SoCO vs government

NOT long ago the Society for Community Organisation (SoCO) helped a senior citizenwho had returned to the SAR from the mainland to challenge the CSSA residence requirement by way of judicial review. He won.Yesterday, SoCO helped another to apply for legal aid to challenge a similar requirement in relation to the OldAge Allowance (commonly called "fruit money") by way of judicial review. SoCO deserves respect and praise for helping underdogs to fight for their rights.However, we believe it is better for it to postpone doinganything about the "fruit money" rule until the government has decided whether to appeal against the CSSA ruling. If the government decides against doingso, it may abolish the residence requirement. In that event, senior citizens will enjoy benefit without having to apply for judicial review. To avoid litigation is to saveon society's resources.

It is the Social Welfare Department's rule that one must have continually lived in the territory for at least one year before one can apply for CSSA. On June 24,the Court of First Instance held the rule at odds withthe Basic Law articles about equality and the freedom to enter or leave the SAR. The Social Welfare Department has not applied for the ruling's suspension.It has said that, in the meantime, it will process CSSA applications without having regard to whether applicants meet the residence requirement.

The government has yet to decide whether to appeal, but SoCO has helped a "fruit money" applicant to challenge the residence requirement. SoCO appears to have acted a bit too aggressively.Operation-wise and strategy-wise, it is understandablefor SoCO to follow up a victory with hot pursuit in thehope of "taking another city". When he was interviewed, SoCO Director Ho Hei-wah said it had been compelled to resort to judicial review to fight forrights over the years and, because the government ignored its demands, it had no alternative. He repeated aview which Chief Justice Andrew Li had often expressedin recent years, saying, "Judicial review is no panacea for political, economic and social woes. In my view,such problems cannot be effectively solved otherwisethan through discussion and the proper operation ofthe political system." Ho Hei-wah clearly hopes the government will try to solve problems through dialogue.

SoCO is anxious to exploit its victory. That show sit remains fettered by social-movement thinking. Itrealises that judicial review is the last resort. However,it has helped a citizen to challenge the "fruit money"residence requirement though it is quite clear that things are not yet such that it cannot but do so. Wehope SoCO will be more careful in deciding to resort tojudicial review, for such litigation entails the use ofprecious social resources. Legal aid comes from the public purse. The money the government spends infighting legal battles also comes from the public purse.SoCO has revealed that it will apply for judicial reviewin relation to six other problems that affect the underprivileged. The legal fee for each of them would be about $1 million. They would also cost the government money. Those cases would cost HongKong several ten million dollars. Is it worthwhile to fight those legal battles? SoCO must think twice.

In our view, the government should come down a peg or two. It should try to address SoCO's demands by having talks with it. It should avoid leaving it to the court to settle such problems. For example, it seems overkill to have the court decide whether it is right "not to adjust inmates' pay according to cigarette prices". Itis by no means worthwhile to spend limited social resources on such issues.

明報英語網「雙語社評」english.mingpao.com/critic.htm

明報社評 2010.07.08

社區組織協會vs.政府 司法覆核可免則免

社區組織協會（下稱協會）就申領綜援限期，繼協助一名內地回流長者司法覆核獲得勝訴之後，昨日再協助一名長者衝擊同樣有居港限期的高齡津貼（俗稱生果金），申請法律援助進行司法覆核。協會為弱勢社群爭取權益，值得尊重和肯定。不過，就居港限期與社會福利的關係，我們認為協會宜待政府就綜援個案會否上訴，才決定下一步行動，會較為適合，因為若政府放棄上訴，意味着「居港限期」的做法可能全面調整，屆時合資格長者不用司法覆核，便得享福利，由於毋須打官司，可以省回不少社會資源。

上月21 日，高院裁定社會福利署批出綜援申請時，要求申請人需符合「申請前1 年連續居港1 年」的規定，違反《基本法》有關人人平等和出入境自由的權利。就法庭的裁決，社署未申請暫緩執行，表示在處理類似個案和新申請個案時，暫時不再理會申請人是否連續居港1年。

在政府還未決定是否上訴之前，社區組織協會協助長者挑戰申請生果金居港限期的規定，放在這個背景下，就顯得有點過度進取了。協會乘勝追擊，要再下一城，就社運操作和策略而言，可以理解；不過，協會主任何喜華接受訪問時，表示多年來靠司法覆核爭取權益，是迫不得已，主要未獲政府回應，無計可施之下以司法覆核為爭取手段；他並引用首席大法官李國能近年多次提到的， 「司法覆核並非解決政治、經濟、社會問題的『萬應良方』，認為有關問題只能透過討論及經過『政治體制適當運作』，才可以得到解決」。何喜華顯然希望政府透過溝通解決問題。

社區組織協會，急於「擴大戰果」的操作，顯示未能擺脫社運思維的桎梏，在認知上，協會知道司法覆核是迫不得已的手段，但是在實踐上，衝擊申請生果金居港限期，顯然未到事非得已的地步。我們期望社區組織協會日後就行使司法覆核的權利，更為慎重，因為涉及寶貴的社會資源，法律援助是公帑，若發展至對簿公堂，政府打官司耗用的也是公帑。據協會透露，除了申請生果金，他們還會為6 種涉及弱勢社群的情况申請司法覆核，挑戰政府，若事態按協會的構思發展，每宗官司申請法援，律師費就約需100 萬元，連政府的開支，所涉及公帑就以千萬元計。是否值得，宜三思之。

我們認為政府應該放下身段，對協會的一些訴求，尋求溝通解決，以免都交由法庭裁決，例如「在囚人士工資改為不按煙價調整」，要由法庭決定是非對錯，好像有點小題大做了。有限的社會資源，虛耗在這類議題上，絕不值得。

Glossary

underdog

a person, group or country that is thought tobe in a weaker position than others.

panacea /?pan ?'si:?/a universal remedy.

overkill /'?ʊv ?kIl/excessive behaviour.