- 21 -
SEM on retirement protection
Following is the speech by the Secretary for Education and Manpower, Mr Michael Leung, in the motion debate on "Retirement Protection" in the Legislative Council today (Wednesday):
Mr President,
I move the motion standing in my name in the order paper.
Over the past 30 years, much has been said, both inside and outside this Council, about the best way to provide financial security for our elderly people. I do not think that there is anyone who would deny that the elderly in our community, who have contributed, and continue to contribute, so much to our economic well-being and prosperity, deserve to be able to live in dignity and financial security during their retirement years. Yet the best way of reaching that goal always appears to have eluded
us.
There are currently some $60,000 people over the age of 65. This number will rise to about 1,000,000 by the year 2016. Although Hong Kong has a high average savings rate and most of our citizens have been able to support themselves in retirement until now, we cannot assume that this will always be so. Nor should we simply continue to rely upon traditional patterns of family support. Prudence dictates that we take precautionary measures. We cannot afford further delay. The time for action is now.
It is an inescapable fact, though, that Government alone cannot solve the financial needs of our elderly population unless we are to put an intolerable burden on our taxpayers. We need to involve the working population and employers as well. Let go back in time to examine what we have tried to achieve in the area of providing income security for the elderly over the last three years.
me
The RPS
Most Members will recall that in October 1992 we released a consultation paper entitled "A Community-wide Retirement Protection System". This proposed the introduction of a mandatory, contributory retirement protection system for all employees under the age of 65 in full time employment. The proposed system found little support within the community. The main areas of concem included the absence of a guarantee mechanism within the system to deal with benefit losses arising from fraud, theft or poor investment management, and the fact that the system did not help those outside the workforce.