- 3
And simply called off the survey. We tried hard to negotiate with them on this aspect through the Registrar but in vain. In the circumstances, for the sake of an early implementation of our claim which, with the strong case that we had, we were confident that we would succeed, we succumbed to their like-it-or-lump-it attitude and conceded to the survey being resumed without any string attached. It took them almost one and a half years to complete the survey. During the survey we co-operated fully with members of the survey team and supplied to them all the information they needed. Having done our part for the survey we waited patiently in anticipation of a fair result of our representation.
In mid September last year, to our disappointment, the claim we made in our representation was unceremoniously brushed aside by the Finance Branch with an obfuscatory survey report (Appendix 8) which fails to justify its own findings. The compiler of the report deliberately sidestepped the vital issue of level of responsibility on which we based our claim. This report was so intricate and irresponsible that members of the survey team, who were assigned to conduct the survey by the Finance Branch itself, found it necessary to dissociate themselves with it.
We invited the Registrar to put the recommendations made on trial for a short period but this was declined by the Registrar who knew full well that implementation of such recommendations is virtually infeasible. (For our comments on the survey report, please see Appendix 9; letter to Registrar for implementation of recommendations Appendix 10; and the Registrar's reply Appendix 11).
We would like to mention that at the time we submitted our representation to the Secretary for Civil Service, we had the support of two bilingual Justices of Appeal of the Supreme Court, the Hon. Mr. Justice T.L. Yang, as he then was, and the Hon.
Mr.
Justice Simon Li. In a memorandum dated 2nd December 1985 to the Registrar in support of our proposals (Registrar's reference (103) in S.c. 144/4/2) Mr. Justice Yang and Mr. Justice Li rightly pointed out that interpreters who sought transfer to other departments at one time had fared much better than those who remained. They both expressed concern over the promotion prospects and morale problems of the Court Interpreters and suggested that in considering improving the career prospects of the Court Interpreters, comparison be made with the Simultaneous Interpreters whose work is in many respects similar to that of the Court Interpreters. We verily believe that the views expressed by their Lordships were duly forwarded by the Registrar together with our representation to the Secretary for Civil Service for consideration. It is astonishing to learn that views given by these two Appeal Court Justices who have over thirty years' experience of working together with Court Interpreters were apparently ignored. Even more astonishing if they were not ignored but overruled by the survey report compiler whom, we understand, to be an Executive Officer and a complete stranger to interpretation work in court.
From the sequence of events mentioned above, Your Excellency may now appreciate our grievance at the imprudent and high-handed manner in which the authorities dealt with our proposals.
We learned from the speech of Miss Y.H. Lee, a Chief Chinese Language Officer who was invited as a guest speaker at a recent seminar held by the Court Interpreters' Association that there are at the moment 17 Chief