of HK$1,250 (US$160) per month. In order to encourage people to join the MPF, the government provides HK$600 million (US$76.9 million) to a compensation fund, supplemented by a levy of 0.03% of the MPF net asset value (Mandatory Provident Fund Schemes Authority, 2002). Moreover, the mandatory con- tributions made by employees and employers are tax deductible, subject to a maximum limit of HK$14,500 (US$1,859) per year (Mandatory Provident Fund Schemes Authority, 2013a). Instead of having regular income after retirement, the members of the MPF can only get back their saving in a lump sum when they reach the age of 65. Even worse they are not normally allowed to withdraw their total accrued beneits before 65 (note 4).
DIFFERENT VIEWS ON THE DESIRABILIY
SAR Government, 2013), however, as mentioned above the individual median income is only HK$12,000 (US$1,538) (Sing Tao Daily, 22 Feb 2013). Hence even if the low income groups make contributions to the MPF for more than twenty years, there is no guarantee that they can save suficient money to maintain a decent retirement life (Ho, 2005; Yu, 2008; Chou, 2009).
Secondly, not many people believe that the private sector (especially those managing the MPF fund) is effective in cre- ating and managing the resources reserved for their retirement life. An important reason is that the return rate of the contri- bution to the MPF is too low and the management fees are too high. Over the past 12 years, the annualized return rate of the MPF constitute fund was only 2.7%; lower than the inlation rate (Next Magazine, 2012). The Consumer Council discov- ers that 45% of the 341 MPF constitute funds in the territory recorded a bad loss in the past ive years (Hong Kong Eco- nomic Times, 16 October 2012). There is a lack of an effective mechanism for keeping the management fees of the MPF at a reasonable level. The variations of the fees adopted among the constitute funds are 26 times, with the least 0.17% and the most 4.62%. Although the government claims that the aver- age MPF management fee has dropped from 2.1% in 2008 to 1.82%, it is still far from acceptable to the public. For example, Edward Prescott (a Nobel Prize winner) points out that most of the pension management fees in other countries are only 0.18%
(Ming Pao Finance, 3 Jan 2012).
Thirdly, more and more pressure groups stress that collective measures are more effective than individual efforts in providing retirement protections. In addition to making protests against the retirement protection measures provided by the government, they have put forward counter-proposals on pension reform (Civic Party, 2011; Alliance for Universal Pension, 2012; RTHK, 16 March 2013; Sing Tao Daily, 24 March 2013;). It is important to note all of their counter-proposals are based on collectivism.
A widely discussed proposal is the scheme developed by the Alliance for Universal Pension (2012). The scheme is composed of two key elements - irstly, it is built on the universal principle as it gives all older citizens aged 65 and above HK3,000 dollars (US$385) monthly, irrespective of the contributions they have made; secondly, it is inanced by the contributions made by the government, employers and employees. Similar proposal was formulated by the Hong Kong Council of Social Service (Leg- islative Council Secretariat, 2012). Although the Hong Kong Council of Social Service suggests a different way for raising the money to inance the pension scheme, it supports the universal principle and the ideas of guaranteeing all retirees aged 65 and above HK$3,000 (US$ 385) every month.
2013)，但如前述，個人收入中位數只有12,000港幣 (1,538美元)(星島日報，2013年2月22日)，因此即使
低收入族群提撥強積金達二十年之久，也無法保證 他們的儲蓄足以支持一定水準的退休生活(Ho, 2005;Yu, 2008; Chou, 2009)。
其次，許多人不相信私部門(特別是經營強積金 的機構)能有效創造、管理其退休生活的儲備資源，
其中一個重要原因是強積金的回報率過低、管理費 過高。過去12年來，強積金集成基金的年化回報率 只有2.7%，低於通貨膨脹率(壹週刊，2012)。消費 者委員會發現，香港當地341個強積金集成基金中，
有高達45%在過去五年間都蒙受大幅損失(香港經濟 日報，2012年10月16日)，缺乏將強積金管理費控制 在合理範圍的有效機制。集成基金的管理費最低為
0.17%
、最高為4.62%，其間差異高達26倍。儘管香港政府聲稱平均強積金管理費已從2008年的2.1%降 到1.82%，仍難以為社會大眾所接受；諾貝爾獎得主
Edward Prescott 就指出，其他國家的退休金管理費
大多只有0.18%(明報財經，2012年1月3日)。再者，越來越多壓力團體強調，集體制度比個 人努力更能有效提供退休保障。除了抗議政府採行 的退休保障措施外，這些團體也提出退休金制度改 革的反建議(公民黨，2011；全民退休保障，2012；
香港電台，2013年3月16日；星島日報，2013年3月
24日)。值得注意的是，這些反建議都是依集體主義
的原則提出，其中一個受到廣泛討論的是全民退休 保障提出的方案(2012)。該方案由兩個關鍵要素構
成：首先是普遍原則，它主張不論個人提撥金額多 寡，一律提供所有65歲以上的年長公民每月3,000港 幣(385美元)的津貼；另一關鍵要素，則是其資金來 源為政府、僱主與勞工三方的提撥。香港社會服務 聯會也提出類似建議(立法會祕書處，2012)，雖然提 出不同的退休金計劃籌資方式，但同樣支持普遍原 則以及保障所有年滿65歲以上的退休人士每月3,000 港幣(385美元)的津貼。In response to the fact that the public do not see the MPF and CSSA as effective retirement measures and do not support the values underpinning these measures, the government has recently promised to make some piecemeal changes on the MPF and the CSSA. It has started allowing employees to choose their own inancial institution to manage their contribution to the MPF. It hopes that this new measure can improve the performance of the inancial institutions through the market forces. Obviously this limited change cannot satisfy those people who want to see the security (or insecurity) of their retirement life guaranteed by the state rather than determined by the private market. The govern- ment has also promised to review the level of beneits offered by the CSSA. But no concrete action has yet been taken. The gov- ernment’s unenthusiastic responses to the demands of the public suggest that it is keen to stick to the residual and collaborative tactics.
