MPFA 'has nothing to do?with HK$6,000 payout fiasco
Updated: 2011-07-07 08:04
(HK Edition)
|
|||||||||

Anna Wu believes that, as a member of the Executive Council or a member of the chief executive's cabinet, she is obliged to abide by "collective responsibility" and "confidentiality" rules. She also reckons that, as part of the political team, Executive Council members have a duty to promote and, at times, defend government policies. One example is members' participation in the political reform "Act Now" campaign last summer.
She is unwilling to comment on Financial Secretary John Tsang's sensational U-turn which scrapped the HK$6,000 injection into Mandatory Provident Fund (MPF) accounts and opting instead to distribute the money in cash to eligible citizens. Wu did stress that the MPFA had no direct relation to the chaos.
She also declined to say whether the Financial Secretary had discussed with her, his proposal to inject the funds into the MPF or his subsequent withdrawal of the proposal.
She said she fully understands the fury and frustration of those who opposed the HK$6,000 injection, preferring instead to receive an immediate handout in cold cash.
Through her two years as a cabinet member, Wu said she understands that Hong Kong politics is so torn apart that the administration has no steady support in the Legislative Council, yet political parties who hold the votes cannot be the ruling party.
"This will prompt them to act like the 'opposition party' and this is a big headache," she observed. "We shall discuss the viability of a coalition. Otherwise, the government and the legislature will go separate ways. This is very difficult for the government, because it has to beg for votes and bargain with political parties every time it launches new policies."
Wu recalled that in the 2008-09 Budget, Tsang announced an injection of HK$6,000 into the accounts of MPF holders earning less than HK$10,000 a month to help the low income group. This year, the injection was extended to all the HK$2.5 million MPF account holders including the big earners.
The injection, like the electricity allowance, was well-received then and was considered an innovative idea, she said.
But this year's proposed injection fuelled a strong backlash of public opinions.
"Many people who do not have MPF accounts, such as housewives, were unhappy because the injection would only benefit working people," she commented.
"The law stipulates that MPF account holders can only withdraw money at 65. But since inflation is riding high and has caused food prices to soar, people are dissatisfied and they want instant money to solve their immediate needs."
"It is necessary to understand why the people were furious," she said. "If we look back, it was the unbalanced distribution that sparked people's fury. It had no direct relation with the MPF, which is only a means of money distribution to the people, but people blamed us at the same time as blaming the government."
(HK Edition 07/07/2011 page4)