跳至主內容 Skip to main content

Retirement Can’t Rely on Public Money Alone — Beyond Universal Pensions, What Else?

2012-10-10
Marcus Tang

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

Hong Kong’s Old Age Living Allowance (the “special fruit money”) sparked heated debate in 2012 — even with the government’s proposed means test, the first year would cost over HK$6.2 billion extra. With ageing unstoppable, welfare spending will soar; relying on government aid is no long-term plan. Beyond universal retirement protection, Hong Kong needs personal savings and family support too.

How severe is ageing?

By 2050, 37.4% of Hong Kong will be 60 or older. A UN population fund report projected over-60s would exceed 20% of the global population by 2050; Hong Kong’s share would hit 37.4% — over 3.4 million people, with 1.2 million aged 80-plus. Retirees without wage income lean on three pillars: government, family, self.

If not government, then what?

Taiwan and Singapore legislate filial duty; Hong Kong nudges with tax breaks. An HKU social work academic argued Hong Kong, lacking the comprehensive pension systems of other countries, must improve MPF, encourage saving and encourage children to support parents. Elsewhere: in Taiwan, high-earning children who neglect needy parents face abandonment charges and 6 months to 5 years’ jail; Singapore’s 1995 Maintenance of Parents Act created a tribunal (127 applications in 2008); Japan offers tax breaks for elderly parents’ medical costs.

Why not legislate in Hong Kong?

How many parents would sue their children? The academic doubted copycat legislation would work locally. Hong Kong instead uses tax incentives — dependent-parent allowances, higher for co-residence — and could lean further into that “carrot”.

What about self-reliance?

Government must make saving attractive. With more Hongkongers unmarried or childless, many retirees will have no children to lean on. Boosting savings incentives is the long game.

What is the lesson from 2012?

Allowances are not retirement security. The 2012 debate made one thing clear: government handouts can only plug gaps, not replace a system. Government, family and self — all three legs are needed, and 2012 was the time to start building them.

    Related articles

    Lam calls MPF “unpopular with employees” as offsetting debate looms: can the core fund rebuild trust?

    A report from November 2017 captured the speeches at the Global Forum on...

    Replacing the MPF with a 7.5% central provident fund? Unpacking the proposal and the five-pillar debate

    In November 2017, a political party proposed a Central Provident Fund to...

    funds to compare