Dear 6A
We are going to respond to the Letter to the Editor “Disappointed by Tsang’s U-turn” on the Editorial of South China Morning Post, dated Oct 28 08.
Please express your opinions concerning the policy on granting ”Fruit Money” to the elderly.
Ms Fong
Responding to the opinion of Susan Chan, I agree with her idea that the government should not change its decision on putting the means test mechanism system. It will be a waste of public research on old-age allowance if rich elderly are able to get it too. I have from my grandma that some of her friend who are quite rich are planning to get the fund because of their greediness. It shows the necessity of having the system to be carried out.
In the other hand, I do not really agree Susan’s idea of remaining the amount of the fund to $600 as it is so little that the poor can only buy ‘fruit’. By paying more, it can reduces the income gap and creates a more harmonious community.
Whenever the government enforces a new legislation or carries out a new policy, it should do careful research and gather opinions form different concerning bodies. Therefore, such changes will probably benefit most of the related parties.
However, Mr Tsang just simply made a U-turn when he heard disagreements and actually criticism of the means test mechanism for the old-age allowance. Does it mean that the government told us they have been careless before the decision was made? If it does not, then why the government had their decision altered? This really confused us.
Feeling pressure from the mass, Tsang, the Chief Executive, gave up insisting on implementing constrains on granting fruit money. In fact, $1000 is not a great number for the elderlies. There is 30 days in a month, and the government now just subsidies $33 per day. It is even not enough for a meal, not to say rent payment or clothing. Without ability for working, the elderly should get this money. Also, they have paid a tremendous number of taxes for years!. It is reasonable for the government giving them assistance, which is it’s responsibility.
Although Tsang is not really willing to give in, he did it at last. Some may say this is wasting money, which is unnecessary. Come on, let’s look at the government’s reserve and the amounts of US bonds, and you will change your mind.
The Chief Executive’s change of heart on the old age allowance showed that he did not think about the details of each step following his announcement of new policies. His U-turn pressured by the public outcry actually undermined his authority.
On the other hand, even if the means test idea is said to be unworkable, it does not follow that fruit money should be unconditionally raised to $1,000 a month. In the long term, this will increase the financial burden of the government as well as the taxpayers’.
So the conclusion is that the authorities should have thorough discussions with a view to finding a sustainable fruit money scheme.
After reading the editorial entitled ‘Disappointed by Tsang’s U-turn’, I think the government should insist on their own policy if they are good for the society. I shared the view of Susan Chan. The Government should not react to criticism. And we should give the old-age allowance to the people who are really in need. I believe test mechanism is a good way to see which group of people really needs that $1000 for maintaining basic daily lives. Then the assistance can go to the needy. Moreover, the Government has to collect information before announcing a new policy. Tsang’s U-turn showed that he didn’t have a comprehensive decision and not enough research have been done.
Why is the government so fickle in proposing policies? The scrap of the means test system only shows that the government is easily swayed whenever public outcry takes place, rather than catering for the majority.
It is reasonable for the elderly to pass the means test to get the $1000 fruit money. Some may argue that the means test mechanism disregards the elderly’s contribution to the society and it just like that they need to beg to get this old-age allowance. But the main point is that resources are limited and therefore should be apportioned to those in genuine needs. What’s more, the problem of disparity between the rich and the poor will
aggravate if the means test which is used to determine how much fruit money the elderly with different level of wealth are entitles is not adopted.
I agree with Susan Chan (Disappointed by Tsang’s U-turn) that the Government should not change its principle of the policy. The test mechanism for the old-age allowance is needed. The money can go to those in need for maintaining a basic living standard. Furthermore, without the test mechanism most elderly even those very rich will take the old-age allowance, this large sum of money in long term issues will create a huge burden to the society. I do agree that the Government should listen to the public for the introduction of a policy, but is not react to criticism in such a knee-jerk fashion. The Chief Executive cancels the test mechanism which shows that the government did not have careful planning before announcing its policy. It also gives a wrong message to the public that if I disagree with the policy I just need to criticize it, then the government will change it.
At first, the old age allowance is regarded as a return for the contribution of the elderly in their previous life. However, the trend is that some elderly who do not have any financial ability fully relies on this small amount of fund to maintain their living. At the same time there are some elderly who do not really need the money at all because they have relatives to take care of.
So I think the government should not change its mind to give up the test mechanism. In fact it must has gone through various careful and detailed research before proposing this policy. It should not be so easily affected by criticism in order to gain support from the public. It has to assess the efects of the policy with the real situation. My view is that the policy is beneficial to the society as resources can be allocated to those who are really in need. It is also fairer to the elderly as it depends on their actual financial needs.
Every new policies introduced by Mr Tsang must have been considered by him carefully.Nevertheless, there will not be any policies that people from all walks of life or different social status agree with.In this incident,although the U-turn may ruin the government’s power and influence, i think it is good that Mr Tsang has realised his mistake.I appreciate him of his willingness to change the policy. Not many people are willing to admit their faults especially when they are facing the general public.But personally, i hope that Mr Tsang can cancel the test mechanism of fruit money as the elderly deserve to receive the money for their contribution to society disregard of their age and savings.
