But his critics argue that overreliance on quick fixes is misguided and is usually politically motivated to pacify politicians and pressure groups, and comes at the expense of more lasting measures to redistribute wealth and develop Hong Kong’s economy.

According to sources, those concerned about doling out sweeteners this year even included Chief Executive Leung Chun-ying and Chief Secretary Carrie Lam Cheng Yuet-ngor. The lead-up to the budget apparently saw robust discussion, with Tsang pressing for a strategy to boost consumer power despite opposition from Leung and Lam.

Tsang maintains these one-off measures are more sustainable than long-term aid that Hong Kong would find hard to support in the future. Not spending that money and having it circulate in the economy is also a bad idea, he says.

READ MORE: More budget giveaways and freebies – HK financial secretary ready to splash the cash to spur domestic spending

Apart from easing the pressure businesses are facing and the financial stress on Hongkongers, the relief measures could stimulate the local economy amid a weak global environment, he said.

“Don’t underestimate the 1 per cent,” Tsang wrote. “It has played an important role in stabilising the local economy and labour market.”

In the last budget, Tsang proposed a package of HK$34 billion in one-off relief measures. These included, among others, waiving public housing rents for a month and providing two months’ extra allowances to public assistance recipients.

Similar candy has been given out in each of Tsang’s budgets since 2008 when the world economy was hit by a financial crisis triggered by the bursting of the US housing bubble.

READ MORE: ‘Flow and crash’ like water: HK Financial Secretary John Tsang inspired by Bruce Lee’s famous quote

However, economists are sceptical about the heavy use of sweeteners so favoured by Tsang, saying it is not the right way to enhance the economy.

Agnes Chan Sui-kuen, Hong Kong and Macau managing partner for leading accounting firm EY, agreed one-off relief measures would be needed during bad times like the 2008 crisis.

“However, the spending in the last eight years of more than HK$270 billion on these one-off measures or sweeteners has not alleviated the perceived deep-rooted problems facing Hong Kong – a widening wealth gap and the absence of adequate social security benefits for the aged and the needy,” said Chan.

She called on the government to inject money to carry out long-term policies and measures instead.

EY also dismissed the sweeteners distributed in the past eight years as a failure in addressing social problems.

Chinese University Professor Terence Chong Tai-leung supported tax incentives to encourage organisations and those who are better off to play a bigger role in helping the needy so the government could spare more resources for other long-term policies to improve the economy.

Dr Billy Mak Sui-choi, an associate professor in Baptist University’s department of finance and decision sciences, said: “It is very short-sighted for our financial secretary if his plan is to boost our economy by keeping on giving out sweeteners.

READ MORE: 5 things you need to know about ‘Mr Pringles’ John Tsang’s budget – crispy package of bold new measures or same old list of giveaways?

“The most effective way to enhance our competitiveness is to make investments. If we build infrastructure, there will be social and economic gains over a long period of time in the future. That should be what we should aim for.”

Tsang’s ability to give out hefty sweeteners has been made possible by Hong Kong’s large budget surpluses.

The government recorded a consolidated surplus of HK$64.8 billion in 2012-13, HK$21.8 billion in 2013-14, and HK$72.8 billion in 2014-15. In his last budget, Tsang forecast a consolidated surplus of HK$36.8 billion for the current fiscal year.

But according to forecasts by major accounting firms and groups, the government could record a budget surplus of as much as HK$95.5 billion for 2015-16, thanks to the huge revenue from stamp duty and lower-than-expected spending, partly due to the slow start of infrastructure projects.

Even after the transfer of some HK$45 billion into the Housing Reserve, the 2015-16 surplus could still be more than what Tsang forecast.

The reserve was set up in 2014 to ensure the government was adequately funded to meet the housing supply target for the next 10 years. Last December, the government said it would inject an extra HK$45 billion into the fund.

Chong of Chinese University’s Institute of Global Economics and Finance, however said keeping the money unused was as bad as spending money arbitrarily on sweeteners.

Hong Kong’s tax revenue swelled to HK$301.9 billion in 2014-15. And Tsang in his last budget forecast recurrent government expenditure of HK$324.6 billion for 2015-16.

“The Hong Kong government simply has too much money and the officials do not seem to know how to use it wisely. Our government can operate smoothly even if all people and businesses have their taxes waived for a year,” Chong said.

He agreed the government should help the needy but said this might not necessarily be achieved by dumping more money in social welfare programmes.

He cited Singapore where the government allows a 250 per cent tax deduction for qualifying charity donations. The rate was raised to 300 per cent for last year to mark the 50th anniversary of the city state.

