Collision between logic and our emotions can have harsh results

These days, we often hear about coming conflicts between humans and artificial intelligence or robots. The fact of the matter is that for a very long time and all around us there have been clashes, which we perhaps overlook or are unaware of, between the fuzziness of people and the rigidity of systems. A prime example occurs in a field about which Hong Kong is, understandably, deeply concerned: the welfare of its elderly population.

There are many problems to be solved before our elderly can enjoy a decent standard of welfare, but it is important to understand that the elders’ incomes may be lower than necessary as a result of their choice made out of pride. The reason for this paradox is an aversion to applying for Comprehensive Social Security Assistance (CSSA) because, in the eyes of some of our proud elderly, this is seen as “the dole” and hence demeaning. To become a CSSA recipient is contrary to their strong sense of self-reliance and independence. Instead, they will often try to survive on Old Age Allowance, colloquially known as “Fruit Money”. This is where the reality of many of our senior citizens’ gut reactions is at loggerheads with the good intentions of government planners.

The elderly are disinclined to apply for CSSA partly because of the searching meanstest process which applicants may find both onerous and embarrassing. It might well be that introduction of a universal pension would “solve” this problem as there would be no stigma in receiving a benefit obtainable Backchat for everyone. In my view, though, Hong Kong — with its rapidly aging population — would take far too big a risk in introducing a non-contributory pension with no means testing, available to those who actually have no need of it. There are, of course, improvements that can be made and, to its credit, the government has in the recent past taken some crucial steps. The Old Age Living Allowance was introduced in 2013. Set at a rate higher than “Fruit Money” but lower than CSSA, this makes a significant difference to those whose own resources let them just get by but not much more.

Simplifying application procedures can also have surprisingly beneficial effects, as with the recent decision to abolish the quaintly named “bad son letter”. The theory, reasonable enough, was that families who were able to do so should offer financial support to their elderly. Hence, elderly CSSA applicants would be asked whether their close family members were willing to help out with regular payments and might be asked to produce a written declaration (the “bad son letter”) that they would not receive such assistance, so clearing the way for a CSSA application. This requirement resulted, however, in cases in which strained family relationships meant the easiest option seemed to be not to apply for CSSA at all even when the elderly person’s need was genuine. A similar adjustment that could be made and would bring many more elderly into the CSSA net would be abolition of the “one household” rule which is another example of the perfectly reasonable colliding with psychological reality. The rule says that the income of a group of people living together should be assessed in aggregate rather than singling out the income of each member. On paper and intellectually this is quite right but very often elderly folks living within a family will have little of their own in the way of income and assets. Letting these elderly be assessed and to receive CSSA separately would instantly alleviate their poverty and also elevate their dignity and independence.

Thus, there are indeed procedural improvements that can be made to reduce elderly poverty. It must continue to focus on these issues but it must also give top priority to providing adequate public rental housing. Failure to do so would mean modest budgets being eaten up by ridiculous rentals for sub-standard private accommodation. Simultaneously, other related services such as day-care centers must continue to be expanded and enhanced to ensure our fellow citizens’ twilight years are spent as they should be, with dignity and without gnawing worries about finding the necessities of daily life.