This year's budget has had its fair share of controversy. First, the proposal to inject HK$6,000 into all MPF accounts was shot down. Then came the idea of a HK$6,000 cash handout and tax rebate to all permanent adult residents. Now, there is an additional proposal to give HK$6,000 to mainland immigrants who have been here less than seven years. The money will come from the newly established Community Care Fund. These ideas have all stirred continuous debate and we have yet to see a consensus. The focus of debate is on the question of discrimination and whether the budget deliberately excluded new mainland immigrants. In fact, the original proposal to inject funds into MPF accounts would have benefited mainland immigrants. But, the cash giveaway excludes those mainland immigrants who are not yet permanent residents. As a result, the government has been accused of discrimination. To qualify under the latest proposal, they would have to prove they earn below a fixed limit and their assets would be checked. This has drawn more criticism, for making it difficult for mainland immigrants to receive the cash benefit. In fact, most of the critics are just echoing one another; they don't really understand the concept behind these proposals. It's true that both the MPF and cash giveaway proposals inadvertently create social conflicts. The MPF proposal wouldn't have benefited all members of the workforce; those under different retirement schemes would have been left out. The same problem surfaced with the cash giveaway because of other restrictions, such as the age limit. But, the idea of not handing out cash to mainland immigrants who are not permanent residents doesn't constitute discrimination; it is a form of welfare benefit to local residents. When it comes to social benefits, locals and new immigrants will always be treated differently. It's the same the world over. In fact, many countries, especially the US and Canada, have strict definitions regarding citizens, permanent residents and immigrants. In the US, applicants have to satisfy certain residency requirements to qualify for state universities while, in Britain, similar rules apply for university subsidies and grants. If not giving cash handouts to non-permanent residents is a form of discrimination, then other social benefits, such as housing and welfare subsidies - to which only permanent residents are entitled - are also biased. Using the same argument, our electoral system is also unfair; non-permanent residents are not allowed to vote or stand in elections. The latest proposal to use the Community Care Fund to help only low-income new mainland immigrants is not discriminatory - the fundamental principle is to help the needy. There are discrepancies in this year's budget proposals, which caused a huge public outcry. There is certainly room for improvement in terms of policy ideas and implementation, but the inconsistency has more to do with policy flaws than discrimination. The media and critics should monitor the government; it is understandable that politicians and their parties feel obliged to speak for their voters. But they should always base their criticism on facts alone. The government must tackle the root of the problem and narrow the wealth gap. Handing out cash is merely putting a bandage over the problem. We need sustainable policies to help the poor help themselves. We also need public support to make this happen, not people twisting the meaning of words such as 'discrimination' and 'equal opportunities' for their personal and political gain. Albert Cheng King-hon is a political commentator. taipan@albertcheng.hk