-8under Article 36 has the advantage of dispensing with proof of the element of discrimination. If, as Madam Kong submits, it was an infringement of her right to social welfare under Article 36 for the Government to introduce the sevenyear residence restriction, her challenge succeeds without her having to show that she was the victim of discrimination. 22. I shall accordingly focus in this judgment on the allegation that refusal of Madam Kong’s claim for CSSA benefit contravened her right as a Hong Kong resident to “social welfare in accordance with law”. E. 23. The nature of the Article 36 right As is true of many constitutional provisions, Article 36 is in very broad terms, conferring a constitutional right on Hong Kong residents “to social welfare in accordance with law”. Apart from the CSSA scheme, which17 forms the mainstay of social security in Hong Kong, the SWD provides a wide range of services. They include family and children services; services for the elderly; rehabilitation and medical social services; services for offenders; services for community development; and services for young people.18 There is obviously room for argument as to whether all or only some part of those services come, as a matter of law, within the concept of “social welfare” for the purposes of founding a constitutional right under Article 36. In my view, however, since the CSSA scheme aims to provide a welfare benefit addressing basic, “safety net” needs – a fundamental function of any social security system, such benefit is a clear case coming within the Article 36 concept of “social welfare”. It was not suggested otherwise. The question whether any other benefits and services provided by the SWD also fit within that concept must be left open. Other 17 With Social Security Allowance or “SSA” which provides largely non-means-tested allowances for the severely disabled and the elderly: Mr Cheung’s Affirmation §7(b). 18 Mr Cheung’s Affirmation, §7.