people are more prepared to pay what is in effect a social security tax (and in some places called that) if this entitles them to payments in return than, say, higher income tax. They regard this in a quite different way from general taxation. Of course you pay a price in having a more complicated admini- strative structure to collect the money. But the complications can be kept to a minimum; special provision, for example, can be made for small employers; and there can be broad brush rules on many other matters. Hong Kong have a pretty good track record at keeping things simple.
Against this background it does seem worth further testing out opinion in Hong Kong on whether or not to go for some form of contributory scheme. The Government would not need to commit themselves one way or the other: indeed, quite the opposite. But as I have said before it would at the very least show that the Government were continuing to plan ahead on social security and take seriously the views of the community at large. If at the end of the day the conclusion were that the present basis of social security as set out in the recent White Paper meets Hong Kong's needs adequately, nothing will have been lost because the Government will have been seen to have examined carefully the options before it and concluded that Hong Kong had already got the right social security structure.
If you would like a longer note, just let me know.
Yums
ay c
Straven
T S Heppell