|
||||||||||||||
Mrs Carrie Lam, Director of Social Welfare, was the
Foundation’s guest speaker on 18 April 2001. This is a
summary of her speech.
Eight months as the Director of Social Welfare in the HKSAR Government have given me some fresh insights into the role of social welfare in a free economy and capitalist society like Hong Kong, especially when this job is preceded by one that looks after the health of Hong Kong's public finances. I have much pleasure to be given an opportunity this afternoon to share with you my views. I hope at the end of my talk, I shall be able to convince you that there is indeed no conflict between my old position as Deputy Secretary for the Treasury and my new job as DSW. That no matter whether one is in the frontline of livelihood issues or in the back office resourcing the welfare portfolio, we share one common goal, and that is, to make the best use of community resources to help the vulnerable and the disadvantaged. Hong Kong prides itself on caring for and supporting those least able to take care of themselves. The Government has special social responsibilities, in particular towards the disadvantaged, the disabled and the vulnerable. This priority is demonstrated by the fact that exactly half of our recurrent public expenditure is devoted to health, social welfare and education. This is made up of 21.7% for education, 14.5% for health and 13.8% for social welfare. Of these three main areas of spending, some people tend to classify health and education as positive spending, as a form of investment that enables our citizens to contribute to economic growth and prosperity; whereas welfare is negative spending, that drains the community's resources and tends to create dependence. Such a classification is clearly over-simplified, if not totally misconstrued.
|
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
 |
|
|
|
|
Our guiding principle in developing welfare services is to build a caring community with self-sufficiency, dignity, harmony and happiness. Social welfare forms an important component in the Government's responsibility for social development as enunciated recently by the Chief Executive in his 2000 Policy Address, namely -
to create an environment where participation and fair competition are open to all;
to put in place a well-resourced basic safety net to look after the physical and psychological well being of the elderly, the infirm and the disabled;
to assist the disadvantaged, the poor and the unemployed with an emphasis on enhancing, not impeding, their will to be self-reliant; and
to encourage those in our society with sufficient means to show their concern for the community by organising, participating in, or supporting different kinds of voluntary work.
It is with this philosophy in mind and a budget strategy to shoulder special responsibilities towards the disadvantaged that social welfare has grown significantly over the last decade. In the ten-year period from 1992-93 to 2001-02, total recurrent expenditure on social welfare increased from $7.6 billion to $30 billion. As a result, welfare's share of total recurrent public expenditure increased from 8.3% to 13.8%. Of the estimated expenditure of $30 billion for 2001-02, about two-thirds or $21 billion will be spent on the social security schemes providing financial support to those in need. The remaining $9 billion is spent on a wide range of support services on Family and Child Welfare, Elderly Services, Rehabilitation, Medical Social Services, Services for Offenders, Community Development and Young People. These direct services are provided by SWD and 182 Non-Government Organisations (NGOs) under Government subventions. Estimated total recurrent subventions to NGOs in 2001-02 amounts to $7.2 billin. Departmental expenditure accounts for the remaining $2 billion in the social welfare budget.
