【明報專訊】The Incident

Here is another test of Hong Kong people's commitment to the rule of law (法治), as the court has again ruled in favour of a group that seem to be increasingly alienated (被疏遠) from society.

This time the issue is about the city's Comprehensive Social Security Assistance (CSSA, 綜援) benefits. In 2004 the government made it a rule that only people who have lived in Hong Kong for more than seven years (instead of a previous one-year requirement) may apply for the benefits.

For years immigrants from the mainland put up with the treatment. But in 2008, Kong Yunming (孔允明), a mainland woman who came to Hong Kong in 2005 under the one-way permit (單程證) scheme, started a judicial review process.

Her case was twice rejected by the court. However, in a landmark ruling handed down by the Court of Final Appeal (終審法院) in December 2013, the justices unanimously found that she had right on her side. The top court ruled the arrangement unconstitutional (違憲的) on the basis of Article 36 of the Basic Law, which states that "Hong Kong residents shall have the right to social welfare in accordance with law" and "the welfare benefits and retirement security of the labour force shall be protected by law".

As expected the ruling has led to worries among some permanent Hong Kong residents, who think that lifting the seven-year requirement will mean a huge burden to the government's finances. So far, under the now unconstitutional policy, the government has rejected 22,000 applications for CSSA benefits. Analysts believe that admittance of these once-rejected applicants into the CSSA scheme would cost the government an extra $1.2 billion a year.