This year’s budget proposals will face a vote in the legislature on Wednesday. While the proposal to return some of the government’s surplus wealth to taxpayers is popular, this budget is not free of drawbacks and shortcomings. Financial Secretary Henry Tang Yingyen has clearly tried to ease the financial burdens of people in all walks of life, especially those in the middle class. In this respect, he has responded to many of the Democratic Party’s strong and persistent requests over the past three years.

Several of his proposals – for example, waiving part of the salaries tax, raising the child allowance, implementing a “green”tax, promoting the use of environmentally friendly vehicles and providing free Wi-fi internet service in government venues – were contained in policy proposals we submitted during the budget consultation period. Some credit, certainly, should go to the financial secretary for his one-off giveaway proposals.

But there were two major shortcomings in the budget proposal, and they must be taken seriously in the forthcoming budget debate in the Legislative Council. First, the government is extremely conservative in its management of public finances. Hong Kong’s financial condition is far more than just “steady”. There is no longer any concern over a structural deficit in our fiscal system, and we can foresee abundant surpluses in the treasury for the coming five years. This argument is based not on arbitrary assumptions, but on figures produced by government economists.

With surpluses in the consolidated and operating accounts of HK$55.1 billion and HK$38.6 billion, respectively, the government should be more forward-looking in committing itself to implement policies that are demanded by society. Our fiscal reserves sat at HK$365.8 billion at the end of last month. The balance may reach HK$580 billion in the next five years, which would equal 30 per cent of the gross domestic product. Do we really need such a huge reserve in the face of several compelling social issues,including persistent demands for small-class teaching, subsidies for associate degree courses and vouchers for all kindergarten students?

Why not give more subsidies to nursing homes for the elderly, which would alleviate a burden for many families, improve the quality of life for many old people and create jobs? Other social-investment policies – such as encouraging “green” industry by subsidising environmentally friendly enterprises – are also waiting for funds. These budget proposals show the government’s lack of vision about, and long- term commitment to, social investment.Besides the applause-winning giveaways, the government should use our abundantreserves to tackle such issues as the rich-poor divide and cross-generational poverty.

Further, this budget seems to leave the working poor out in the cold. There are about 300,000 Hong Kong families who work very hard but earn barely enough to make ends meet. Yet these working poor refuse to be dependent on the government by accepting social security payouts. We believe a one-off payout should go to each of these families, of an amount not less than welfare payouts, in order to let them share the fruits of the revived economy. This suggestion would cost only about HK$1 billion. We need enough reserves in our treasury to meet future needs, yet more is not always better. The important point is that our public coffers should maintain a proper balance – a balance of adequate funds for future and current needs. We want the financial secretary to remember this point after Legco passes his giveaway proposals next week.

同刊於2007年4月12日南華早報

作者 何俊仁