(d) Would circulars regarding the questions dressed in (b) and (c) above for ordinary civil servants have been also sent to the Judiciary? The letter from S K Li to me of
16 July 1990 (when the Judiciary took over responsibility for appointments) shows that the provision/rule for approval of transfer to permanent and pensionable and appointment to HMOCS must have been know to the Registrar Supreme Court.
(e) Because our 1985 files are held elsewhere, it would be very helpful if you could tell me (and let me have a copy of) the instrument which was used to notify the Hong Kong public service that they would not be eligible for appointment to HMOCS unless they were first appointed to Hong Kong before 28 March 1985. You mention this authority in paragraph 2 of your letter of 15 April to the Registrar Supreme Court. was the circulation of that instrument?
What
(f) Could you please tell me whether there was a departmental circular issued to the Judiciary explaining the effect of the new Judicial Pensions Ordinance. Did this circular touch upon HMOCS matters?
(g) Finally, I wonder whether you have any record of any correspondence regarding the two magistrates who were recruited post-March 1985 but whom we nevertheless allowed to become members of HMOCS. (I mean discussion of the policy etc, not the telegrams confirming the appointments). We have been unable to find anything here but I do seem to recall some discussion of the issues.
2.
I am sorry to throw all these questions at you. is a serious issue and we want to tackle it quickly.
You sincerely,
all.
M V Stone
Hong Kong Department
But this
MVSAGC