XN000022-1995-03-08 — Page 39

- 27

CPF

Finally, let me turn to the perennial call for us to establish a Central Provident Fund (CPF). Our view on this remains unchanged. It is not an option for Hong Kong. It offers no freedom of choice, tends to produce low returns on investment, and would result in an over-concentration of funds under one authority. We hold the same view in respect of a CPF on its own, and a CPF put together in an uneasy partnership with any other form of retirement protection.

Those Members who are proposing a Hong Kong Central Provident Fund Bill must know that we will not support it. A CPF cannot work without Government funding, and this most definitely will not be forthcoming.

Conclusion

-

Mr President, I believe that the mandatory, privately managed provident fund system is not only the most acceptable way of providing retirement protection for our elderly people it is also the only way left. It is abundantly clear that there is no mandate to proceed with the OPS. It took us seven months to design the OPS, a further three and a half months for the consultation period, yet a further three months to assess the results of the exercise. The door to the OPS will not be reopened. We cannot go on devising new schemes. Without clear support for the MPF, we will not proceed. I call upon Members of this Council today to give us the clear support we need to move on to the next stage of the MPF consultation process, which is to appoint a consultant to advise us on the details of the system. Thereafter we will discuss the MPF in the Sino-British Joint Liaison Group. We hope to put together primary legislation on the MPF to this Council before the end of this current session, and our eventual aim is to have the MPF in place as quickly as possible.

Mr President. I beg to move.

End/Wednesday, March 8, 1995