Six Years, Zero Dollars, “Under Study”: Tracking the Government’s Unkept Pledge to Pay MPF Contributions for 200,000 Low-Income Workers

In January 2020, then Chief Executive Carrie Lam unveiled her “ten livelihood measures.” One of them was written in black and white: the government would pay the 5% MPF contributions on behalf of low-income employees and self-employed persons exempted from mandatory contributions — an estimated 200,000 beneficiaries — to be implemented once the eMPF Platform launched.

Six years on, eMPF is fully operational: all 26 schemes are on board, more than 11 million accounts sit on the platform. The government’s contributions: not a single dollar has been paid. On 18 March 2026, the Secretary for Labour and Welfare Chris Sun gave the Legislative Council the latest answer: a consultancy study is underway, and “we will consider the way forward in detail upon receiving the study’s findings.” Six years. Zero dollars. Under study.

The timeline of the pledge

• January 2020: Carrie Lam announces the ten livelihood measures, pledging government-paid 5% MPF contributions for workers earning below the minimum relevant income level of HK$7,100 — employees and self-employed persons alike, roughly 200,000 people. The official line: implementation after eMPF’s launch.
• March–April 2026: the last industry schemes join eMPF, killing the platform excuse for good. Simultaneously, the MPFA’s leaked review proposal surfaces: raise the minimum income level from HK$7,100 to HK$10,500 and the maximum from HK$30,000 to HK$40,000 (TVB News, 31 March 2026; Ming Pao, 1 April 2026). The Labour Advisory Board is split on the proposal, and the MPFA’s report — originally due mid-2026 — had still not been published as of 9 October 2026.
• 18 March 2026: a Federation of Trade Unions lawmaker asks in the Legislative Council whether the subsidy could be folded into Hong Kong’s first five-year plan. Sun’s reply: a consultancy study is in progress, assessing long-term sustainability, the fiscal impact, and technical feasibility (HKET, 18 March 2026).

Labour-sector lawmakers describe years of chasing the government for an answer, with nothing to show. A Sing Tao Headline political column on 1 April 2026 put it bluntly: the government has never disclosed the actual fiscal cost, and even at the current HK$7,100 floor it appears reluctant and unmotivated.

The bill that delay keeps fattening

Here is the bitterest structure of the whole affair: the longer the government stalls, the bigger the bill grows.

At the HK$7,100 floor, roughly 200,000 low-income employees and self-employed persons are covered. Assume average monthly earnings of HK$5,000; a government-paid 5% means HK$250 a month, HK$3,000 a year per person — 200,000 people, about HK$600 million a year (illustrative estimate; the government has never published an official figure).

But the minimum income level itself is being raised. Under the leaked proposal, the floor moves to HK$10,500. Ming Pao, citing government data, estimates at least 78,000 more employees earning HK$8,000–9,999 would become exempt from employee contributions. At average earnings of HK$9,000, that is HK$5,400 per person per year — roughly another HK$420 million a year. The combined bill approaches HK$1 billion a year.

And the floor’s rise is not a one-off: by statute it should track half of median employment earnings. Median monthly earnings have climbed from under HK$15,000 in 2014 to about HK$21,000 today (cited by an MPFA non-executive director, Sing Tao, 1 April 2026), so the floor will keep chasing upward. Every year of delay mechanically expands the promised population.

Officials describe the bind to Sing Tao as a classic case of ambition exceeding means: fiscal capacity is the binding constraint. Yet the same government’s other ledger deserves a side-by-side look: the employer subsidy scheme for the abolition of the MPF offsetting arrangement runs 25 years at a total exceeding HK$33 billion (Hong Kong Commercial Daily, 1 May 2026) — an average of HK$1.32 billion a year to compensate employers for their offset liabilities. The government spends HK$1.3 billion a year subsidising employers while pleading poverty over HK$0.6–1 billion a year for low-income workers’ own contributions. The money exists; it is a question of direction.

The compounding cost: HK$860,000 confiscated per worker

The subsidy was never charity. It was the second leg of a low-income worker’s retirement savings. Employees earning below the floor are exempt from their own 5% — the employer’s 5% continues — and the pledged government payment was meant to fill exactly that missing half.

Illustrative math: a worker earning HK$6,000 a month would receive HK$300 a month from the government. Compounded over 40 years (age 25 to 65) at the Core Accumulation Fund’s roughly 7.3% annualised return since 2017 (MPFA chairwoman’s blog, August 2026):

Each year of delay strips one year of compounding from a 25-year-old low-income worker’s starting base. HK$300 a month sounds trivial; after 40 years it is HK$860,000 — about 2.5 times the average MPF balance of HK$343,242 (MPF Ratings, September 2026), or roughly nine years of living expenses at HK$8,000 a month. The cost of the broken pledge is ultimately paid, with interest, by the people with the least bargaining power.

Breaking the deadlock: three questions to keep asking

First, when does the consultancy study land? “A consultancy study is underway” was the answer in March 2026. If it is still the answer in March 2027, the Legislative Council should be asking for the tender date, the consultant’s name, and the delivery deadline — not accepting another round of “we will consider upon receiving the findings.”

Second, decouple the subsidy from the income-level review. A labour-sector lawmaker’s argument is worth keeping on record: raising the income thresholds is the right direction for worker protection and should not be held hostage to the subsidy debate; in the long run, low-income workers with MPF savings are far less likely to draw Old Age Living Allowance or Comprehensive Social Security Assistance — a net fiscal positive. Using “a higher floor means a bigger bill” as a reason to stall ties two independent policies together so both fail.

Third, a self-defence checklist for members. Until the pledge is honoured, low-income employees should at least defend what they have: verify the employer’s 5% is paid on time and in full (tens of millions in employer arrears go unrecovered every year, per a March 2026 Legislative Council question). If the floor does rise to HK$10,500, workers earning HK$8,000–9,999 will newly be exempt from employee contributions — the exemption covers their own share, never the employer’s 5%, which must continue. Check the payslip.

The 2020 pledge said “to be implemented after eMPF’s launch.” eMPF launched. The pledge did not. Six years is enough for a 25-year-old worker’s first HK$300 to have grown into HK$500 — if it had ever existed.