MPF comparison: how Hong Kong’s retirement system stacked up against the region in 2011

As of October 2011, Hong Kong’s MPF system covered 2.45 million employees — over 70% of the working population — with total assets exceeding HK$345.7 billion. This MPF comparison sets Hong Kong’s scheme alongside the retirement systems of mainland China, Singapore and Taiwan, showing how each divides the savings burden between employers, employees and the state.

What is MPF, and how does it fit the three-pillar model?

What is MPF? It is Hong Kong’s mandatory, employment-based retirement savings system, forming one of the three pillars of retirement protection alongside social security and voluntary personal savings. Under MPFA rules, employees aged 18 to under 65 contribute 5% of their monthly income, with employers adding another 5%.

Why did Singapore’s CPF stand out?

Singapore’s CPF carried the heaviest contribution load of the four systems: employers contributed up to 34.5% and employees 20%, dwarfing Hong Kong’s 5%-plus-5%. Its accounts were also functionally broader — the Ordinary Account could fund home purchases, education and investments, the Special Account covered retirement, and Medisave was ring-fenced for healthcare.

How did the mainland and Taiwan differ?

Mainland China’s system ran four schemes in parallel — pension, medical and unemployment insurance plus the housing provident fund — jointly funded by employers and employees, covering more risks than Hong Kong’s single MPF. Taiwan’s new labour pension was the simplest: one account per employee, with the employer alone contributing about 6% of salary each month.

New to the system? Start with the MPF education hub.