➡
14.
-
As we recognise the concern expressed over this issue, in consumption with the previous consultation on the RPS in 1992. In short, the two systems are totally different, it is totally irrelevant to quote with that one as the arguments against the MPS. Let me go on one more point. The report on the RPS used financial calculations based on the interest rates and market conditions at that time, that is at least two years ago. It also talked about complying an exempt scheme. These concepts are not relevant, not applicable to our discussions on the MPF or the principle of the MPF this afternoon. It would therefore be totally inappropriate and totally misleading for some Members of this Council to deliberately distort the pictures, to mislead the public and this Council into believing that we are trying to have the two schemes mixed up together, they are not, they are different schemes. The MPF as presented is a new scheme with new features, improvements of the old features and can adjust the need of the people at this point in time. I am sure Members would understand this, these are very different. Therefore the quotation of my colleague, Mr Lam, was totally out of context, and totally misleading.
Going back to the main points in the arguments, I am sure that those Members who have said in support of the OPS with qualifications must now be regretting they have done the wrong thing. I am very sorry for them. They cannot retract because it is on record. They said in support with qualifications plus CPF plus old age allowances plus everything. I am sorry it's too late to change their minds now. It's on record and the public know that they have not supported that the OPS as presented. They can't change their minds now or correct the record. I am so sorry for them. But that is the fact, Mr President, it's on record and hansards. You can't change it now, you can't deceive the public.
Coming back to the MPF as we presented this afternoon, I like to respond a number of points on those Members who spoke in support which I am fully appreciative. On the number of points of details, first, the question of security for retirement benefits. Let me stress once again that we have already got in place a The system of legislative controls, regulations and prudential supervision. Occupational Retirement Schemes Ordinance (ORSO) requires scheme assets to be maintained separately from those of the employer, and to be held by independent trustees or authorised insurers. It also imposes restrictions on the investment of scheme assets. Loans to the employer and investment in certain company shares are not allowed. No more than 10% of the scheme assets may be invested in securities issued by the employer.