For example, if one’s total income is S$100,000 (HK$554,000) and one donates S$10,000 to a registered charity, one’s assessable income would be S$70,000.

“By doing so, the government can encourage society to play a bigger role in social welfare. The government can end up spending less on social welfare. That would be a win-win situation,” said Chong, who is also an associate editor of Singapore Economic Review, a leading economic journal in the Asia-Pacific region.

Singapore’s 2016 budget will be delivered on March 24.

READ MORE: Singapore ‘mantrapping’ away Hong Kong financial competitiveness

Chan of EY said of the island state’s financial philosophy: “Singapore tends to achieve a balanced budget every year with only a small surplus or deficit, say less than S$5 billion.

“For its 2015 budget announced last February, it was estimated that there would be a budget deficit of S$6.67 billion in 2015. This is mainly due to the introduction of the ‘silver support scheme’ aimed at providing an income supplement for senior Singaporeans at the bottom during their retirement.

“And realising the increasing costs of doing business, its 2013 budget introduced a bold measure to grant a 30 per cent corporate income tax rebate capped at S$30,000 per year to companies for three years from 2013 to 2015.”

Tsang has been Hong Kong’s financial secretary since July 2007, serving two chief executives – the incumbent Leung and his predecessor Donald Tsang Yam-kuen.

The Post reported earlier that Tsang would cut back one of the sweeteners: waving public rents for a month. But some legislators have warned it could stir public discontent and there would also be a heavy price for the government to pay in an election year.

Dr Li Kui-wai, an associate professor in City University’s college of business, said: “Giving out sweeteners is a political placebo. The main use of it is that it can pacify the politicians and the recipients also feel good. So, the government will not stop doing it.”

John Tsang’s bag of goodies

2012-13

1. One month’s payment to CSSA, Old Age Allowance and Disability Allowance recipients, worth HK$2.1 billion

2. Two months’ rent waiver for public housing tenants, worth HK$1.9 billion

3. HK$100 million to extend short-term food assistance services

4. Rates waiver, subject to a ceiling of HK$2,500 a quarter, at a cost to the government of HK$11.7 billion and benefiting 2.7 million properties

5. Reduction in salaries tax and tax under personal assessment by 75 per cent, subject to a ceiling of HK$12,000, benefitting 1.5 million taxpayers and costing the government HK$8.9 billion

6. A HK$1,800 subsidy granted to each residential electricity account, costing the government HK$4.5 billion with 2.5 million households benefiting

2013-14

1. Reduction of salaries tax and tax under personal assessment by 75 per cent, subject to a ceiling of HK$10,000, benefiting 1.53 million taxpayers, costing the government HK$8.4 billion

2. A HK$1,800 subsidy granted to each residential electricity account, costing HK$4.5 billion

3. Rates waiver, subject to a ceiling of HK$1,500 a quarter, with 75 per cent of properties paying no rates, costing the government HK$11.6 billion

4. One month’s payment to CSSA, Old Age Allowance, Old Age Living Allowance and Disability Allowance recipients, costing HK$2.7 billion

5. Two months’ rent waiver for public housing tenants, costing HK$2.2 billion

2014-15

1. Reduction in salaries tax and tax under personal assessment by 75 per cent, subject to a ceiling of HK$10,000, benefiting 1.74 million taxpayers, costing the government HK$9.2 billion

2. A reduction in profits tax by 75 per cent, subject to a ceiling of HK$10,000, benefiting 126,000 taxpayers and costing the government about HK$1 billion

3. Rates waiver for the first two quarters, subject to a ceiling of HK$1,500 a quarter, benefiting about 3.1 million properties, costing the government HK$6.1 billion

4. One month’s payment to CSSA, Old Age Allowance, Old Age Living Allowance and Disability Allowance recipients, involving HK$2.7 billion

5. One month’s rent waiver for public housing tenants, involving HK$1 billion

2015-16

1. Reduction in salaries tax and tax under personal assessment by 75 per cent, subject to a ceiling of HK$20,000, benefiting some 1.82 million taxpayers, costing HK$15.8 billion

2. Reduction in profits tax by 75 per cent, up to HK$20,000, benefiting 130,000 taxpayers and costing the government HK$1.9 billion

3. Rates waiver for two quarters, subject to a ceiling of HK$2,500 a quarter, benefiting

3.15 million properties and costing the government HK$7.7 billion

4. Two months’ payment to recipients of CSSA, Old Age Allowance, Old Age Living Allowance and Disability Allowance, costing the government HK$5.5 billion

5. One month’s rent waiver for public housing tenants, costing the government HK$1.1 billion