Why Propose a Universal Retirement Protection Fund?

What was proposed in 2011?

A 2011 commentary proposed a universal retirement protection fund, arguing a decade of MPF had seen hefty admin fees devour returns. Hong Kong’s 2% fees versus about 1% elsewhere meant nearly 40% of contributions could go to fund companies over thirty years; the most common CSSA cases were elderly recipients — over half — not the unemployed, proof of inadequate retirement protection.

Why does MPF fall short?

Low returns, high fees, narrow coverage — three fatal flaws. Budgets cried deficit yet posted surpluses, underestimating revenue by nearly HK$300 billion over five years; the government could afford retirement protection but favoured business over people. While waiting for reform, workers should protect themselves with better funds — see MPF fund comparison.

Why is universal protection so hard to launch?

It means long-term contributions and tax hikes — no social consensus. Labour groups and civic groups push; the government says improve the current system first — a tug-of-war running since 2011.