Lion Rock Institute: Why Must Retirement Protection Be Universal? Better to Help the Neediest Third

Welfare groups demand universal retirement protection; the Lion Rock Institute calls it “beautiful sugar-coated poison”. Research assistant Chuk Yuet-shan asks: why should Hong Kong people fund Li Ka-shing’s retirement?

How did the City Forum debate go?

CEO Andrew Work teamed with Midland’s Shih Wing-ching against CUHK associate professor Wong Hung and HKCSS executive Chua Hoi-wai on whether universal retirement protection should be advocated. Work argued society has no reason to give resources to those without need — citing Prof. Wong’s six-figure monthly salary demanding the next generation fund his retirement. Wong replied he’d donate his HK$3,000 monthly pension if the scheme existed.

What’s the difference between “want” and “need”?

“Need” secures survival; “want” upgrades lifestyle. Chuk writes: daily water and food are needs; daily shark’s fin is a want. Welfare should secure what struggling citizens need, not what they want. Since Prof. Wong can casually forgo HK$3,000 a month, that HK$3,000 is a want, not a need.

What’s the fairer distribution?

Concentrate on those in need. HK$3,000 for everyone is worse than HK$6,000 for the needier half, and worse still than HK$9,000 for the neediest third — simple, no actuaries required. Beyond MPF, Hong Kong has elderly CSSA, which under some conditions exceeds HK$3,000; its eligibility and amounts can be reviewed without universal waste.