Motion Debate on "Family Policy" (English only)

********************************

Following is the speech by the Secretary for Health and Welfare, Dr E K Yeoh, in the motion debate on "Family Policy" in the Legislative Council today (May 16):

Madam President,

The Administration welcomes this opportunity to discuss family policy. It is indeed timely to do so, given that yesterday was the UN International Day of Families.

I have listened with great interest to the views of Honourable Members and am most appreciative for your comments and ideas.

However, I am bound to say at the outset that the Government cannot support the motion since it implies that we do not have comprehensive policies for families. In reality, nothing could be further from the truth. Concern for and appreciation of, the impact of individual policies on the family pervades throughout all Government actions. Government policy has already taken into account the impact on individuals and families. This is self-evident and part of the accepted structure and motivation of Government. Taking reference to one authoritative publication in family policy, the major instrument for family policies include policy domains such as, I read out just a few, income transfers, including child and family allowances, social and public assistance, parenting policy, including pay and job protective leave for employees following child birth, child care policies, laws of inheritance, adoption, guardianship, foster care, marriage separation, divorce, custody and child support, family planning and abortion law and policy, housing allowance and policy, maternal family and child help services. I think that Members will recognize all these are preference in government's policy and operation at the moment. I shall, in due course, and using the specific policy areas referred to in the motion, provide more specific examples in support of my position.

Family

But before doing so, I should first like to say a few words about the family and its position in our society. The importance of the family as a pillar institution of society is without question.

There is, however, no consensus on the definition of a family. We all use the term and believe that we know what it means. But there are considerable variations in the community as to what precisely it should encompass. The traditional three generations living together model is becoming in many communities a rarity. Instead, families today may comprise adults with or without children, single-parents, and those who live partly across the border.

In functional terms, the family is the oldest form of bondage between individuals. It is often a source of strength, providing an intimate environment for the physical care, mutual support and emotional security of its members, individually and collectively. It is within the family that we learn basic social and moral values, develop relationships, share what we have with others, cope with conflicts, crises and tragedies, and love, nurture and care for one another.

One of the definitions I have come across from the American Home Economics Association, best demonstrates the diverse, complex and changing nature of families -

"A Family : Two or more persons who share resources, share responsibility for decisions, share values and goals, and have commitments to one another over a period of time. The period is not defined. The family is that climate that one comes home to; and it is that network of sharing and commitments that most accurately describes the family unit, regardless of blood, legalities, or adoption or marriage."

Turning to family policy, this may have different meanings in different political and social systems. Family policy may be defined as a field in which certain objectives regarding the family are established and various policies and measures are developed to achieve these goals. Family policy may also be defined as a rationale, providing an acceptable reason for achieving latent objectives. Societies may identify goals which need not have direct relevance to the family but require some sort of behaviour on the part of the family or family members for goal attainment. Family policy may also be defined as perspective or criterion for social policy choice in various policy arenas, with the use of family well-being as one of the criteria for decision making as well as an outcome for assessing the consequences of policies generally.

The Administration is extremely sensitive to the multifarious needs of families and through different means adopts comprehensive and extensive policies for families. This policy naturally embraces the different members - all children, young people, men, women, parents and the elderly, I think this was quite clearly highlighted by Members individually, including those with specialized needs and the different type of families. We should also remember that policies designed to impact on family groups often also impact on other broader social policies and vice versa. Given the all-embracing nature of families, it is a given for Government to consider the implications of relevant policies on the family as broadly defined. The issue is not whether the Administration takes into account the effect of policy on this fundamental unit and institution of our society, but rather the extent to which government should intervene and whether this is desirable.

Family Welfare Policy in HK

Against this background, I wish to highlight what the Government has been doing, in particular in promoting a family-oriented society.

Here in Hong Kong, our policies always take account of the family and its individual members. The 1991 White Paper, "Social Welfare Policy into the 1990s and Beyond", states that "the relevant policy Branches in the Government should consider the family perspective when developing policies that have implications on the family as a unit and as a resource" and "at the policy level, the different policy makers should take greater cognizance of welfare concepts such as the family unit and the welfare of the child when formulating policies for their respective policy areas".

