Butler
+
the salaries paid afford adequate remuneration for the work performed. Mr May does not attempt to show that they do not, and even if he did, the decision to pay salaries at 2/- to the dollar, arrived at since this despatch was written, would afford sufficient ground for refusing a further increase. That decision has given everybody an increase which, at present rates, is something between 9 and 12% on his salary.
Sir M. Nathan told me that he considered that this was a satisfactory solution and that the officers of the service would have no further ground of complaint. Moreover, the decision has increased the liabilities of the Govt by an annual sum estimated at about sixty thousand dollars, and in view of the probable reduction of revenue which will result from anti-opium measures, I do not see how the Govt can afford to incur any further expense at present.
Turning to some special points in this despatch, I would point out (a) Para 6. The comparative cost of living in Hong Kong and the Straits is a matter on which no clear understanding has ever been reached. Straits and F.M.S officers hotly dispute the assertion that living in Hong Kong is more expensive, and mostly say that they would be glad to go to Hong Kong on a lower salary.
Para 4 of Sir M. Nathan's despatch in 15519/06 shows that he considers that living in Hong Kong is in most respects cheaper than in other colonies. Moreover, even if the salaries are less, there are compensating advantages in a more favourable climate and in the opportunities of getting a change to a cooler place without the cost of coming to Europe - by going to Japan or Weihaiwei. This is a point on which Straits officers have laid great stress in conversation with me.
The comparison of prospects is not properly carried out. The £1500 post to which Mr May refers is that of R.C at Penang, a position which is said to be exceedingly costly to keep up, owing to the necessary entertaining. Certainly, however, there are more highly paid posts in the Straits than in Hong Kong, but the Straits and F.M.S must be taken together, and the result then is very different.
Omitting staff posts, there are in this combined service only 28 posts with salaries that rise over £800 in a service of $149, i.e., under 18% against 20% in Hong Kong.
(N.B. I think these figures are unduly favourable to Mr May, as for simplicity, I have not left out the posts, such as the higher police posts, which will probably not be held by cadet officers in future).
As to the last words of this paragraph, granting (which I do not) that the lowest cadets are as a rule appreciably worse than the highest, why should Hong Kong have all the best men? If there was any danger of this happening, we should have to take steps, as the I.O have done, to prevent all the best men getting into one province. The Straits and F.M.S need quite as good men as Hong Kong.
Moreover, Mr May forgets that promotion has been exceptionally rapid in Hong Kong. Mr Thomson was Treasurer after only 11 years' service, Mr May himself was Capt Supt of Police after 12, and Mr Messer was acting as Treasurer after three!
(b) Para 9. These anomalies are a result of having two different scales in existence at one time. Officers on one scale are frequently at a disadvantage compared with officers on another, but that is no reason for trying to give everybody the benefit of both scales.
I submit that the answer to this despatch should be that the S of S is not prepared to assent to any increase of sterling salaries, especially in view of the recent improvement of the position of Govt officers, which has been effected by the decision to pay salaries at 2/-. If, however, you think that any good or grievance has been revealed, I should like to submit some proposals for a reorganisation, as there are a number of reasons against the adoption of Mr May's rough and ready solution, e.g., a cadet on first obtaining a substantive post would receive...