Is Hong Kong finally going to fix chronic problems in how it plans and funds social welfare, a system often criticised as 'ad hoc', 'short term' and hostage to 'whoever shouts loudest'? Wilfred Wong Ying-wai believes so. He is confident that another page will be turned for a welfare system under increasing stress from rapid economic and social change. Mr Wong, a senior civil-servant-turned-businessman, recently stood down after six years as chairman of the government's 22-member Social Welfare Advisory Committee (SWAC). It was asked last year to produce a blueprint for Hong Kong's future social welfare system, along with 'strategic principles' to guide future planning, a process expected to take another year. Separately, Mr Wong will soon complete an independent review for the government of its problematic 'lump sum grant' system, introduced in 2000 as a mechanism for dispensing funds to some 160 non-governmental organisations providing welfare services. He said the committee he chaired would recommend many changes. A key issue is how to reconcile the fact that many NGOs need to plan for the longer term in light of changing welfare demands while the government only commits funds year by year, with amounts varying according to the state of the public coffers. It wasn't always like this. The welfare system used to be based on rolling five-year plans that implemented policy objectives set out in white papers after comprehensive reviews. That approach was scrapped after 1999 because it was considered rigid and bureaucratic. Now, the government consults the welfare sector 'from time to time' on service priorities and broad strategies. Few lament the passing of the five-year-plan era, with its micromanagement by government and constant tugs of war with NGOs over money. But many in the sector think welfare planning has suffered since the last white paper was issued, 17 years ago. They are concerned that the system is unable to respond quickly enough to emerging needs. 'Hong Kong has changed so much. But we really haven't had a very comprehensive review of the strategy or direction of our social welfare policy,' said Chua Hoi-wai, business director at the Hong Kong Council of Social Services. He cited social trends, such as a doubling of the number of single-parent families in the past decade. He said there was a lack of integration in efforts to address many of today's welfare issues. One example was how the system responded to the problem of 'night drifters' - teenagers staying out on the streets all night. 'The government's way was only to fix the problem, just to find somebody to take care of them,' Mr Chua said. 'Our thinking would be that we should lay out all the issues then try to work out a more cohesive, coherent way of dealing with them.' This would mean 'joining up' day and night services for such teenagers and adopting a 'developmental' approach to help them 'find the meaning of life and get back into school'. University of Hong Kong professor of social work Nelson Chow Wing-sun, a veteran observer of social welfare development in Hong Kong, said that while the government had spent more on people's livelihoods since the handover, its approach had become more politicised. 'It has nothing to do with social welfare development planning. Rather, the purpose of all these short-term measures is to gain popularity,' said Professor Chow. 'There are certain problems or outcries; certain groups of people urge the government to do more in certain areas, so the government has agreed to spend more. I think people are fed up with these piecemeal, ad hoc things.' Spending on social welfare has risen 123 per cent since the handover - from HK$17 billion in 1996-97 to HK$38 billion this year - second only to education spending. One reason is the surge in the number of able-bodied, working-age people receiving Comprehensive Social Security Assistance, up from about 112,000 a decade ago to some 209,000 now. This is largely due to the disappearance of hundreds of thousands of blue-collar jobs in Hong Kong since the 1980s, which has left many working poor with no option but welfare. 'The trouble is that we have 1 million workers with very little education and who have worked in one occupation, such as construction or restaurants, for 30 or so years. They're still only in their late 40s,' said Professor Chow. 'For this group of people, who have the capacity to work, we should not just give them support for basic living but get them back to work.' Professor Chow said there should be a separate category of CSSA offering the unemployed a more generous amount for a short period so they could dress better for, and have enough money to travel to, job interviews. That should be combined with more effective retraining, he said. Unionist legislator Lee Cheuk-yan said Hong Kong's social welfare system did not offer enough protection for the working poor. Nor was it geared to middle-class families going through a crisis because of job losses. He said the government's only answer to poverty was the CSSA. 'It doesn't fit the so-called white collar unemployed, who may have their own housing and a mortgage to pay. They don't qualify as CSSA recipients. So there is no safety net in the sense that, when there are accidents in life, like unemployment or sudden reduction of wages, there is nothing to cushion them.' Mr Lee noted that the middle class had been hit hard twice in a decade, with the Asian financial crisis 10 years ago and the outbreak of severe acute respiratory syndrome five years ago. Now Hong Kong was facing another 'white-collar recession' brought on by the global financial slump. 'We're in uncharted waters because, in the past, there was ample opportunity for the children of a poor family to have social mobility,' he said. 'Now we see a downward trend. Even the middle class is going down the ladder because of the latest financial crisis we're going through.' Mr Lee estimated there were about 300,000 'lower-middle class' families, who were vulnerable to layoffs and wage reduction if they were not in relatively secure jobs like teaching or the civil service. Creating jobs with infrastructure projects during the downturn would have a limited ripple effect, he said. 'We need more jobs in the white-collar or service areas. How about investing more in child care and elderly care? It can create jobs and also tackle social needs.' Mr Lee said social welfare spending should be seen as social investment rather than 'pouring out money' for the poor and needy. 'We should change our language,' he said. 'Social investment has a return. If people have more security and confidence in the future, it's also good for the economy. This [change] needs to start from government. They need to have a new way to look into social needs and social welfare.' Professor Chow said he would support the introduction of a guideline setting out the government's social welfare aims, policy and priorities, rather than a plan that tries to pin down specifics. Children should come first in social welfare, the family should be strengthened and the community used for delivery of services, he said. Mr Wong believes the NGOs and government together are doing a good job on social welfare. 'Let's not belittle them. I think it's a matter of how we cope with the rapidly changing social and economic environment.' The government had already reorganised, he said, to bring welfare and labour together in one bureau for better policy co-ordination. It was now aware of what was missing in its social welfare approach. 'That's why they've asked us to do the lump sum grant review and asked SWAC to do the welfare planning. It's really in the hope we could get all the inputs so that a clearer direction can be decided.' The first round of consultation for the SWAC review ended recently, receiving 26 written submissions. Mr Wong said social welfare in Hong Kong should have a mechanism that was a timely reflection of changing community needs. It also needed more policy research by academics into problems and needs stemming from changing social patterns. 'The government should put more funding into this cross-border situation, with cross-border marriages and old people retiring and going back to [mainland] China.' Mr Wong pinpointed contradictions in the current system, compounded by 'some mistrust' between the government and NGOs. 'The government is probably still exercising too much control,' he said. 'They're not allowing all the flexibility that has been promised, whereas the welfare sector is not doing enough thinking on what it should be doing under that system, for example by re-engineering [their services].' As the government saw it, he said, for the past eight years, NGOs had been given money and it had been left up to them to decide how to spend it, as long as they delivered the required services. As the welfare sector saw it, needs were changing so quickly that they barely had the resources to deliver old services, let alone introduce new ones. 'If the lump sum system operates well and the planning system comes into place, then I think the missing links are going to be there,' said Mr Wong. He noted that what the government was thinking and doing on social welfare was seldom articulated. By the same token, neither the media nor the public had been very interested in the technicalities of the system. 'The social welfare system in Hong Kong has evolved into a very complex system,' said Mr Wong. 'I've been the chairman of SWAC for six years. I've now spent almost a year on the lump sum grant. And, God, I'm still learning. I'm unearthing things every day.'