Let me just illustrate to you how much we are doing for the needy with a $30 billion welfare budget -
- a total of some 230,000 families are now supported under the means-tested non-contributory Comprehensive Social Security Assistance Scheme. Of these, 75% are the aged and disabled while the rest are the unemployed (10%), single parents (11%) and low earnings families (4%);
- another 550,000 people are receiving old age allowance and disability allowance because of their age and disabilities on a non-means tested basis other than a simple income declaration for those receiving old age allowance between 65 and 69;
- some 23,500 frail elders are in heavily subsidised residential care provided through subvented homes or private homes under the Bought Place Scheme. By the end of this financial year, an additional 2,500 places will be provided. Another 30,000 needy elders are receiving home care and meal services delivered to their home;
- an extensive network of 65 family services centres together with five specialised Family and Child Protection Services Unit are rendering services to families in trouble and family members being abused. For the year 2000, while reported child abuse cases have stabilised, with 500 newly registered cases as compared to 575 in the preceding year, we have seen an upsurge of 46% in domestic violence, with over 2,200 newly registered battered spouse cases;
- over 8,000 people with physical or mental disabilities are being looked after in residential care. Another 16,000 are receiving day care in pre-school setting, early education and training centres, sheltered workshops and supported employment;
- about 10,000 people who have committed minor offences are placed under SWD’s supervision on probation or community services orders. The Department also runs residential boys and girls homes for young people with behavioural problems;
- all the 456 secondary schools in Hong Kong are each provided with one school-based social worker. They are in turn supported by a network of children and youth centres, integrated teams and outreaching social workers to address the needs of young people; and
- to ensure that community support services are made known to all those in need, we are running extensive outreaching support teams and volunteer programmes through our 13 District Social Work Offices.
But $30 billion is a significant share of public resources. From my previous job, I am acutely aware that the spending cake is finite. Every dollar spent on welfare is at the expense of other policy areas. It is therefore my duty to ensure the efficiency, economy and effectiveness of the welfare expenditure. It is in pressing ahead with securing optimal value for money in the delivery of welfare services that I find my previous Treasury job experience extremely helpful.
|
|
|
|
|
First, I believe in small government. Today's public administration must try to shorten the distance between the point where service is delivered and the other end where decisions are made. Delayering, streamlining and process re-engineering are common day reform measures. SWD had grown into a bureaucracy of 5,640 just before the turn of the century. We are now down to 5,300 and have plans to lose a bit more in the course of the year. Separately, we are planning a re-organisation which will see the three-tiered structure of Headquarters/Region/District delayer into a Headquarters and District structure. This will enable us to be more responsive to welfare needs in the district.
Secondly, we should focus on what we are getting rather than what we are paying. An outcome-focused and result-oriented approach in managing welfare services has been adopted for both departmental and subvented services. We have successfully put in place a new subvention system, what we call the Lump Sum Grant, that will give NGOs the necessary flexibility in resource deployment. This new subvention mode which once raised serious concerns is now the mainstream subvention system in the welfare sector, practised by 126 NGOs who together account for over 90% of welfare subventions.
Thirdly, I believe that open and fair competition in a regulated environment which has made Hong Kong tick will work equally well in social welfare. The system of distributing new welfare service units to NGOs in a conventional manner is something of the past. NGOs that are interested to operate new welfare services must now go through a vigorous quality-based competition based on service specifications, innovation and value-added features.
Fourthly, welfare services can also benefit from private sector participation which, through its enterprise and efficiency, can come up with more economical solutions to deliver a public service. Of course in an area of human services generally patronised by the disadvantaged, we need to pay particular attention to specifying service requirements and monitoring performance. In this respect, we have successfully contracted out the home care and meal services achieving productivity gains of more than 20%. We will shortly be inviting both NGOs and private sector to bid for the operation of new Government purpose-built residential care homes for the elderly.
Finally, there is a general consensus within the community that we do not wish to see Hong Kong become a welfare state relying on heavy taxes, that there is a limit to how much the Government can spend and that the virtues of self-reliance, family cohesion and community support should be preserved. To this end, I believe that all of us in the welfare sector have to ensure that we are promoting, not impeding, the individuals' will and capacity to stand on their own feet. It is against this background that we have adopted since June 1999 a Promoting Self-Reliance strategy under the Comprehensive Social Security Assistance Scheme. Through active employment assistance, the CSSA unemployed caseload has dropped by some 30% since then.
I thank the Hong Kong Democratic Foundation again for inviting me to speak during your luncheon. This is a distinguished gathering that through its regular Newsletter and luncheons provide a much-needed forum for rational discussion and policy debates.
The above does not necessarily represent the views of the Foundation
Copyright © 2000-2001 Hong Kong Democratic Foundation. All Rights Reserved.