Why Did the Government Say There Was No Consensus on Universal Retirement Protection?

What happened at LegCo’s first 2011 meeting on the issue?

In June 2011, LegCo’s new subcommittee on retirement protection held its first meeting, where a Labour and Welfare Bureau spokesman said universal retirement protection involved long-term contributions and tax hikes with no social consensus — improving the current system came first. Labour lawmakers retorted that the government hid behind “no consensus” while leaving MPF’s loopholes unfixed — irresponsible, they said.

What was the crux of the dispute?

One side argued universal protection meant higher taxes and contributions society hadn’t agreed to; the other said “no consensus” was a shield for inaction on MPF’s high fees and coverage gaps. While consensus is awaited, workers can only do their own homework — start at MPF fund comparison.

What are the current system’s loopholes?

MPF misses housewives and low-paid casual workers; employer contributions can offset severance pay; fees stay stubbornly high. All are ammunition for universal-protection advocates.