People always hope to get the utmost benefit from work, study or other things, to explain more negatively, people are greedy at all. Actually, $1000 of the fruit money is not as much as millions, but to view of elderly, it’s already enough for living. I appreciate the government has raised the amount of the fruit money and i agree with Susan Chan that the government should insist on the test mechanism, because there are elderly who really need the fruit money and those in need of the money can surely be benefited.
However, the fact that the government changed the policy because of criticism from the public is not really worth, since it gives out an image to the public that the government would adopt policies following the public’s will if the publc shout to, criticize and denounce the government.
The action taken by the Chief Executive Mr Tsang of scrapping the proposal of the Fruit Money has disappointed many of his supporters.At the same time,it gives a wrong concept that whenever the public does not satisfy with the legislation proposed by the government,they can ‘force’ the government to change the legislation by protest.This is not a right way to show that the SAR government is conform to democracy.Whenever the government is proposing a legislation,enough consultation and research is needed.By doing this can one hand satisfy the public’s needs,on the other hand,it can retain the government’s prestige.
After reading Susan Chan’s editorial, I do agree that the changing of mind on the policy of fruit money by our Chief Executive, Mr Tsang, will bring a negative effect on the government. This U-turn decision shows a weak and incompetent image towards the public. When there is any short term problem appears in the future, people would ask for government aid directly, shouting for what they want without considering other things. Actually, test mechanism is a good method to find out the old people really in need. I do not really understand why a part of the citizens disagree with it. Also, from this piece of editorial, I can see that Hong Kong people love to complain. Complain for everything we feel disappointed or unacceptable. However, do complains really help to solve our problems? Why can’t we tolerate and respect the others more, and live in a harmonious sociaty together?
I appreciate the means test mechanism that the Chief Executive originally proposed in his policy address as it is fairer and the society can then spend more resources on the needy. However, the u-turn of the government disappointed me a lot. Although the government should listen to the sound of the public, it is impossible for it to satisfy everyone’s want. The government’s role is to draw up policies which are best for Hong Kong and its future development. It should not hesitate or even scrap the beneficial policy when it faces criticism. Otherwise, in long term, Hong Kong citizens will eventually lose their confident in the government.
Our Chief Executive Donald Tsang released his policy address last week. Many people felt disappointed with him. Recently, I read a comment of Susan Chan in SCMP. She is very disappointed for the old age allowance proposed by Tsang.
In the view point of the elderly, they were very happy about it because they can receive more money. However, I think Tsang should consider it more carefully. Due to the ageing problem in Hong Kong, the budget for fruit money will involve a huge sum of money. It is unfair to us because we need to pay for all the elderly in Hong Kong. Some of them are very rich or even richer than me and you. I think Tsang is trying his best to satisfy everyone’s want so as to gain the heart of Hong Kong citizens.
I hope Tsang can draw up some policies carefully next time and create a stable society to us.
how can i find a outdated newsletter online??
I think the U-turn action did by Mr Donald Tsang is inappropriate. This shows that the government did not do enough research when setting up a certain policy, and the policy is challenged by the public easily. Moreover, this action further weaken the ruling power of the government. We know that a government should care its citizens, however, it is impossible to satisfy all peoples’ wants. Sometimes, ruling power is established on its resolute actions, whether it is rational or irrational. Remember, society is ruled by the government, but not by the others. And the entire Hong Kong government just like a puppet, controlled by different parties in Hong Kong. Shame on having such a government.
I agree with what Susan Chan said. I think the government should not scrap the test mechanism. In fact, some elders are quite rich that they do not need to rely on the fruit money. However, there are many who really need more money to support their daily living. The government should find out which group of people is truly in need of help.
Moreover, Tsang’s U-turn actually may send a wrong message to people that the government will change its policy easily whenever there is criticism. It affects the government’s authority. Therefore, Mr. Tsang must think deeply and carefully when drawing up his policies. Perhaps sometimes he may need to insist on his standpoint.
I share the same view with Susan Chan. Donald Tsang’s downturn was disappointing. It gives an impression to Hong Kong people that our government will listen to us and do whatever we like just if we ask Mr. Wong and Mr. Leung to scream in the Legco. It also make Hong Kong people doubt whether our government has thought twice before drawing up his policies.
The government should listen to the public. However, it should be done when drawing up policies, rather than after the policies have been drawn and published. It is not a wise way to make a U-turn when facing criticism.
I share the same view with Susan Chan. Donald Tsang’s U-turn was disappointing. It gives an impression to Hong Kong people that our government will listen to us and do whatever we like just if we ask Mr. Wong and Mr. Leung to scream in the Legislative council. It also make Hong Kong people doubt whether our government has thought twice before drawing up his policies.
The government should listen to the public. However, it should be done when drawing up policies, rather than after the policies have been drawn and published. It is not a wise way to make a U-turn when facing criticism.
