MONDAY, DECEMBER 20, 1993
QUESTION: WHEN WAS THE MESSAGE COME TO YOU, WHEN?
GOVERNOR: THE END OF LAST WEEK IN A TELEPHONE CALL.
LU
TO SECURE SENIOR OFFICIALS TO CONTINUE QUESTION: WHY DO YOU
TO SERVING THE SAR GOVERNMENT AND THAT IS WHY YOU SEND A LETTER PING EARLIER AND HAVE YOU GOT ANYTHING BACK?
I
IN
GOVERNOR: I'VE RAISED IT WITH MR LU PING ON A NUMBER OF OCCASIONS. RAISED IT FIRST OF ALL ORALLY WITH DIRECTOR LU PING WHEN I MET HIM
SUBSEQUENTLY PEKING LAST AUTUMN. I'VE MENTIONED IT A COUPLE OF TIMES IN CORRESPONDENCE. I THINK IT WOULD HELP THE SMOOTH TRANSITION OF HONG KONG. WE WANT TO SEE CIVIL SERVANTS CONTINUE TO BE APPOINTED ON MERIT.
BEST CIVIL WE DON'T WANT TO SEE THE POLITICISATION OF ONE OF THE
TO SMOOTH THAT SERVICES IN
WORLD AND ANYTHING THAT WE CAN DO
MADE THOSE PROCESS, WE'LL BE ONLY TOO KEEN TO DO WHICH IS WHY I'VE
IN ADVANCE OF POINTS ΤΟ DIRECTOR LU PING. BUT I AM SURE THAT WELL 1997, WE'LL BE ABLE TO HAVE THOSE CONVERSATIONS.
QUESTION:
MR
PATTEN,
WHEN YOU ANNOUNCED
THE
RETIREMENT
SCHEME, So, DO
GOVERNMENT DID NOT SET OUT ABOUT THE DATE TO BE CARRIED OUT. YOU THINK OR DO YOU ACKNOWLEDGE THAT GOVERNMENT ANNOUNCED THE PLAN A RUSH AND DO YOU WANT TO DELAY IT UNTIL 1997?
IN
LEGISLATIVE
VIEWS ON WE'VE
GOVERNOR: NO, I DON'T WANT TO DELAY IT. I PROMISED IN MY COUNCIL SPEECH IN OCTOBER THAT WE WOULD BE SETTING OUT OUR THE WAY FORWARD AND BEFORE THE END OF THE YEAR AND THAT'S WHAT DONE. BUT, IN DOING THAT WE'VE MADE IT PERFECTLY CLEAR THAT THERE IS A WILL BE LOT MORE WORK, A LOT MORE STUDY WHICH NEEDS TO BE DONE. WE
CAN COMPLETING THAT AS SOON AS WE POSSIBLY CAN SO THAT THE COMMUNITY MAKE ITS MIND UP. I WANT TO MAKE TWO OR THREE POINTS ABSOLUTELY PLAIN. THE FOR MANY OF US, THE PREFERRED OPTION MIGHT HAVE BEEN TO CONTINUE VOLUNTARY APPROACH WITH PEOPLE MAKING PROVISION FOR THEMSELVES. THAT'S THE POLITICAL WHAT 850 000 PEOPLE ALREADY DO BUT THE COMMUNITY AND
COMPREHENSIVE LEADERS IN THE LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL PRESS US FOR A MORE
INTERESTED APPROACH. IF, WHEN IT'S LOOKED AT THAT THE COMMUNITY ISN'T
BUT IF AND WANTS TO GO BACK TO A VOLUNTARY APPROACH, THEN SO BE IT.
HELPING THE THE COMMUNITY WANTS MORE COMPREHENSIVE ARRANGEMENTS FOR RETIRED SOONER RATHER THAN LATER, THE APPROACH THAT WE'VE SUGGESTED IS CENTRAL PROVIDENT THE BEST ONE AND IS MISLEADING TO SUGGEST THAT A
WOULD NOT FUND IS THE BETTER WAY FORWARD. A CENTRAL PROVIDENT FUND
WITH DEAL WITH PROBLEMS TODAY. PROBLEMS TODAY WOULD HAVE TO BE DEALT BY INCREASES IN PUBLIC EXPENDITURE WHICH IS WHAT SOME ADVOCATES OF A CENTRAL PROVIDENT FUND SAY THEY DON'T WANT TO SEE. A CENTRAL PROVIDENT FUND WOULD MEAN PEOPLE MAKING LARGER CONTRIBUTIONS, BOTH EMPLOYEES AND THAT EMPLOYERS, THAN WOULD BE THE CASE UNDER THE SORT OF PENSION PLAN
LOWER CONTRIBUTIONS FOR WE'VE PROPOSED. THEY'LL BE MAKING LARGER RETURNS AND THEY WOULDN'T ACTUALLY BE GETTING A PENSION FOR 20, 30, 40 REPRESENT A YEARS DOWN THE ROAD. SO, A CENTRAL PROVIDENT FUND WOULD
HAVE A MORE GOING TO ROTTEN BARGAIN FOR
IF WE ARE KONG. HONG
SUGGESTED COMPREHENSIVE APPROACH, THEN THE SORT OF PENSION THAT WE'VE IS THE RIGHT ONE. BUT IF THE COMMUNITY DOESN'T WANT THAT THEN, WE WILL ARRANGEMENTS WHICH HAVE TO STICK WITH THE DEVELOPMENT OF VOLUNTARY PHILOSOPHICALLY, MANY PEOPLE WOULD PREFER.
/QUESTION: