ATTACKS on the Government's newly-proposed contributory old age pension scheme intensified yesterday with opposition from all political parties and pro-China figures. It emerged that Beijing's new think-tank on Hong Kong's economy is likely to raise objections towards the Government's new plan for retirement protection at its meeting next month. Members of the Preliminary Working Committee (PWC) economic sub-group expressed objections to the scheme, saying it was not fair to either employees or employers, since it contained no financial commitment from the Government. And they would not rule out the possibility the group's retirement protection panel would come up with a different scheme at next month's meeting. Beijing has already warned the scheme should not increase the Hong Kong people's tax burden, with Xinhua (New China News Agency) official Lee Wai-ting saying Hong Kong should maintain a low tax policy. But deputy Secretary for Education and Manpower Lam Woon-kwong yesterday declined to say whether the Government would consult the PWC, saying only it would talk to Beijing about the issue. PWC retirement protection panel convener Ngai Shiu-kit said the scheme was another form of taxation. ''There is no reason why both employers and employees should have to pay for the scheme but won't actually benefit,'' he said. ''Why do we have to pay money for the elderly people? The Government should pay. ''It cannot be [in place of] a provident fund run by the private sector,'' Mr Ngai said. ''That means we have to pay extra . . . It seems to be something like an aspirin which can only cure your headache for [a short] time.'' Fellow PWC member Tsang Hin-chi also expressed strong reservations, saying the Government should make a financial commitment to the scheme. He also questioned the management of the pension fund, adding there were still differing suggestions on the best scheme for retirement protection. Unionist PWC member Lee Chak-tim also urged the Government to pay for the scheme. ''This scheme is not good enough. It loses the meaning of a central provident fund that we have asked for, for a long time,'' he said. But legislator and PWC member Tam Yiu-chung supported the Government's proposals. ''The plan is a social protection scheme and I basically welcome it,'' he said. However, he stressed he would not vote for the scheme without a financial commitment from the Government. Mr Tam admitted it would take some time to explain the idea to the business-dominated PWC sub-group: ''It is quite a new concept and will take some time for other members to understand.'' He said the PWC would take the new scheme as one option. ''We agreed to study the whole issue of retirement protection, and we chose the central provident fund as the starting point in our last meeting since it is the focus of public opinion,'' he said. ''As the Government's proposal is different, we will quite possibly have to change the topic, and let their plan be the starting point.'' Meanwhile, Mr Lam and the Government were attacked by all political parties at a forum yesterday. The Government was criticised for presenting the scheme without sufficient research and consultation. ''We have discussed the issue for years, and society did not come to a consensus,'' Liberal Party legislator Henry Tang Ying-yen said. ''I just wonder if the British Empire wants to leave us something to enjoy.'' The United Democrats' Michael Ho Mun-ka said the Government should have a fair policy to cover the expenditure of the scheme by using Government income, and not that of the working population. Both speakers said the Government had left a ''perished orange'' for the public and they would not accept such a harmful thing.