistance. What is clear in practice is that older folks, even those who do not need the money, treat such largesse with pride of reaching "old age". So the psychological boost is also important.
My uncle told me he divides his old-person's-money (as we call it in Brunei, and its paid automatically once one turns 60) between education funds for his granschildren. Its token, because they are quite wealthy, but he feels proud to be able to contribute to their education. Its not a lot of money, but they treasure it because they dont need to ask anybody for it and they are free to spend it as they like.
Sometimes it invites ugliness. My late grandmother's unfillial son would show up at the beginning of each month with a hard luck story. My mother and her sisters would stoutly defend my grandma's money from such demands; but ironically as the money grow in the bank accounts, the demand gets more strident.
My idea was driven by a desire to use human nature for voluntary means-testing. Typically, I disagree with means testing for schemes like these because it just creates more grieve than good administration. Put simply, it simply encourages greed in people trying to convince the government they needed the money.
I was thinking out loud how we can create a system where public funds are minimised using peer pressure but older folks still receive respect and recognition. I suspect getting the allowance from relatives instead would make them happier than from the gov (society as the larger family). Sometimes older folks do not like to ask for pocket money and younger folks don't do that automatically. So having a system where younger ones give periodic pocket money to elders might be a positive change.
To start with, all elderly persons (even millionaires) gets the allowances automatically as of right. So there is no stigma as you pointed out that discourages the elderly poor from seeking help.
Then we start talking about the opt out. Opting out is a positive undertaking so that younger folks can declare their fillial piety by substituting the governemnt's the contributions with their own money. This part is voluntary. The younger generation (not the older folks) are the ones responsible for opting out(otherwise the old folks stay "in" and is paid from state funds). As you say, good behavior comes from education; all we are doing is providing a mechanism for voluntary positive action.
So far so good.
But what if the younger folks first promised to contribute but later reneged on their undertaking? We should not leave the older folks high-and-dry so we try to discourage such behavior by making the delinquency public information (while stepping in to pay the old folks after wait and see for 3 months). If someone breaks an undertaking it is only proper that he should feel the consequences e.g. public exposure.
On examination, I still think this works without the downsides you astutely pointed out.
Actually this lengthy discourse deserve separate entry into the blog.
You said that the opting out by the young peoples is voluntary and a positive undertaking. This may have some unintended consequence.
The problem I see is that the punitive element of the shame register may have discouraged such behaviour which the proposed scheme wants to encourgae in the first.
Another problem that I am particularly concerned with is the stress imposed on bona fide children who opt in and later deliquent due to inability to maintain parents (loss of earning income) and not as a result of unwillingness (as lack of filiel obligation).
Further what incentive are thete for opting out unless there is a corresponding register to praise them.
I find these too paternalistic.
Correction - I mean the children who opt out instead of opt in in the third last paragraph.
Post a Comment