• Wed
  • Sep 17, 2014
  • Updated: 12:54pm
NewsHong Kong

Top court dismisses seven-year residency requirement for CSSA benefits

Top court says denial of social security to new immigrants is unconstitutional, possibly adding an extra HK$750m to city's annual CSSA bill

PUBLISHED : Tuesday, 17 December, 2013, 11:43am
UPDATED : Wednesday, 18 December, 2013, 11:59pm


  • Yes: 78%
  • No: 22%
18 Dec 2013
  • Yes
  • No
Total number of votes recorded: 332

Hong Kong's top court has declared it unconstitutional to deny social security to new immigrants.

The unanimous Court of Final Appeal ruling means new arrivals will no longer be required to live in the city for at least seven years before they can apply for Comprehensive Social Security Assistance (CSSA) benefits.

Ho Hei-wah, director of the Society for Community Organisation, said the ruling may lead to an annual increase of 5,000 to 7,000 applications from new immigrants.

It could add HK$750 million annually - an increase of 3.5 per cent - to the CSSA bill.

Secretary for Justice Rimsky Yuen Kwok-keung ruled out any suggestion the government would ask Beijing for an interpretation of the Basic Law.

"Rest assured, we will not be taking any unnecessary steps in this regard," Yuen said. "We will respect the judgment, so don't worry."

Matthew Cheung Kin-chung, the secretary for labour and welfare, said the government would now reinstate a one-year residency requirement.

Chief Executive Leung Chun-ying said government departments had already started assessing the ruling's impact on the CSSA system and other policies.

Chief Justice Geoffrey Ma Tao-li, Mr Justice Roberto Ribeiro, Mr Justice Robert Tang Ching, Mr Justice Kemal Bokhary and Lord Justice Phillips handed down the judgment and unanimously allowed the appeal launched by new immigrant Kong Yunming.

The top court ruled that the seven-year residency rule breached Article 36 of the Basic Law, which says every citizen has a right to social welfare benefits under the CSSA scheme.

The policy conflicted with the one-way permit policy designed to promote family reunions in Hong Kong and the population policy aimed at rejuvenating the ageing population, the court said.

The government's explanation that the seven-year policy was intended to save money and ensure the sustainability of the social security system was not reasonable, the court stated.

Kong, 64, who started the judicial review process in 2008 when she was a homeless new immigrant, said: "It's not exactly joy. But it's more like closure for me … and hope."

Kong's appeal was dismissed twice before it was brought to the Court of Final Appeal last month.

Ho, whose SoCo organisation has supported Kong, said the ruling was a "win for the whole of Hong Kong" on welfare rights.

He added that the financial burden on the government would not be large.

"It must be known that apart from the residency requirement, there are many other requirements for CSSA," said Ho.

He said single-parent families with mothers waiting to fulfil the residency requirement would gain the most benefits.

The government has spent HK$19.7 billion on CSSA in the past year. Last month there were 261,289 CSSA cases, 9,573 involving new immigrant family members.

The seven-year residency requirement targeting new mainland immigrants was implemented in 2004.

Additional reporting by Jeffie Lam


Read the Court of Final Appeals press summary here.


For unlimited access to:

SCMP.com SCMP Tablet Edition SCMP Mobile Edition 10-year news archive



This article is now closed to comments

Thank you blue for the correction. SCMP editor pay blue for doing your work! Julie Chu, laws must be verbatim, you cannot use your own wording!! Didn't you learn this in school?
That's why a new "Hong Kong Identity Card Holder with 3* right of abode low-income Assistance" as well as a social welfare allowance of a small amount for all other residents should be introduced!
Instead of seeking further judicial proceedings, the SAR Government should stop all CSSA immediately and start a "Hong Kong Identity Card Holder with 3* right of abode low-income Assistance" [HKID3*LIA]!
The Court of Final Appeal may have ERRED in its verdict on this issue tagging the government denial of CSSA in this case as unconstitutional! On the contrary, should the government deviate from the established policy, it could be accused of being irresponsible. The seven year residency requirement for various purposes has been in force for ages and it does not seem right to expect the government to ignore it in individual cases like this! If not CSSA, the affected person could be given assistance from sources such as the Community Fund which is apparently designed to assist those in need not receiving CSSA!
The seven rule was only establish in 05 and NOT "in force for ages".
Dear Editors & Miss Chu : It was clear that Kong was an immigrant. Was Kong a citizen ? “the pursuit of a legitimate aim”, the judges stated.
Does "pursuit of a legitimate aim" means the judge thought they are NOT a citizen but in a pursit ? Thus, Government could be right and judges wrong.
Yes, the definition of "citizen" in the basic law is crucial in this judgement.
The key issue that leads to failure of the Government's argument is that the Government claims the One Way Permit system to rejuvenate our age-population, of which the Court upheld.
But what's the point of relying on influx of uncertain composition of immigrant granted OWP instead of active selection qualified immigrant who meet the needs of our social development.
And what's the point that the single parents in mainland should be granted with OWP to re-unite with their HK-born child in HK?




SCMP.com Account