95pc back retirement scheme for housewives as universal pension debate resurfaces

This article is a rewrite of a report from March 2012.

Ahead of International Women’s Day, a February 2012 survey highlighted the retirement-protection gap for housewives and domestic workers: more than 70 per cent of respondents called their exclusion from MPF unreasonable, and nearly 95 per cent said the chief executive should introduce a retirement scheme covering women doing domestic work.

Why do housewives have no MPF protection?

MPF is employment-based: only employees get contributions, so housewives without paid jobs are automatically excluded and must rely on savings or family in retirement — which is why nearly 95 per cent want a dedicated protection scheme.

How one-sided were the survey results?

The grassroots women’s federation polled 473 people in February 2012 and the results were overwhelmingly one-sided: over 90 per cent said housewives’ and domestic workers’ work is valuable; more than 72 per cent called their MPF exclusion unreasonable; nearly 95 per cent backed a scheme covering them.

What did officials and leadership candidates say?

The federation emailed the questionnaire to three chief executive candidates and the chairman of the Equal Opportunities Commission — only the chairman replied, and his answers matched the survey’s mainstream view: recognising women’s value and supporting a dedicated retirement protection scheme.

The gap is structural: MPF covers only the employed. For how the system works and who it covers, see the MPF education hub.