Will consider alternatives
I REFER to the article by Ms Connie Law headlined, ''Retirement deal opposed'' (South China Morning Post, December 10), which contained several factual errors.
The Business and Professionals Federation (BPF) of Hong Kong has never been in favour of a central provident fund (CPF).
Since the compulsory retirement scheme has been in principle accepted by the Executive Council since 1991, the BPF has always been in support of such a scheme, albeit that there should be some sort of government participation to safeguard vested contributions.
The BPF has never altered its position since then.
In the said article, it was reported that ''Mr Tang said he had never maintained that a CPF was in his favour''. This is a misquote.
My view has always been that, in view of the fact that we have to accept some sort of a compulsory retirement scheme, a central provident fund is one scheme which has to be seriously considered. In December, 1991, I made an amendment to the Honourable Tam Yiu-chung's motion debate to urge the Government to reconsider the central provident fund.
Indeed, I have time and time again, urged the Government to set up a central provident fund.
I would also like to reiterate that whilst I have been advocating the Central Provident Fund to be a favourable alternative, I have not ruled out other forms of retirement schemes such as the compulsory retirement scheme.
In fact, I have distinctly stated that I am willing to consider any alternative proposals that the Government might have and have reserved my acceptance depending on the merits of the proposals.
Hence, it is not correct to say that I have never been in favour of the central provident fund.
The Honourable HENRY Y. Y. TANG Legislative Councillor