The 2020 budget is over, delivered in unexpectedly trying times as a result of the coronavirus that is attacking the community in every possible way: physically, psychologically and economically. Predictably, public attention has homed in on the proposal to give every Hong Kong permanent resident a cash sum of HK$10,000 (US$1,287), a handsome amount by any standards. It is, of course, not the first time that this has been done, but a handout from the government is normally controversial.

Some who favor such gestures have argued that it is only reasonable, in good times, to hand back to the community some of what they have contributed either through taxes or through their labor. However, there are strong arguments against this too. In general, the conduct of public finances should be smooth rather than jolting or jumpy, with long-term rather than short-term perspectives. Thus, if hard work and good management has allowed more to be accumulated than required for immediate needs, there are two legitimate courses to be followed once sufficient reserves have been put away for that “rainy day”, which, as we can all see, has finally now arrived! First, taxes can be reduced, which means that citizens will always have a little more to spend on their own priorities, and businesses have more scope to invest for future growth or to be more generous to employees and customers. Second, the government can make its own long-term investments, not in stocks and shares but in the health and welfare of its citizens and their children. We all know that for quite some time, there has been a crying need for more public housing and, while we are fortunate in a health service that has helped to achieve the world’s longest life expectancy for Hong Kong people, there are too many shortcomings such as excessive waiting times at specialist out-clinics. So, in normal times, there are many better uses for our riches than a straight transfer to people’s pockets.

It may seem strange, but it is true that avoiding means tests will be the best course to take in some circumstances. The case for this revolves around simplicity

The mechanics of the cash handouts have also been controversial, exemplifying a dilemma common to many public services: to means test or to hand out to all, whether needy or not. There is no doubt as to what the logical answer should be as it is surely irrational to give our carefully accumulated dollars to those to whom a few thousand is meaningless as they already have so much. Similarly, it seems odd to give to those who are not presently living in Hong Kong. And, taking into account these good arguments, many government benefits are indeed means-tested so that assistance is directed toward those who are part of our community and who most need it. It may seem strange, but it is true that avoiding means tests will be the best course to take in some circumstances. The case for this revolves around simplicity. Means-tested benefits inevitably involve more complex administrative procedures, with supporting documentation to be produced and so on. This complexity may deter some of the most deserving as, perhaps, a low level of education makes form-filling impossibly challenging. It also has to be borne in mind that internal administration is not carried out by magic, nice though that would be. Even though they have long been part of daily life, computers and information technology sometimes get to be regarded as magical, which, in turn, means that little thought is given to the genuine difficulties involved in adjusting major systems and the scope for disaster if something too ambitious is attempted on too short a time scale. All in all, not means testing can sometimes be the best way forward.

So, here we are in the first quarter of 2020 and, as we all know, the picture is bleak. As a community, we are making magnificent efforts to control the coronavirus epidemic, and these have rightly been praised by the World Health Organization. These efforts have, however, required tremendous sacrifices as businesses struggle and workers are laid off. Even in the best of times when there was less of a case for handouts, there were many in the community for whom the handouts were welcome bright spot in the daily struggle to make ends meet. Now, though, those grinding financial anxieties are being felt by many more, including some who would normally be regarded as from the professional or middle classes who now see work dry up and clients disappear. The pain is truly exceptional and so this time exceptional measures are fully justified.

Many will have to spend this windfall on immediate needs. Those who are less financially stressed may like to take a leaf out of Bernard Charnwut Chan’s book. The convener of the Executive Council announced a personal donation to non-subvented charitable organizations. He has worked in this field on a voluntary basis for many years and knows that it is these, who do not receive regular government payments, that are suffering the most despite the good that they do within the community. Choosing one of them or perhaps a struggling arts group or religious body that is meaningful to the donor will not just be inherently beneficial but will indirectly strengthen social bonds and build up social capital so that good can come out of our misfortunes.

The author is a co-host of RTHK’s Backchat radio program and supporter of various welfare NGOs. She is a former assistant director of social welfare.

The views do not necessarily reflect those of China Daily.