.
►
►
A
"I [
This is a very clear assurance that there will be no loss of career for expatriate officers as a result of the transfer of sovereignty in 1997. The Hong Kong Government have however introduced a limited compensation scheme to cover a small number of expatriate officers whose promotion is blocked by localisation (ie the policy of bringing on before 1997 local officers into senior posts in the administration) or who are asked to retire early.
As to the loss of protection afforded by membership of HMOCS, the Government are still considering to what extent it would be appropriate to compensate serving officers for this, taking account of the assurances under the Joint Declaration and of our responsibility to maintain a stable and effective public service in the years up to and beyond 1997.
Secondly, payment of pensions. Again, the Joint Declaration is very clear on this point. It states
that:
"The Hong Kong Special Administration Region
Government shall pay to (expatriate officers) who retire or complete their contracts, as well as to those who retired before 1 July 1997, or to their dependents, all pensions, gratuities, allowances and benefits due to them on terms no less favourable than before, and irrespective of their nationality or place of residence."
In view of such a categorical assurance, I see no grounds for introducing arrangements for the early payment of pensions in 1997 as suggested by Mr Goode. Indeed, given our objective of working for continuity in the administration of Hong Kong across the change of
sovereignty, such arrangements might well be regarded as inappropriate and inconsistent with our wider responsibility to Hong Kong.
Thirdly, currency guarantees. The Hong Kong dollar is linked to the US dollar: any variation in its value against sterling in the recent past is therefore the result of the movement of the American currency rather than of any other factors. It is true that the Hong Kong dollar has declined against sterling over the past three years; but in recent months the trend has been in the opposite direction. Overall, I am not convinced that the