THE Director of Audit's criticisms of the cash allowance provided by the Hospital Authority as part of the remuneration package of its employees (as reported by the South China Morning Post, on November 9), are fundamentally flawed by an apparent lack of understanding of the concept of such allowances.
The cash allowance is an addition to basic salary. It recognises that on their own without other fringe benefits, the basic salary scales of the employees concerned are inadequate remuneration for the jobs they hold and not commensurate with their job responsibilities.
The cash allowance is not a housing allowance, or an education allowance, or any other specifically attributable allowance: it is part of the salary package.
It is taxed as salary. The amount of cash allowance paid is fixed according to the basic salary scale of the employee. The cash allowance is job-related: it is not related to place of birth, citizenship, residency or personal family circumstances. Issues of double benefit are irrelevant in respect of a cash allowance which is job-related rather than family related.
There could be a legitimate debate about the relative merits of providing a job-related cash allowance in addition to salary as does the Hospital Authority, as compared with providing family-related and accountable benefits such as quarters, housing allowance, education allowance, furniture allowance etc, as does the Government. The Director of Audit's report makes little if any contribution to such a debate.
Nor does it recognise the place the cash allowance concept can play in moving towards common terms of employment for all staff irrespective of place of recruitment or citizenship.