The family is a vital component of our society. The family which functions well in discharging its responsibilities contributes to the stability and well-being of society. The major objectives of our family welfare services are -

(a) to preserve and strengthen the family as a unit so that it provides a suitable environment for the physical, emotional and social development of its members;

(b) to give assistance and enhance family functioning through support services in order to cope with difficulties in family life; and

With these objectives in mind and having regard to the rapid social and economic changes in Hong Kong, our family welfare services have been developed to assist families to discharge their caring and protective functions. The Government strengthens and supports the family so that it can function properly and intervenes only when members of the family are in need of assistance and protection.

In 2001-02, the estimated recurrent expenditure on the family and child welfare programme is $1.7 billion. Apart from this, a safety net in the form of the Comprehensive Social Security Scheme and charitable funds is available to assist families in need of financial assistance.

Having consulted colleagues in the Bureaux responsible for the subjects raised in the motion, I would also like to give examples of the specific policies and actions taken to promote the well-being of the family, to strengthen the family as a key unit in our society and to promote a family-friendly society.

On the question of introducing a family impact assessment system, there appears to be limited information in the literature and in practice as to how such a system or systems could be applied. Without a consensus on the definition of the family, what constitutes family policy and a common understanding on the extent of state intervention into individual and family life, the development of universally accepted instruments is problematical. Applications of such instruments demands an adequate knowledge base, improved measurement capability and consensus on the society's values and objectives. As such, the Administration will continue to monitor the research in the development, application and evaluation of family impact assessment systems.

On the question of formulating labour laws and policies that facilitate employees to take care of their family members.

We fully agree with the sentiment that we should encourage employers to adopt a caring and compassionate attitude towards their employees and be sensitive to their needs and those of their families. These are reflected in our labour legislation and our policies.

Under the Employment Ordinance, all employees engaged under a continuous contract have the right to statutory holidays, paid annual leave and rest days during employment. Employers must provide leave for employees on the 12 statutory holidays and a minimum of 7 to 14 days of paid annual leave each year. They must provide employees with at least one rest day in every period of seven days. The level of regular and mandatory holidays in Hong Kong compares favourably with neighbouring economies in the region, and even some of the developed economies.

Our legislation also provides a full range of maternity protection and benefits. Under the Employment Ordinance, employers must provide their pregnant employees who are employed under a continuous contract, a period of 10 weeks' maternity leave. If their employees encounter health problems before or after the delivery, employers must allow them to take an additional maximum period of 4 weeks' leave. During pregnancy and maternity leave, employees who meet the qualifying period of employment enjoy financial security and employment protection. Their maternity leave pay is equivalent to four-fifths of their normal wages. Further improvements have been introduced in recent years to allow the concerned employees greater flexibility as to whether to allocate a longer part of the maternity leave to the period after the delivery. These legislative requirements ensure that employees are protected during maternity and that they can devote adequate attention and time to take care of their new-born babies.

The Government encourages employers to adopt a caring approach and to work out mutually acceptable arrangements in response to employees' needs and those of their families. We also encourage employers and employees to communicate and work out mutually acceptable arrangements together. In practice, many employers are already responding to the special needs of their employees by granting no pay leave to them so that they can attend to their personal or family needs.

Some Members have called on the Government to enact legislation to require employers to provide paternity leave, leave for taking care of sick family members, leave for taking care of adopted children etc. Even though most of these proposals are in the form of no pay leave, they can cause disruption at the workplace. To mandatorily stipulate that employees should be entitled to such leave overlooks the genuine operational difficulties of some business operations. Also, it is difficult, if not impossible, to decide or agree on an exhaustive list of circumstances under which no pay leave should be granted. The current approach of mutual respect and facilitation is working well and should continue.

The Government will continue to promote employee welfare in this respect by setting and enforcing standards and through public education. We will also ensure that our employees' rights and benefits in this respect are improved progressively and in a way which is commensurate with the pace of Hong Kong's economic and social development.

As regards the notion that tax concessions should be granted to encourage family members to discharge more effectively their function of taking care of one another, I should like to remind Honourable Members that the Government has since 1947 provided various tax concessions for this purpose. There are a number of tax allowances and deductions under the existing Salaries Tax system to alleviate taxpayers' financial burden arising from taking care of their family members. Apart from the Married Person's Allowance, these include -

* Child Allowance

* Single Parent Allowance

* Dependent Parent Allowance

* Dependent Grandparent Allowance

* Dependent Brother or Dependent Sister Allowance

* Disabled Dependant Allowance

To encourage people to live with their parents and grandparents, a person is entitled to an additional Dependent Parent Allowance or Dependent Grandparent Allowance in respect of each qualified parent or grandparent who resides with him/her or the spouse. To help those providing for their elders who need residential care, a person may claim a deduction of elderly residential care expenses paid by the person or his/her spouse to a residential care home in respect of the person's or his/her spouse's parent or grandparent.

