580
―
YOUR EXCELLENCY.
HONGKONG, November, 1906.
With reference to the reply of the Secretary of State to your Despatch on the subject of salaries of Public Servants, we the undersigned Heads and Assistant Heads of Departments, have the honour to lay certain figures before you, in support of our contention that our present remuneration is inadequate. We ask that Your Excellency will scrutinize these figures (whether by the aid of a Commission composed of the unofficial Members of Council, or as otherwise may seem best to you) and that then, if satisfied as to their general correct- ness, you will forward them, together with such comment as may suggest itself to you, to the Secretary of State.
2. While we believe that the facts and figures given in the Tables attached will speak for themselves, some general explanation of our present position is necessary, as well as of the principle upon which our facts were selected,
3. We submit that in the Public Service, there can be but one just standard by which to determine what is or what is not an adequate recompense for the services performed. This standard is based upon the cost of the manner of living proper to the class of persons who render those services, and is calculated to maintain them in a reasonable degree of comfort. Our contention is, that our remuneration falls below this standard, and that it should therefore be increased.
4. The justice of this argument, that our salaries must be suited to the cost of living of the day, has on several occasions been recognized by the Secretary of State. To mention two only, in 1894 what was known as "half compensation ", and in 1901 "double com- pensation", were given to us. On both these occasions the ostensible reason for the measure of relief was that the value of the dollar had fallen. But the true reason can only be, that the falling dollar had disturbed the conditions of living to our detriment. Had it been otherwise, had we been unable to shew, not only that the circumstances had changed but also that the change had been prejudicial to us, we should have been totally unable to establish a case.
5. Our present position is no less serious; while the fact that it is attended by a rising instead of a falling dollar seems to prove, not that our difficulties are imaginary, but that the price of silver is not sole factor to be considered in calculating the cost of living.
6. To determine the cost of living of so heterogeneous a body as the Hongkong Civil Service, and thence to deduce a fair rate of emolument, would be a task of great difficulty. It might be done thoroughly by a Commission with unlimited time at its disposal: any such thorough treatment is impossible for us. But as we feel that facts alone and not theories can prove our case, we have endeavoured to select two typical instances, and to deal with them in a concrete way. If our arguments hold good for them, it will follow naturally that pro- portionate readjustments should be general throughout the Service.
7. In making our selection of typical cases we were impressed by the fact, that the additional cost of a married life is far heavier, in proportion to that of a single man, here than at home. It is unnecessary to labour this point-house rent and steamer fares alone would prove it. It seems inevitable therefore that our typical cases should be married men. It follows that they should also be men whose marriage could not have been considered by the Government as an act of imprudence, for the consequences of which they were them- selves alone to blame. Further, our examples had to be chosen from different grades of the Service. Again, as the up-bringing of children is an ordinary consequence of marriage, we took for our typical cases officers on their highest increment, on the supposition that they had married on first reaching their present appointments; and we have supposed that they have each a family of three young children, the increasing cost of whose later education may be left to the future and subsequent promotion. The types selected by us to answer all these conditions were (A) the Head of a Junior Department on a salary of $5,400 with compensation, and (B) a subordinate officer on a salary of £345.
8. Table A gives what we consider to be a reasonable rate of living for these two Officers, together with explanatory notes. It also gives the salaries drawn by them at the present rate of exchange. And if it is alleged in reply that we have endeavoured to prove too much that were the difference between the necessary and the actual as great as we represent, open crises must have occurred as they have not done to that we reply, they have been staved off, but in many cases by the most unsatisfactory devices: wives and
: