bodyType

customContents

entityId

entityUuid

articlePageQuery

filter

article

articleBaseAdvertisingInfoArticle

articleListArticle

articleSeoArticle

hooksArticleAcknowledgementGateOverlayArticle

hooksTrackPageViewArticle

hooksContentInterestArticle

articleLinkingDataContent

hooksAmpRedirectArticle

articleSchemaContent

liveArticle

advertZone

sentiment

contentLock

topics

types

sections

paywallTypes

createdDate

publishedDate

urlAlias

moreOnThisArticles

sponsorType

commentCount

authorLocations

authors

corrections

displaySlideShow

multimediaEmbed

printHeadline

seriesContainer

articleSpeeches

socialHeadline

headline

images

flag

firstTopic

glossary

flattenTypeIds

image

relatedLinks

relatedNewsletters

__typename

sponsor

pdfFiles

seriesReverseOrder

series

disableOffPlatformContent

published

updatedDate

summary

subHeadline

body

keywords

readingTime

customTimezone

liveContents

SCMP Reporter

LEGISLATORS yesterday reacted cautiously to the proposed old-age pension scheme and remained noncommittal on whether they would support it.

  With the limited information provided by the administration, they said it was impossible to fully analyse its pros and cons.

  But most political parties were extremely disappointed with the decision to drop the idea of a central provident fund or any kind of retirement scheme.

  Liberal Party member Henry Tang Ying-yen said he had strong doubts about the motive behind the pension proposal.

  ''I wonder if the Government is doing this for the good of the public or as a stalling tactic,'' he said.

  Without giving a timetable for the introduction of the scheme and the fact that it would take time to get China's approval and pass the relevant laws, it remained doubtful whether the scheme would be in place before 1997.

  Mr Tang said the proposal was radical and the Government had criticised it as smacking of a redistribution of wealth, which went against its often-stated policy of non-intervention.

  He said the scheme might also have an impact on long-term economic development, because when the population aged, the number of contributors would drop.

     Mr Tang, also the vice-chairman of the Federation of Hong Kong Industries, accused the administration of being irresponsible for not consulting the legislature before making the policy switch.

  ''It shows again that the Government is not listening to Legco members,'' he said. Legco has voted in favour of a central provident fund.

  Vice-chairman of the United Democrats Yeung Sum said it was regrettable that the administration had ruled out the fund, but added there were several aspects of a pension scheme worth endorsement.

  The advantage of such a scheme was that the elderly could immediately benefit. And while every recipient, be they rich or poor, received the same monthly payment, the level of contributions for each contributor was pegged to his income.

  ''From a social welfare point of view, this is an advanced step,'' he said.

  But he was worried that the contributions level had to increase when the population aged, and that the scheme would deter companies from introducing their own retirement schemes.

  Meeting Point member Tik Chi-yuen said the proposal would be acceptable if the Government also contributed.

  Frederick Fung Kin-kee of the Association for Democracy and People's Livelihood said the plan was a move in the right direction.

  But he was unhappy that the Government simply washed its hands and refused to participate financially.

  Tam Yiu-chung of the Democratic Alliance for the Betterment of Hong Kong said an old-age pension scheme was part of what the alliance had been championing.

  But it was equally important to have a central provident fund, which he thought, could co-exist with a pension scheme.

  The Society for Community Organisations and a leader of the Federation of Trade Unions, Lee Chak-tim, also called on the Government to contribute to the scheme.



Sadness as fund hopes dashed