Legal challenge to Hong Kong's residency rules on disability allowance payments
Permanent residents must live in Hong Kong for a year to be eligible for the allowance, but one disabled man says that infringes fundamental rights
A severely disabled man refused a disability allowance because he spent too much time outside the city is challenging the legality of a one-year residence requirement.
Martin Lam Hing-chung, 33, said the requirement that a permanent resident must have lived in Hong Kong continuously for a year and spent no more than 56 days outside the city before he was eligible to apply for the allowance infringed fundamental rights.
He has applied to the High Court for permission to lodge a judicial review of the one-year residency requirement on the grounds that it denied his freedom of movement, right to social welfare and right to be equal before the law, which are guaranteed by the Basic Law.
Lam has suffered schizophrenia since 2006 and was assessed as severely disabled last year by a Hong Kong hospital.
His legal action follows a Court of Appeal ruling in February that the same residence requirement for Comprehensive Social Security Assistance was unconstitutional on those same grounds. The government removed the condition in May.
On the other hand, the Court of First Instance upheld the requirement for the old-age allowance, or "fruit money", saying it was not a fundamental right of elderly residents and the limit was necessary to ensure the sustainability of the non-means tested scheme.
According to Lam's filings, the Social Welfare Department refused his application, filed in July 2011, because he had lived in Guangdong province since 2006. The department notified him of its decision in November.