¹ Hong Kong is a British Crown Colony. It is, however, so independent both politically and administratively that it is referred to as a country in this article.

² See National Planning Association, Tales of Two City-States: The Development Progress of Hong Kong and Singapore, Studies in Development Progress No. 3, National Planning Association, Washington DC, 1973. National studies on the industrialization process of the two countries include Soo-ann, Lee, Industrialization in Singapore, Longman, Victoria, 1973Google Scholar; and Reidel, James, The Industrialization of Hong Kong, J. C. B. Mohr, Tubingen, 1974.Google Scholar

³ See Rimlinger, Gaston V., Welfare Policy and Industrialization in Europe, America and Russia, John Wiley and Sons, New York, 1971.Google Scholar

⁴ So far, there has not been any systematic study of the social security systems in Singapore and Hong Kong. Information about social security provisions in Singapore can be found in International Labour Office, Social Security, National Economy and Planning, report on the ILO/NORAD Asian Regional Seminar on Social Security, ILO, Geneva, 1975. A discussion, though a bit out-dated, on social security provisions in Hong Kong, can be found in Heppell, T. S., ‘Social Security and Social Welfare; a “new look” from Hong Kong (Part One)’, Journal of Social Policy, 2:3 (07 1973), 223–8CrossRefGoogle Scholar, and (Part Two), 3:2 (April 1974), 113–26.

⁵ For a theoretical discussion on social security planning, see the collection of articles in International Social Security Association, The Planning of Social Security, studies and research series No. 2, ISSA, Geneva, 1971.Google Scholar

⁶ Hong Kong is now the second richest country in Asia with a per capita Gross Domestic Product of HK$12,148 (US$1=£0.41=S$2.11=HK$4.92) at current market prices in 1977. Singapore lags only slightly behind Hong Kong with a per capita Gross National Product of S$5,623 at current market prices in 1977.

⁷ See Seng, You Poh and Yah, Lim Chong (eds), The Singapore Economy, Eastern Universities Press, Singapore, 1971Google Scholar; and Yung, Cheng Tung, The Economy of Hong Kong, Far East Publications, Hong Kong, 1977.Google Scholar

⁸ Government expenditure in Singapore is divided into two main categories: one for current expenditure and the other for development. In 1977–78, defence accounted for 31 per cent of the current expenditure while only 25 per cent went to social and community services. The major item of public expenditure in Hong Kong is that on social services, representing about 42 per cent of the whole Government sector.

⁹ For a revealing comparison of the political and administrative structure of Singapore and Hong Kong see Bowring, Philip, ‘Asia's Twins: Growing Together’, Far Eastern Economic Review, 4 06 1796, 49–54.Google Scholar

¹⁰ Persons aged sixty and over accounted for 6.7 per cent of the population in Singapore in 1976. The corresponding figure for Hong Kong was 9 per cent.

¹¹ This is evident from the rate at which the two countries have recovered from the recession in 1975 and 1976. Their strategy is to keep their economies as resilient as possible so that they may respond quickly to world economic trends.

¹² These two functions of social security are defined by Marshall, T. H., Social Policy in the Twenties Century, Hutchinson, London, 1975, pp. 106–22.Google Scholar

¹³ This is evident from the number of old people, about 60,000, who are dependent on public assistance for a subsistence living. See Research and Statistics Section, A Sample Study of Public Assistance Recipients as at June 1979. Social Welfare Department, Hong Kong, 1980.Google Scholar

¹⁴ Industrial accidents have increased in both Singapore and Hong Kong. The number of occupational injuries exceeded 50,000 cases in Hong Kong in 1979 and 20,000 cases in Singapore in 1977.

¹⁵ Social Welfare Department, Government of Singapore, Annual Report 1951, Government Printing Office, Singapore, p. 37.Google Scholar

¹⁶ A scheme to provide for the retired had been considered as early as 1951 when a retirement benefits commission was appointed to study the matter. The commission, after evaluating the relative merits of a pension scheme and a provident fund scheme, recommended that a pension scheme would be better adapted to the circumstances prevailing in Singapore. The Colonial Government accepted the necessity of retirement benefits but rejected the recommendation for a pension scheme. A provident fund scheme was favoured as similar measures were introduced in other British colonies like Malaysia. Kenya and Nigeria, both ex-colonies of the British, also introduced provident fund schemes, though at a later date.

