The statistics referred to have two fatal flaws. One is that they take no account of assets – a rich person with no regular income is absurdly counted as poor. Most retired people in Hong Kong have no regular income and are therefore counted as being in poverty, regardless of their financial situation.
The government recognises this flaw but says it is too difficult to collect the information. Does it make sense in that case to issue the statistics at all?
The second flaw is that the poverty level is defined relative to median income, rather than a more sensible approach based on a meaningful definition of poverty.
It is important that we clearly identify those in poverty in Hong Kong and aim government support at them.
A sensible definition of poverty should define the basic needs of the people, for example, for food, clothing and housing, and then calculate what level of income and/or assets are needed to pay for this.