Flat CSSA cuts unfair

In the recent Legco meeting, the government announced to cut the amount of Comprehensive Social Security Assistance for each successful application by 11.1 percent starting from June. According to the Financial Secretary, this would help to save about $43 billion for the next three years.

Controversy then flooded among citizens, organizations and media.

Some argued that under the gloomy economy, people’s salary and consumption power have been decreasing. The amount of Assistance seems relatively higher which urges the need to cut it according to the deflation rate. Also, in view of the sharply increasing number of applications, the cut would make it less attractive and discourage excessive applications. This is also to avoid over expenditure that may consequently lead to the chain effect of cutting expenditure on other public services.

But who wants to be jobless and depends totally on the $6,000 assistance every month? For a family of four, for example, they can only have meals which cost not more than $20. Their children cannot join any extra-curricular activities which costs $60, three times higher than their dinner. They feel inferior and thus isolate themselves due to their family background. A further reduction of the Assistance would simply make their life harder.

Daily expenses such as transport fares and electricity bills are consistently high, but people’s salary has been freezing and cutting. Some even cannot get a job. It is just normal that there are more applications under the gloomy economy. If the government thinks that there should be a cut on the Assistance, should there also be policies to relieve people’s burden? Is the government planning to teach people to make a $10 meal instead of a $20 one?

What is actually needed to avoid over expenditure is a more comprehensive system, to avoid cheating for example, so that the right scheme is for the right people. The number of divorce cases has risen sharply this year. It is suspected that some of the couples did so only to ask for the Assistance. They deprived the interests of those really in need of the Assistance. Obviously, there lacks an intact monitoring system.

The scheme has to be fair, too. To some extent, mainlanders seem to have an advantage under the present practice. Some can simply remain jobless for a year and then get the Assistance afterwards. Reports also showed that they account for about 7 percent of the total applications. Under the new policy, mainlanders has to stay here for at least seven years to become qualified to apply for the Assistance. This is harsh, yet reasonable.

At the time being, measures that would potentially increase people’s burden such as imposing sales tax seem not preferable. There seems no way to relieve the deficit but to cut government expenditure. Cutting the amount of assistance could be one way, but it should not be a mere cut. The government has to put more considerations on, for instance, people’s adaptablity to the reduction and helping people's daily life in other aspects to make the Scheme adequately helpful.

Mandy Fu
Managing Editor

Home