KONG.
CONFIDENTIAL
As to (i), this relates to the meaning Of
permanent resident. Having regard to our conclusions
on that question, a 10 year residential requirement
would be difficult to justify.
As to (ii), Article 1(1) expressly prohibits a
distinction based on language. But in our view, if
this could be demonstrated to be necessary (as opposed
to desirable) for the post in question and not merely
a barrier put up for overseas officers, it could be
justified probably under the phrase "on general terms
of equality" in Article 21. The question would be
asked as to why this requirement is imposed at this
time and the inference may be drawn that this is an
artificial barrier.
(c)
Application of a one day break on transfer to local
terms. The consequences of this would be (i) entry at
the basic recruitment rank and minimum point of the
salary scale subject to incremental credits for their
experience of such credits are available in their
rank; (ii) loss of seniority;
(iii) revision of
incremental date to the date on which the transfer
takes place.
These would be adverse to the overseas officer.
It is doubtful whether with such adverse consequences,
there could be said to be access on general terms of
21