Who Gains and Who Loses From MPF?

Who Gains and Who Loses From MPF?

In May 2011, CUHK postgraduate Yick Man-kin argued against debating MPF as simply good or bad — ask who it serves and who it fails. Big employers barely felt it (some even cut contributions); small employers bore the burden; high earners didn’t need it; low earners had nothing spare to invest on top.

Why were marginal workers excluded?

Hawkers, casual workers, older workers and domestic labourers (mostly women) fell outside MPF’s protection. Older workers had short contribution histories; trustee, custodian and management fees ate close to half of contributions.

What was wrong with the offsetting mechanism?

Employers could offset severance and long-service payments against contributions, so grassroots workers never enjoyed continuous compounding — their benefits were slashed. Such protection only made the weak weaker.

How should it be fixed?

The piece argued MPF couldn’t be treated in isolation — it’s part of the whole social safety net. Workers’ self-defence: pick low-fee funds via MPF fund comparison.