The adjournment of discussions last Friday and further filibustering on Tuesday stalled the old age living allowance scheme intended to help some 400,000 seniors. The funding proposal was shelved until Nov 16, then later brought forward to Nov 9. The failure on the part of LegCo stirred up public dismay and regret at all the tricks that were applied to thwart the passage of the allowance.

Lawmakers' noble claims that they were defending the dignity of the LegCo to uphold procedure failed to appeal to the general public. Ordinary people have a pragmatic mindset wanting the cash handout at the earliest possible date.

We should be cautious over public spending. The government's firm stand on prudent fiscal consideration made the tug of war in the lawmaking body even tougher.

The contention that snowballed over the supplemental living allowance arose from the attachment of a mandatory assets declaration by those applying for the allowance. The government showed responsibility when it rejected calls for concessions to raise the limitations.

The government is now facing new calls from lawmakers pressing for payments to be made retroactive to Oct 1 despite its delayed approval. Under government fiscal rules, the legislation cannot be made retroactive to a date earlier than the beginning of the month during which it passes. It is dangerous to create a precedent amending the retroactivity practice. It is right to stand firm and not to breach fiscal discipline.

There has been no smooth sailing for the well-intended supplemental living allowance. The government proposal triggered calls for a universal pension scheme. Some legislators tried hard to dampen the public aspirations that the new program receive early passage, by pressing for an immediate solution offering retirement protection for some 3.8 million workers in Hong Kong.

More disturbingly, that demand for a universal retirement scheme has been used to obstruct passage of the proposal for the allowance aimed at alleviating poverty among the city's seniors. It is dangerous for legislators to hijack the old allowance scheme and hold it hostage, as a bargaining chip in pressing demands for a universal pension scheme. The government has done the right thing to reject attempts to drain public coffers, to foot the bill for a very expensive universal retirement scheme. Understandably, legislators and non-governmental organizations fighting for universal pensions were disappointed with the government's firm stance.

Our honorable lawmakers should be reminded once again of the necessity of fiscal prudence. It is no pretext to reject their calls. The government should remain vigilant toward immediate risks and long-term challenges in making any fiscal commitments.

It is irresponsible and irrational at this stage to rush through a long-term commitment for the entire society. There is no quick fix until comprehensive scenario studies, in-depth research, accurate estimations and feasibility studies are conducted on various options for a universal retirement pension scheme.

Any premature attempts will prove fruitless. For such a long-term commitment, all of the Hong Kong society should reach a consensus over the timetable and the roadmap. It is irresponsible to make future generations foot the bill on retirement protection for our aging population. We should not be dragged into uncertainties and risks of bad debts by an imprudent and impulsive moves. The need for building a social system with a safety net for the needy and the underprivileged is undisputable. But our society is constituted mainly with the middle class support a self-reliant social welfare system. The government should not go populist at the expense of taxpayers, wasting public reserves and reducing work incentives for people.

We need to unite society instead of dividing ourselves over contentious issues. The government has undertaken some internal studies and research work. We hope for a clearer picture on this pressing issue, but we do not want an imprudent decision for an unsustainable commitment in pursuit of political expediency at this stage.

The author is a veteran journalist and a news commentator.

(HK Edition 11/03/2012 page3)