-16apply in the context of our domestic law.37 It is appropriate similarly to apply the “manifestly without reasonable foundation” test in our domestic context. 42. Professor Chan sought to argue that the challenged restriction in the present case should be regarded as a measure that contravenes fundamental rights or engages inherently suspect grounds of discrimination. I do not agree. The Article 36 right to social welfare is not a fundamental right but a right which intrinsically involves the Government setting rules determining eligibility and benefit levels. It arises in an area where the Courts acknowledge a wide margin of discretion for the Government. As the Chief Justice pointed out in Fok Chun Wah,38 the adoption of a residence requirement as a criterion of eligibility for social welfare benefits has often been upheld and is generally not regarded as engaging any of the inherently suspect grounds. 43. Accordingly, in my view, insofar as the disputed restriction in the present case is rationally connected to a legitimate societal aim espoused by the Government, the restriction will only be held to be disproportionate if it is manifestly without reasonable foundation. I turn then to apply these principles to the facts of the present case. F. 44. The right, the new restriction and the Director’s discretion As we have seen, the right protected by Article 36 is the administratively defined right of Hong Kong residents who pass the means test and are not otherwise disqualified, to obtain CSSA payments after having resided here for one year. That was the established position as at 1 July 1997 when Article 36 took effect. There is no dispute that but for the seven-year residence requirement, Madam Kong would have qualified for CSSA after 37 Fok Chun Wa v Hospital Authority (2012) 15 HKCFAR 409 at §63. 38 Ibid at §72.