-7D. The constitutional provisions relied on by Madam Kong 17. By Article 36, the Basic Law provides: “Hong Kong residents shall have the right to social welfare in accordance with law. The welfare benefits and retirement security of the labour force shall be protected by law.” 18. It must be read together with Article 145 of the Basic Law which states: “On the basis of the previous social welfare system, the Government of the Hong Kong Special Administrative Region shall, on its own, formulate policies on the development and improvement of this system in the light of the economic conditions and social needs.” 19. The focus of this appeal is on the right to “social welfare in accordance with law” as laid down by those two Articles. 20. The case as argued below centred on the right to equality before the law and protection against discrimination. Thus, reliance was primarily placed on Article 25 of the Basic Law which provides that “All Hong Kong residents shall be equal before the law”; and on Article 22 of the Bill of Rights which states: “All persons are equal before the law and are entitled without any discrimination to the equal protection of the law. In this respect, the law shall prohibit any discrimination and guarantee to all persons equal and effective protection against discrimination on any ground such as race, colour, sex, language, religion, political or 15 other opinion, national or social origin, property, birth or other status.” 21. Professor Johannes Chan SC, who appeared16 for Madam Kong did not abandon the case based on equality, but submits that the central complaint involves the Government’s adoption of the seven-year requirement, whether framed as a contravention of Article 25 or of Article 36. Pursuing the case 15 Reflecting Article 26 of the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights. 16 With Mr Hectar Pun.