Lin Min

    SHENZHEN earlier this month announced revised standards for talent and professionals who will receive housing subsidies and other favorable treatment such as children’s education.

    The revision means the housing subsidies will be expanded to cover professionals in more fields, including certified financial analysts and secretaries of board of directors who have won awards presented by a financial magazine, New Fortune.

    This policy, if it was introduced in New York, would mean some of the “fat cats” on Wall Street — the millionaire and billionaire executives and analysts — would receive housing subsidies from the New York City Government. Sound outrageous?

    The policy to offer housing subsidies to professional talent is unchallengeable by the motive — it aims to attract more talent and professionals to help the city restructure its economy. However, this policy will be controversial because many of these people earn high incomes. Some are even among the richest in the country.

    Last year, the allocation of the 3,100 yuan (US$470) monthly housing subsidies for Ma Huateng, the billionaire Tencent chairman and CEO, and Xu Shaochun, the billionaire chairman of Kingdee, caused a storm of public outrage on the Internet. Shenzhen is where these billionaires have amassed their fortunes and apparently these subsidies won’t keep them in Shenzhen if the city loses its luster.

    Authorities seem to remain unfazed at last year’s outcry by adding highly paid secretaries of board of directors of listed firms to the latest eligible list. Previous winners of the New Fortune award for board secretaries include Lan Qi, of China Merchants Bank, who received 1.6 million yuan last year, and Yao Jun, of Ping An Insurance, whose annual salary reached 1.64 million yuan.

    Despite the good intentions, using taxpayer money to subsidize tycoons and high-income earners further polarizes a society already hit by a widening wealth gap and skyrocketing housing prices.

    There seem to be other signs that the winners are taking it all. Each year, Shenzhen pays millions to companies in awards for quality, technological innovation or other reasons. In 2009, the Longgang District Government handed 20 million yuan as “prize money” to Century Kingdom Hotel on the grounds that it was the first five-star hotel in the district. Not surprisingly, the unusual prize money sparked criticism on Internet forums.

    These successful businesspeople and enterprises have been the biggest winners throughout the three decades of economic growth. Those firms who have won a 3-million-yuan quality award and a 1-million-yuan technology award are all large companies who have made billions of yuan in profits.

    Government agencies regard these subsidies and award money worthwhile because they encourage industrial upgrade and help attract talent to the city. However, the priority of any government is to make a level playing field for businesses and improve the investment and operational environment for all companies, big and small, successful and less successful. The policy of handing out large sums of money gives rise to too many questions.

    In addition to the controversy over the use of taxpayer money for such purposes, questions also emerge about whether the process of deciding the recipients of such subsidies and prize money is transparent and fair.

    Each year, Hong Kong also presents honors for technological, industrial and service achievements, such as the Hong Kong Awards for Industries and the Hong Kong ICT Awards. However, these honors are generally given in the form of trophies and award certificates, without carrying huge sums of prize money.

    There are many effective ways to encourage technical innovation and industrial upgrade, such as tax breaks and exemption of fees and levies. It is the employers who should be responsible for paying housing benefits to their employees. If the government finds it necessary to subsidize talent, an income cap should be set to exclude tycoons and high-income earners.

    Governments at all levels in China have promised to let the masses share the fruits of the achievements of reform and opening up. To make economic growth more sustainable and society fairer, what we should not be doing is fostering a winner-take-all society. Taking better care of the lower end is the only way to rebalance our social and economic development.

    (The author is editor of the Shenzhen Daily News Desk.)