Universal retirement protection: Cheung says radical change “unrealistic”, 10,000-household survey due end-2012

In October 2011, calls for the government to implement universal retirement protection grew louder. Secretary for Labour and Welfare Matthew Cheung told the Legislative Council that Hong Kong had just introduced the minimum wage, while voluntary health insurance and MPF optimisation were in the pipeline — already offering citizens a measure of retirement security — so immediate radical change was unrealistic.

Why did the government insist on a survey first?

Cheung said the Central Policy Unit had completed five retirement-protection studies, but the financial tsunami, higher old-age allowances and the statutory minimum wage had rendered the old data obsolete — it had to be refreshed before the system’s sustainability could be assessed. Early next year the Unit would survey 10,000 households territory-wide on residents’ retirement living and economic conditions, with preliminary results expected by end of next year, after which the government would consider future policy directions.

Why couldn’t the “three pillars” study be published?

Cheung cited the Unit’s 2005–2008 Sustainability Study on Hong Kong’s Three-Pillar Retirement Protection System, which projected the system’s expenditure over 30 years. But the financial tsunami struck after its completion, followed by higher old-age allowances, the minimum wage, and the forthcoming voluntary health insurance and MPF optimisation — the social and economic landscape had changed so much that some findings could not be released.

Lawmakers cried delay; Cheung insisted the government was sincere

Some legislators noted the survey results would arrive after a change of government and accused the administration of passing the buck. Cheung reiterated that data must be gathered before detailed policy consideration, stressing the government had no intention of dragging its feet and was absolutely sincere about retirement protection — research takes time; it was not “delay after delay”.