-37status in Hong Kong, for which additional rights are prescribed in the laws of Hong Kong.”93 100. These suggestions94 of course have nothing to do with promoting the financial sustainability of the social security system and do not provide any support for the seven-year residence requirement as rationally connected with the legitimate purpose proclaimed by the Government. 101. It is unclear whether the Director advances such grounds as separate purposes supplying independent legitimate aims capable of justifying the restriction of the Article 36 right. If that is the intention, such grounds are, in my view, so lacking in coherence that they cannot properly serve as legitimate aims for the restriction. Alternatively, if they do serve as such purposes, they are such insubstantial and socially insignificant aims that the restriction of the Article 36 right is a wholly disproportionate measure to achieve them, making it a measure that is manifestly without reasonable foundation. K.1 102. Uniformity of qualifying periods The first of the additional arguments mentioned above is the somewhat bizzare suggestion that there is some intrinsic value in having uniform qualifying periods for welfare benefits where such benefits are heavily subsidized by the state. Symmetry for the sake of symmetry is hardly a legitimate aim. Waiting times for public rental housing must obviously depend on the stock of public housing available and a shortage may lead to the setting of long qualifying periods. Why should those qualifying periods be relevant to setting the eligibility period for CSSA payments intended to meet the immediate basic needs of indigent individuals and families? 93 Task Force Report, §5.56. 94 Adopted by Mr Cheung in his Affirmation at §55.