¹⁷ Caine, Sydney, Report of the Committee on Minimum Standards of Livelihood, Government Printing Office, Singapore, 1957.Google Scholar

¹⁸ Brocklehurst, G. J., Report to the Government of Singapore on Social Security Measures, Government Printing Office, Singapore, 1957.Google Scholar

¹⁹ Matthews, F. B., Report to the Government of Singapore on a Proposed Social Security Scheme, International Labour Office, Geneva, 1959.Google Scholar

²⁰ Ministry of Finance, Republic of Singapore, State of Singapore Development Plan 1961–1964, Government Publication Bureau, Singapore, 1961, p. 6.Google Scholar

²¹ This view was given in the speech of the President at the opening of the Singapore Parliament in 1972. See Republic of Singapore, Singapore' 73, Ministry of Culture, Singapore, p. 25.Google Scholar

²² Hong Kong Government, Report for the Year 1948, Government Printer, Hong Kong, 1949, p. 88.Google Scholar

²³ Hong Kong Government, Report for the Year 1965, Government Printer, Hong Kong, 1966, p. 140.Google Scholar

²⁴ Inter-departmental Working Party, Report on Certain Aspects of Social Security, Government Printer, Hong Kong, 1967.Google Scholar

²⁵ When the Report was tabled before the Legislative Council the Colonial Secretary commented, ‘Honourable members, I think, will not imagine that all the suggestions in this Report will, upon close examination, prove possible or capable of implementation, or indeed prove to be financially possible.’ Hong Kong Hansard, Session 1968, Government Printer, Hong Kong, pp. 234–6.Google Scholar

²⁶ Hong Kong Government, The Way Ahead: Social Welfare Development in Hong Kong, Government Printer, Hong Kong, 1973, p. 21Google Scholar. See also Chow, Nelson W. S., ‘The Feasibility of Social Insurance for Hong Kong’, The Hong Kong Journal of Social Work, 9:1 (Summer 1974), 12–17.Google Scholar

²⁷ Hong Kong Government, A Programme for Social Security Development: Help for Those Least Able to Help Themselves, Government Printer, Hong Kong, 1977.Google Scholar

²⁸ In a Legislative Council debate on the proposals of the Green Paper, Mr James Wu, a Legislative Councillor and himself an industrialist, warned that ‘we exist today in a fiercely competitive world as far as our exports are concerned, and it would be unrealistic to think that employers, particularly industrialists, could provide more benefits funded by them alone by way of further statutory requirements.’ He also warned of the danger of providing too much social security in Hong Kong. See Hong Kong Hansard, Session 1977/78, Government Printer, Hong Kong, pp. 865–9.Google Scholar

²⁹ Hong Kong Government, Social Welfare into the 1980s', a White Paper, Government Printer, Hong Kong, 1979.Google Scholar

³⁰ This definition of social security is borrowed from that used in Social Security Programs Throughout the World 1977, which refers to social security as ‘programs established by government statutes which insure individuals against interruption or loss of earning power, and for certain special expenditures arising from marriage, birth, or death. Allowances to families for the maintenance of children are also included…’ Department of Health, Education and Welfare, USA, Social Security Programs Throughout the World, Superintendent of Document, Washington D.C., 1978, p. ix.Google Scholar

³¹ Descriptions of social security provisions in Singapore and Hong Kong were summarized from a number of departmental reports, policy papers and working documents published by the two governments. ‘Benefits in kind’ such as medical care and rehabilitation services are, however, omitted.

³² The highest figure in Singapore was seen in 1964 when the number of public assistance cases once stood at 27,435 with an annual expenditure of over S$10 million.

³³ Since the expansion of the public assistance scheme in Hong Kong in 1971, the scale of allowance has been revised six times with the amount of assistance for a single person increasing from HK$70 in April 1971 to HK$230 in September 1979. In 1978, the maximum amount that a household dependent on public assistance in Singapore might receive was fixed at S$100 a month.

³⁴ Social Welfare at 1980s, op. cit. p. 10.

³⁵ Ibid. The public assistance scheme has not only become more complicated, it has also widened its coverage. In addition to supplements given to those with special needs, unemployed able-bodied persons can now also apply for assistance.

³⁶ Under the scheme households receiving public assistance are given a loan of S$1,000 and they will be helped to start a small business on their own so that they may become self-supporting.

³⁷ Total expenditure on social security in Hong Kong in 1979/80 was estimated to amount to HK$405 million with HK$203 million for public assistance and HK$202 million for special needs allowance. See The 1979–80 Budget, speech by the Financial Secretary moving the second reading of the Appropriation Bill, Government Printer, Hong Kong, 1979, Annex(8).

³⁸ This represented the total amount due to members of the Fund. See Republic of Singapore, Singapore '78, Ministry of Culture, Singapore, 1979, p. 284.Google Scholar

³⁹ Since 1964, families living in public housing estates have been encouraged to purchase their own flats under the ‘Home Ownership for the People’ scheme by making use of their credits with the Central Provident Fund. By the end of March 1978, 150,098 flats have been sold under the scheme. See Yeh, Stephen HK., Public Housing in Singapore, Singapore University Press, Singapore, 1975.Google Scholar

⁴⁰ This is evident from the fact that public housing development programmes were curtailed in 1975 and 1976 when Hong Kong was suffering from an economic recession with the government running into budget deficits.