22 -
The OPS
We took heed of these points, in particular the apparent concern about the absence of coverage for those elderly people outside the workforce or who had already retired. In December 1993, as Members will recall, I announced in this Council that we would implement an Old Age Pension Scheme (OPS) subject, among other things, to endorsement by the community of our proposals. In July last year we released our second consultation document, entitled "An Old Age Pension Scheme for Hong Kong". The OPS would have given all eligible elderly persons a monthly pension of $2,300, and would have been funded by a modest contribution from employers and employees, and an affordable level of financial input from Government.
When the OPS consultation period ended on 31 October last year, we had received a total of 6,665 written submissions. Although this was an encouraging response in numerical terms, as we assessed the views expressed in those submissions, it became clear to us that public opinion on the OPS was, at best, divided. Nor was there any support for the OPS in this Council. Members recall that the Motion Debate on the OPS on 9 November 1994, to debate the motion "That this Council is of the opinion that the Government has to assume greater financial responsibility for the Old Age Pension Scheme and, at the same time, should attach due importance to the views expressed by the public during the consultation period in order to refine the Scheme and take positive steps to improve the existing welfare system for the elderly", only one Member of this Council spoke firmly in support of the OPS. Let me remind Members that the vote in favour of an amended motion which called upon Government to seriously consider the views expressed by the public on various retirement schemes, including the OPS, was passed by a majority of 28 votes to 3.
We have to face reality. We had sought public endorsement of the OPS, but public views were divided. There was little support from the OPS in the news media, nor indeed in this Council. There was clearly no consensus for the scheme in Hong Kong, and we shall not return to it. We have to decide where to go next.
It would have been quite inappropriate to try, as some have suggested, and put the OPS to this Council in any case. To proceed along the OPS road meant that we needed the clear support of the community, this Council and the Chinese side. We cannot ignore the fact that we need both legislation and the agreement of the Chinese Government for any retirement scheme that goes beyond 1997.