Hong Kong's welfare payments are not generous by any stretch of the imagination, but they do provide the bare minimum in terms of a social safety net, even after recent cuts were instituted. However, this does not mean Hong Kong has no worries where poverty and inequality are concerned.
As seen in statistics released by one of the city's biggest umbrella groups for social aid organisations, the gap between the rich and poor remains wide, even as the economic recovery takes hold, and an alarming number of children - one in four - live in poverty.
According to the Hong Kong Council of Social Service, the richest 10 per cent account for nearly 42 per cent of income, while the poorest 10 per cent earn less than one per cent of the total income. That is an inequality level more often found in Latin American countries or African republics than in developed economies like ours. It is also the result of a trend that has been gathering for years. The same study found that 401,000 households lived below the agency's poverty line of $9,000 per month - or nearly one in five families - accounting for 16.5 per cent of the population. Only 11.2 per cent of families were in a similar situation in 1991.
Hong Kong has always tolerated a certain amount of economic inequality and put its emphasis on development as the main path to alleviating the problem. But these statistics - along with the outcry about social problems in poor suburban areas, as well as the changing nature of Hong Kong's economy - raise tough questions about welfare and poverty policies.
The recovery that started last summer has lifted the prospects for the most highly trained workers but seems to have done little for the wages of the less skilled. The anecdotal evidence - and the rising increase in requests for help from charities such as the St James' Settlement food bank - suggests that the fortunes of the working poor have not been lifted significantly.
The vote in the Legislative Council last week against a reversal of the most recent welfare cut shows that concern about fostering a dependency culture runs high among many of our lawmakers, if not the public.