At the same time as making changes in the retirement protection measures, the government has launched a moral campaign common- ly known as ‘social harmony campaign’ (Chau & Yu, 2009; Tsang, 2007). This campaign emphasizes that Hong Kong people should learn from the Chinese tradition. In particular Hong Kong people are encouraged to make efforts to realize some social virtues such as building a harmonious society. To achieve this goal, the government suggests that the public should uphold an individualistic view on the division of responsibility between individuals and the government in the provision of welfare. This division emphasizes individual respon- sibility for meeting their own needs through improving their capacity to participate in the labour market and product market rather than relying on social welfare. By doing so, it can help the government focus on helping people adjust to the requirements of the private market rather than giving challenges to the private market through high levels of tax and comprehensive welfare policies. The link between the promotion of social harmony and this kind of division of responsibility between individuals and the government is shown in the 2007 Policy Address made by the Chief Executive:
Promoting social harmony under the concept of helping peo- ple to help themselves….In my view, the Government should not attempt to narrow the wealth gap by redistributing wealth through high levels of tax and welfare. The role of the Gov- ernment should be conined to creating the social conditions that help improve the livelihood of people with low income using a multi-pronged policy approach. This includes pro- moting infrastructure development to achieve higher wages;
developing soft infra-structure on all fronts including expand- ing retraining programmes to help the middle class and the grassroots upgrade their skills (Tsang, 2007, p. 4).
It is widely believed that the social harmony campaign is designed to reduce the public’s demand on welfare measures
為因應社會大眾不視強積金與綜援為有效的退 休制度，亦不支持此二制度為本的價值，香港政府 近來承諾將對強積金與綜援進行片面修正，並以開 始開放勞工選擇管理個人提撥強積金之金融機構，
希望新的措施能透過市場力量增進金融機構績效。
顯然，這項有限的改變無法滿足希望政府能保障其 退休生活穩定(不穩定
)，而非交由私有市場決定的
人。此外，香港政府也承諾將會重新檢視綜援的補 助金金額，不過尚無具體行動。對社會大眾的要求 反應冷淡，似乎也顯示香港政府希望堅守殘補與合 作策略。在改變退休保障措施的同時，香港政府也進行 了一個名為「社會和諧運動」的道德運動
(Chau &
Yu, 2009; Tsang, 2007)，強調香港人應學習中國傳
統，特別鼓勵其努力實踐「創建和諧社會」等社會 價值。香港政府表示，為達社會和諧目標，社會大 眾需以個人主義觀點看待對個人與政府在福利提供 上的責任分工，強調個人有責任透過提升個人的能 力參與勞動與商品市場以滿足自身需要，而不是仰 賴社會福利制度達到目的。提升人民市場參與的機 會和能力，將有助於政府將重心集中在幫助人民適 應私有市場需求，致使政府不會用高稅率政策和綜 合福利政策挑戰私有市場的運作。推廣社會和諧與 個人、政府間的責任分配兩者之間的關係，反映在 香港特首2007年的施政報告中：以助人自助理念推動社會和諧……我認為不應以 高稅收高福利方式進行財富再分配，以求拉近貧 富差距。政府的角色應該是締造適當環境，通過 多管齊下的政策協助低收入人士，包括推動基 建，令工資上升；全面發展軟基建，擴大培訓計 劃，幫助中產及基層人士自我增值及提升技能(曾 蔭權，2007，第4頁)。
一般認為，社會和諧運動的目的在於減低社會 大眾對福利措施(包括退休保障措施)的需求(Chau &
Yu, 2009; Chiu & Wong, 2005)。既然香港政府只願
意對退休保障措施做片面的改革，且意圖使用道德(including the retirement protection measures) (Chau &Yu, 2009;
Chiu & Wong, 2005). Given that the Hong Kong government is only willing to make piecemeal reforms on the retirement protec- tion measures and intends to use moral campaign to reshape the public’s demands on welfare measures, it is clear that it is reluc- tant to make any welfare reforms that would challenge the three capitalist values (the individualism, marketism and inequalities).
This also implies that unless the government faces huge political pressures, those retirement measures emphasizing social equality, collectivism and state planning will not be accepted by the gov- ernment.