The Administration keeps these allowances and deductions under review in the annual Budget exercise, taking into account all relevant factors, including the community's aspirations.

Turning to co-operation between schools and parents, I wish to emphasize that family factors are taken into account in the formulation of education policies. The importance of home-school co-operation was raised by the Education Commission in its Report No.5 and the Committee on Home-School Co-operation (CHSC) was subsequently set up by the Education Department (ED) in 1993 to promote home-school co-operation. With the continuous efforts of ED and CHSC, the number of Parent-Teacher Associations has increased significantly from below 100 in 1993 to over 1,100 this year.

In addition, as parents are the first teachers of children, and parent-school cooperation is essential to bring out the best in our youngsters, the Chief Executive announced in the 2000 Policy Address that the Government would set aside $50 million in the next two years to promote parent education and to encourage parents to participate in educational affairs. The Steering Committee on Parent Education (SCPE), which was set up in December 2000, has proposed to develop a comprehensive package of resource/reference materials on parent education.

The motion also calls on the Government to increase the social welfare support for people who have to take care of their disadvantaged families. I have earlier outlined our existing family welfare policy and some of the extensive range of services available. The Administration acknowledges that the family is a source of support and strength in the care of the infirm, the elderly, the disabled and children and young people. We agree that family members who, take care of disadvantaged members of their families, should be given adequate support to discharge their carers' role. Therefore, adequate child care facilities, respite services for carers of the disabled and elderly and counselling and training in care support are provided .

By way of example, I should like to highlight some of the support services currently available for carers of the elderly. As the majority of elders prefer to age at home and many of their families also wish to take care of them at home, it has been our policy to expand and strengthen the provision of home and community care services to enable frail elders to continue to be cared for at home. A full range of home and community care services, including home help teams, home care teams, day care centres and multi-service centres, are currently provided to assist families to care for their elders at home.

Carers' Support Centres have been established to provide information, training and emotional support for carers. Residential respite services are available at all subvented residential care homes, and a pilot project on day respite services has been launched to provide temporary relief to carers. Support services are also available for carers of other disadvantaged families including those looking after the disabled and the infirm.

Our social security system also recognizes the role of family in it as a structure.

Finally, on the right to housing, it is the Government's objective to achieve better housing for all families and individuals through an adequate supply of affordable housing for ownership or rent. Like many other places, we consider our children to be our future and thus for the first few decades of our public housing programme, the Government has accorded a high priority to the rehousing of families. The Housing Authority has also several schemes to encourage young families to live together or close to their parents or elder dependents. We have by now provided housing directly for nearly half the population and facilitated the provision of housing by the private sector for the other half. In the past 5 years, we have achieved a one third reduction in the number of inadequately housed families in Hong Kong, cleared non-self contained buildings and structures including squatter areas, temporary housing areas etc. in several major programmes. It remains the Government's policy that anyone who claims to be homeless and in need of shelter will be provided with accommodation in transit centres or interim housing blocks.

However, public housing is a valuable, finite social resource and we need therefore to ensure the most effective use of this scarce source. It is the Housing Authority's view that it is not right for well-off families to stay in a heavily subsidized flat while worse-off families are denied access. We are also unable to support the amendment proposed to the motion. As neither the motion nor the amendment, defined the constitution of a family, it is unclear what should be provided to whom under what circumstances. It also ignores the freedom of choice of many Hong Kong families however defined to choose to share their flats or to live in non-self contained but centrally located premises.

Conclusion

Madam President, it is clear from my remarks that the Government already has comprehensive policies for families. In some places, you may even say that we have too many policies because it's really in states and places where people are really quite afraid of government intervention. These policies may not be welcomed. We believe that given the diverse, complex and changing nature of families, that this is a more appropriate approach. This provides support to families, taking into account of family perspectives in the formulation of policies affecting the family, with a view to promoting the well-being of diverse types of families. It is self-evident when one considers that by virtue of their birth, all individuals are part of a family at one time.

A final word - as the original motion indicates, the development and extension of a family-oriented society cannot and should not be the sole domain of the Government. This must be a community effort and I would urge everyone to attach much greater importance to protecting and nurturing the family as a cornerstone of our society.

Thank you.

END/Wednesday, May 16, 2001

NNNN