Why Did Scholars Call the Three-Pillar Retirement Policy Outdated?

How did academics criticise the three pillars?

In June 2011, CUHK social work professor Wong Hung said the government’s three-pillar retirement policy — CSSA, MPF and personal savings — was no longer fit for purpose. He noted the World Bank had folded public pension provision into retirement systems back in 2005 and urged Hong Kong to follow. Former health and welfare deputy secretary Ho Wing-him added that children were less willing to support parents than before, while lower-middle-class incomes had barely grown, leaving them unable to do so.

How did the government respond?

The Labour and Welfare Bureau said universal retirement protection involved long-term contributions and tax hikes with no social consensus, so improving the current system came first. Until the system changes, workers must fend for themselves — start by choosing funds wisely at MPF fund comparison.

What are the three pillars?

The CSSA safety net, mandatory MPF savings, and personal savings. Critics argued MPF misses 2.8 million elderly, low-income earners, housewives and the jobless; personal savings are a luxury for poor families; and CSSA has layers of barriers — three “short stilts.”