陈永杰 劳工政治与劳动关系 Asher Newman 2001 HK SG.pdfVIP

from outside, very high levels of urbanisation, high life expectancy, moderate income inequality, and limited requirements to respond to domestic political pressures. Despite these similarities, the two city-states have adopted very different policies with respect to providing income security to an increasingly aged population.1 Singapore relies on a mandatory savings system (called the Central Provident Fund or CPF) managed centrally by a government Introduction Hong Kong and Singapore are the two major financial centres in Southeast Asia and, as Table 1 suggests, are similar in many ways. Both are former British colonies that have adopted the common law tradition and Western notions of trusts, fiduciary duty and prudent investor. Both have relatively high standards of living, high levels of education, few, if any, individuals involved in agricultural production, low birth rates, considerable inward migration
Henry Stewart Publications 1462-222X (2001) Vol. 7, 2, 155-166 Journal of Pensions Management 155 Hong Kong and Singapore: Two approaches to the provision of pensions in Asia Received: 7th September, 2001 Mukul Asher is Professor of Public Policy at the National University of Singapore. He was educated in India and the United States and has a PhD in economics from Washington State University. He is currently on leave visiting the Asian Development Bank Institute in Tokyo, Japan. David Newman is Associate Professor and Deputy Director of the Public Policy Programme at the National University of Singapore. He has a PhD from the University of Rochester in political science and a juris doctorate from the Franklin Pierce Law Center. Abstract This paper analyses the differing practices of the two affluent Asian financial centres of Hong Kong and Singapore with respect to providing income security to their rapidly ageing populations. Compared to Singapore’s 50-year-old CPF, which is centrally managed, non-transparent and non-accountable, Hong Kong’s MPF scheme, beg