I think a criticism is a guideline for a policy address. Yet, it doesn’t mean that the policy should follow the criticism. The Chief Executive should find a way to strive a balance between minimization of expenditure and social values. In fact, he was afraid to face the public pressure, so he followed what the opponents said. He should figure out a way to minimize the cost of accounting the income of elderly while concerning the elderly, for example, cancel the fruit money of the old millionaire first and then the second richest class and so on, do it step by step is more acceptable than doing it at once.
to yves:
You can use the search bar.
Key in “Disappointed by Tsang’s U-turn”.
OK!
After reading the editorial written by Susan Chan, I share the same view with her. The U-turn of the Chief Executive Donald Tsang only shows that he had given up the original principle. This action also futher lost the respect from the citizens due to the changeable in policy. How can a policy could be changed so easily due to a small group of people? The action of Donald Tsang brought a great economic burden to the next few year’s Hong Kong government. Apart from this, it shows the short-sighted of our dearest Chief Executive who only wants to gain the support of the people.
Mr Tsang probably hasn’t expect the reaction of the general public towards the new policies is so great. However, I think he certainly has thought about the financial burden of the government in the coming years carefully, trying not to increase the financial burden of taxpayers. Mr Tsang’s U-turn, in my view, it is a way showing our government is a flexible one, it is capable of catering th eopinions of the public on its policies and carrying out policies which satisfy the general public most and can utilise the resources contributed by the taxpayers most at the same time.
I really dislike what Donald Tsang is doing now.He is not strong enough in announcing a policy.If he thinks some of his policy is really good for the government and the society, why should he bends down at last? The Hong Kong government is now facing a problem that, it afraids of everything too much.Once there is objection,it will change its mind.This not only gives negative effect to a specific policy, but also the whole society.People will soon recognise that unreasonable action should be taken if the policy is not good to them.The importance is that, no any policy can make all citizens feel happy.please stop doing that silly things to gain people’s support.
It seems many guys share the view of the editor that our Chef Excutive Mr Donald Tsang should not give a U-turn on the old-age allowance. However, I have a different point of view. $1000 allowance per elderly seems not to be a great amount of money to the society at this moment. But with the continous practice of this policy, it won’t be easy to stop in the future as at that time, more people need it. And at that time , it will cause a serious financial burden to the Government as the aging problem is worsened.
Therefore I think banning the $1000 allowance at this moment is not bad at all. What the Government should do more is to provide some short-term subsidies to the needy.
whenever a policy is decided, there shouldn’t be any changes within a short time, otherwise it will just shows the weak of the government.
So in this case, Ansan Chan had shared what most of the hong kong people think. Donald Tsang is unable to be a good leader. The fruit money’s problm had been last for a long time, it shown the unconcern on elderly in Hong Kong. Now changes will be appear in this policy, people’s must have mny opinions. Although he is trying to listen to people’s idea, but indeed lost his own. I don’t think that he is really doing wrong this time, but he should try to be a stronger policy dicider and leader.
It’s the pleasure of many Hong Kong citizens to have the new legislation introduced by our chief executive, Donald Tsang, abandoned. Actually he was not supposed to set a minimum requirement of the amount of assets owned by the elderly intending to receive the fruit money owing to the unnecessary change in the nature of “fruit money”. Originally this sum of money is to express our respect and gratitude to the elderly for their contribution to our society in the past. This is entirely unrelated to the asset owned by them. But the fruit money given out by Donald Tsang is likely to contain discriminatory implication. Undoubtedly elderly from affluent families is the major group of people opposing his idea. I hold the same stance as these elderly do, too.
Actually, it is good to have fruit money for the elderly.With the aging problem, Hong Kong government has been carring out much policies to deal with and take care of the elderly, no matter in medical care, or others.
What about the fruit money implemented in the new policy address with the means test mechanism?
Undoubtedly, it helps to judge which one (the elderly) is in needs of this amount of funds and meet the criteria.
However, i don’t think Tsang had did a good job in changing the policy that had just been approved by his government. This shown that he had listened the community’s opinion, on the contrary, it manifested the weakness of our Hong Kong government under Tsang’s lead. What would Hong Kong be if every policy are changed whenever discontent aroused?
Although he finally suited the needs of the public, however, it also showed that he has not think twice before giving out the policy address.He may has thought about the difficuties that government may face,but, it seems that he did not think about others thinking and also not a good leader.
A good leader should think of each side,the benefits and losses that bring to each side and find out the best policy to imply,but,he is not,and now change him mind suddendly will make people lose confident and his policy enforced later will not be supported by the others and they will just cry out what they needs and ask him to do so.
Old-age allowance is policy to show our respect to the elderly. I think most people put the wrong focus on the “Fruit Money”. Its purpose is not assisting the elderly! It is different from the CAAS. Most of the elderly applied the CAAS due to the difficult in living. If they realy fail to manage it, they can ask for improvement on the CAAS.
Therefore, I do not share the view with Suan Chan. Donald Tsang should not suggest the means test mechanism for the old-age allowance. It will change the meaning and mix up the walfear policy.