Family Values
Like millions of other Chinese people around the world, we celebrated the Lunar New Year with a family gathering. Three generations were present, all the main strands of the family were there sat around the dinner table, lucky money packets were exchanged.
There were some distinctive Hong Kong-type aspects: the majority of those attending now live overseas; and the dinner itself was at an excellent Chinese restaurant in Vancouver in western Canada. For language you had a choice of Cantonese, Putonghua, or English.
The choice of location was not an accident: the largest single block of attendees was a family of four who live there. Other places represented were Europe (three), eastern Canada and USA (one each). Six came from Hong Kong making them a minority among the total of 15. I doubt this is an unusual situation: it probably applies to many other local families too.
Curiosity piqued, I googled “number of Hongkongers in..” for each of the main destination countries (USA, Canada, UK and Australia) and got results totalling around 700,000. The data was not current, usually two or three years old. The total by now must surely be over one million.
It was against this backdrop that I began to consider whether emigrants from Hong Kong should at some point lose their access to subsidised health and other services back here in the SAR. The subject had been raised in the legislative council in early January when some members proposed restricting access to current residents. However, health minister Lo Chung-mau ruled this out on the grounds that vetting arrangements to determine eligibility would be administratively burdensome.
Clearly there would be difficulties for some services, especially in an emergency for example, but I don’t think we can leave the argument there. If people have chosen to make their lives somewhere else, to work and raise a family, then they are contributing to that community, not this one. Sometimes the contribution will be direct in the form of paying taxes, but it will also be indirect in terms of purchasing goods and services in that economy thus boosting demand. Such skills and experience as they possess will also be available to their new country and employers there can take advantage. Their children will grow up there and be the sportsmen, musicians and entertainers of the future.
It seems only right that at some point, public services provided free or at a heavily subsidised price in the country of origin should cease to be available to them.
This is as true for Hong Kong as it is for other places. When our children attended universities overseas, we were charged the prevailing rate for non-local students, notwithstanding that one of them studied in what was originally my “home” country. That was entirely proper as my home is now here.
The Legco members who raised the subject are reflecting growing public concern. We all know of individuals who are coming back to Hong Kong to enjoy our excellent medical services despite having committed themselves to living elsewhere. “These people left when times were tough. They sold their apartments and took their MPF. We stuck it out. Why should we care if they have now fallen sick and have discovered how poor or expensive health care is in their new country?” is one sentiment I have heard expressed. They made their own bed, now they must lay in it, is one way the argument can be put.
Unlike some Hongkongers who get hot under the collar about those who left, I respect their free choice just as I and many other westerners chose to live here made ours.
But I am starting to query the question of impact on our own social services and what is fair. Elderly care services and health systems everywhere are under pressure as populations age, and Hong Kong is no exception. For example, the waiting time for a subsidised place in a care home in 2024 ranged from 10 – 17 months depending on the degree of support required, despite the success of schemes to encourage use of services in the GBA.
Looking round the dinner table, I started to apply these thoughts to the assembled company all of whom hold, or are eligible for, Hong Kong ID cards. There are going to be many grey areas. For example, how long can individuals be temporarily absent e.g for study, before they are deemed to have emigrated? Should we try to identify cases where the parents remain living, working and paying taxes elsewhere but send the children back to live with grandparents while enjoying cheap schooling. The combinations are myriad. There is a danger that in designing a suitable and effective vetting system, officials would be excessively intrusive into people’s private lives.
Having said all of that, there is a feeling that Hongkongers are a special breed with a distinct culture. “Once a Hongkonger, always a Hongkonger” and there must always be a welcome for them if they want to come “home” again. Other places must surely have faced the same issues, for example what happened to EU and British citizens after Brexit? The BNO scheme for settling in the UK included a healthcare surcharge for access to the NHS. Can we refer to experience elsewhere and see how they managed to balance the different interests? I hope we can keep discussions calm and balanced, and not stir up emotions to the point where politics creeps in.
Bearing in mind that the issues are multi-disciplinary, involving much more than just health care, I think there is a case for establishing a broad-based panel, comprising both officials and private citizens, to examine the subject and come up with some recommendations. It won’t be easy. But the subject is not just going to disappear.