- 16 -
Rebuttal of arguments made to defend the current policy
We concede conversion to local terms
35. When publicity was first revived about the localisation policy last year, the local civil service unions argued that if we wanted to be treated as locals, we should not expect to retain preferential benefits. We concede this argument. We have proposed to the Government that if a permanent resident of Hong Kong is available to be hired on local terms of service to fill a post, then if the incumbent officer is himself a permanent resident he should be allowed to remain in the post on local terms of service.
No "right" to renewal irrelevant if illegal grounds used
36. The local unions also argue that overseas officers have no right to a renewal of an agreement on its expiry. Even if that were true, and recent developments in the common law relating to the Crown Prerogative and rights of judicial review with respect to the employment of civil servants suggests that the Crown does not have an unfettered right to act arbitrarily in this area, the Bill of Rights prohibits using the discriminatory criteria now used to determine whether to renew a contact.
Lost promotions vs. lost jobs
37.
The local unions say that it is unfair to change the rules now, because their members hope to gain promotions to the vacated posts. The response to this depends on whether one considers that the temporary loss of promotion opportunity of a small number of officers should prevail over a policy that offends fundamental tenets of our society as expressed in the Bill of Rights and international conventions of the United Nations. Furthermore, if the Government reduces its intake of overseas officers, all those presently in service will eventually retire or leave service, opening up their positions.
Transfer to P and P terms illusory to most
38. The local unions further argue that overseas officers had the opportunity to transfer to permanent and pensionable terms of service, rendering them immune to the policy. This argument ignores the reality that most of these applications have been rejected over the years, on the same discriminatory grounds, and that no officer hired since 1985 is eligible to apply for those terms of service. The Civil Service Branch's reply to a request to transfer to permanent and pensionable terms states "As it cannot be established that a suitable local candidate is not likely to be available within the next five years or so, I regret that your application cannot be approved." It is a wonder that any transfers were approved.