Budget U-turn looms: why the $6,000 MPF injection united both camps against the government

Days after Financial Secretary John Tsang insisted the 2011 Budget allowed “no room for change”, his tone shifted abruptly following a meeting with 20 pro-establishment lawmakers. The trigger: a plan to inject $6,000 into every MPF account — a proposal so unpopular that even the government’s usual allies could not defend it, while the “N-have-nots” got nothing at all.

Why did the MPF injection spark such fury?

Because to workers it felt like being handed a restaurant voucher redeemable only in 20 years. The Budget proposed spending over $20 billion injecting $6,000 into each MPF account, but the MPF system was already deeply unpopular — fund houses would skim hundreds of millions in operating fees before members saw a cent. With no tax rebate and nothing for the “N-have-nots”, public anger boiled over.

Who are the “N-have-nots”?

Citizens with no MPF account, no property and no CSSA — entirely shut out of the relief package. Relief was confined to rates, electricity and CSSA subsidies, leaving the working poor — precisely those most in need — with nothing.

Why did even pro-establishment lawmakers revolt?

Because elections loomed in both 2011 and 2012, and they had voters to answer to. If the Budget failed to pass, the government could face a constitutional crisis — forced amendments or even dissolving LegCo. Tsang’s concession let the pro-establishment camp claim a “successful fight” for the public: a political deal that cost the administration dearly in authority.

To see how MPF accounts shape your retirement savings, visit MPF fund comparison for fees and performance across schemes.