XN000022-1995-03-08 — Page 14

- 2 -

On 27 January 1995 we released a full summary assessment of public opinion on the OPS consultation paper. In addition, full details of the original submissions, subject of course to the consent of those offers, of those submissions, have been made available to all Members of this Council and to the public. We have been handling this with great care and with great transparency. There is nothing to hide from the public and from this Council on all these documents. These are fully accessible to anyone who wishes to look at them seriously.

Let me now go over some of the main points in that assessment which have led us to the clear conclusion that there is no mandate from the community both from this Council to implement the OPS as outlined in that paper.

Our assessment was that views were, at best, divided. While many submissions supported the scheme in principle, in most cases they qualified their support, either by calling for the parallel implementation of a mandatory provident fund system to go with the OPS, for immediate improvements to CSSA payments to the elderly, to a CPF in addition, and for a wide range of amendments to some of the basic principles of the scheme. To follow that these qualifications and amendments in changes as some Members have alleged to be perhaps only a very minor, would have changed the OPS as original designed beyond recognition. This was not the kind of support we are looking for and certainly not in Hong Kong's best interest!

There were also many submissions which opposed the OPS in principle. They put forward a variety of arguments as to why the scheme was unsuitable and should not proceed. Some claimed that the OPS mixed up the concept of social welfare and retirement protection. Others believed that it shifted the burden of old age protection from the individual to the family to society, and that in the long run it would have an adverse effect on attitudes towards work and savings, and would lead to a breakdown of traditional Chinese values.

Many submissions claim that the OPS was not fair, as the amount of pension that would be received did not relate directly to the level of contribution that had been made. They did not believe in a scheme which proposed a flat rate of benefit, as they thought it would be inadequate for those really in need, and be superfluous for the better off.

Many submissions expressed concern about the assumptions of growth in population and productivity on which the OPS was based. They thought that these assumptions lacked credibility and feared that if more realistic ones were used, then the OPS would risk insolvency or a much higher contribution rate would be required.