-38103. It is also hard to understand why the absence of any residential requirement for access to public health and hospital services should be regarded as “an anomaly”. It would indeed be a dysfunctional public health system if a person in need of urgent medical services were to be refused medical assistance on the ground that he or she has not met some residential qualification imposed simply to achieve “uniformity” with residential qualifications adopted for wholly different purposes. 104. It is also impossible to see how the seven-year qualifying period for permanent resident status laid down by Article 24(2) of the Basic Law is relevant. That seven-year period is essentially a qualifying period for taking part in the government of the HKSAR. One has to be a Hong Kong permanent resident to vote and stand for election; 95 to become Chief Executive; 96 to become a member of the Executive97 or Legislative98 Councils; and so forth. It makes no sense to impose a like residence requirement for CSSA applicants simply to achieve a seven-year symmetry. K.2 105. Contribution towards our economy Another strand of these additional arguments involves the suggestion that: “Eligibility based on a seven-year residence requirement reflects the contribution a resident has made towards our economy over a sustained period of time in Hong Kong.”99 106. This loses sight of the persons whose eligibility is in issue and the circumstances in which they find themselves. The evidence is that in 2002, in 95 Basic Law Article 26. 96 Basic Law Article 44. 97 Basic Law Article 55. 98 Basic Law Article 67. 99 Task Force Report §5.56, adopted in Mr Cheung’s Affirmation, §55.