Motion Debate on Restoring comprehensive social security assistance rates to
the level prior to 1 June 2003

Madam President, giving out money is not the only way to show that we care. Members of the "Money-giving Club" believe that giving out money is the only way to show that they really care about society. If you fail to spend to the last cent, you have no conscience, and that is how the rich man's party treat the people. Anyway, you must give out what you have, until not a cent is left.

May I ask everyone to take a fresh look at the amendment proposed by us and see what we want to do? We ask the Government to immediately review the existing system of CSSA and redetermine the CSSA rates based on the findings of the review, so as to ensure that the purchasing power and basic livelihood of the CSSA recipients are safeguarded and that more support is provided to those who are most in need. So what is wrong with all these? The only point you may find fault with our amendment is the deletion of the wordings "restore the CSSA rates to the level prior to 1 June 2003". If the issue is to be proceeded in the way you like, I mean, Madam President, if the issue is to be proceeded in the way Members of the "Money-giving Club" like, and the CSSA rates are restored to the level prior to 1 June 2003, then why do we need a review at all? What would be the point of conducting a review? If CSSA rates are restored to the level prior to 1 June 2003, do we still have to work according to the findings of the review? What are we supposed to do if the review shows that the CSSA rates should be reduced to a lower level?

Madam President, throughout the years, there has been an established mechanism for our existing CSSA system. Although new Members may not know it well, Mr LEE Cheuk-yan, a veteran Member of the Legislative Council, should not find it unfamiliar. According to the established mechanism, the CSSA rates, once set, will be adjusted upwards annually in accordance with the inflation rate. Under such circumstances, if someone says that the CSSA rates cannot be reduced at times of deflation, there is no point of having the mechanism at all. Why can it go up at times of inflation, but not going down at times of deflation? What Mrs Sophie LEUNG has done is, after deleting this phrase, to suggest that we should redetermine the CSSA rates based on the findings of the review, so as to ensure that CSSA recipients have enough purchasing power, and that their living is adequately protected. The review may as well come up with a figure that is higher than $2,400. However, if the review concludes that the existing rates are already too high, will Members of the "Money-giving Club" say that such rates shall be maintained? If the question is answered in the negative, and if Members of the "Money-giving Club" reckon that restoring the rates to the previous level will do the trick, then there is no need to conduct any review at all.

On today's subject of poverty, the Liberal Party did not think that it was a very serious problem in the past. However, the number of CSSA recipients has risen from 297 000 in 1997 to 540 000 this year, whereas government expenditure on this has increased from $9.5 billion to $18 billion. Although the expenditure is so enormous, we still think that we should support the Government in continuing the provision of assistance to them. However, in the course of helping them, we do not think that we need to restore the rates to the original level just because the CSSA rates had been cut by 6% and 5% over the past two years due to deflation, and that such a restoration should take effect even before a review is conducted.

If someone says that the CSSA payment should not be reduced even if the review shows that it should not be so high, and that it must be increased if the review justifies a higher amount, will you call it a reasonable mechanism? In other words, do what you like with the review, but the CSSA payment must be increased if it is found to be too low, yet it shall never be reduced even if it is found to be excessive. This is like another topic which has been under discussion — the salaries for the Civil Service. The stance of the relevant party on that issue is, if, after the review, the salaries are found to be too high, let it be frozen for several years and wait for increases in other areas to catch up with it. In that case, however, there would not be enough money in society. Likewise, if the CSSA rates cannot go down even if the review justifies a reduction, and it can go up if the review warrants an increase, then where does all such money come from? The "Money-giving Club" couldn't care less about that. Just introduce tax increases to the industrial and business sectors. Also increase the tax with the middle class, and get as much money as possible from taxes. We care only about giving away money, why should we care about where such money comes from? Such behaviour simply reflects that Members of the "Money-giving Club" are irresponsible.

Madam President, the Liberal Party has conducted a survey during the past few days and I would like to brief Members on its findings. On achieving the target of aiding the poor, 41% of the respondents believed that the first thing the Government should do is to create more job opportunities. 26% believed that the poor people should get help to enhance their ability for self-reliance. 23% believed that CSSA recipients should receive training to enhance their work skills. And only 3% supported an increase of CSSA rates. The survey was conducted from Monday until today, with more than 300 people having responded. Such being the case, have we been, in our capacity as directly elected Members, hearing the voices of members of the public? We have really heard many voices from the people — all are calls for more job opportunities, support for self-reliance and provision of training, and so on. We were afraid we might get wrong messages from outside sources, so we decided to conduct an extra survey, and the results showed that only 3% of the respondents thought that the CSSA rates should be increased. Mrs Selina CHOW asked just now: Are the current CSSA rates too high or too low? Mr LEE Cheuk-yan said, as wages are now lower, the CSSA rates seem to be higher. Now as this is a free economy, we should not continue to give that increase of 5% and 6% at a time when lower wages have made the CSSA payment appear higher.

We feel that the most important point is: To help the poorest people, we should improve their employment opportunities. If the unemployment rate is low, and if employers need employees or if they do not like to see their employees leave them, such as the situation in 1995, then there will be ample opportunities for the poor people. The same logic applies in our survey. From it, we learnt that most people wanted to see that the situation of Hong Kong could be improved to such an extent that everyone could have a satisfactory job, and everyone could make more money, instead of hoping for the restoration of the CSSA rates to the level prior to 1 June 2003. Even if inflation does emerge (people want to have inflation at times of deflation), possibly it would just be a 1% or 2% adjustment. How much could that be worth after all?

Naturally, we are also aware that to some elderly persons, there might be some problems with the fixing of the CSSA rate at $2,400. In this respect, we agree that the Government should conduct a thorough review. To the elderly persons, what they commonly use in their daily lives may not be reflected in the CPI. To them, the prices of the things they need may not have dropped. Contrary to what the Government has said, not all daily necessities have gone down in price. Therefore, we are of the view that there is a need to review the CSSA system and to redetermine the CSSA rates. I think the Government should act in a realistic and pragmatic manner. After the rates are determined, the Government should see if the $2,400, or the sum of money after any deduction, is able to cover the basic necessities of the elderly persons under the current living standards. Or put it in another way, how much will be required to cover their basic needs. The figures arrived at in the findings of the review may be higher than those restored to the level prior to 1 June 2003 as proposed by Members of the "Money-giving Club". The results of such a review will be supported by the Liberal Party. What we do not support is to make changes to the existing system amid such confusions. Thank you, Madam President.