91
HONG KONG LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL.
57
Civil Establishment, but I shudder to think what this figure will be, say, in ten years' time, a's the pensions payable already amount to nearly $2,000,000.00 a year!
In my submission, what Government should do is to attempt to tackle the present financial position by business methods: in other words, by taking stock of the whole financial position and adjusting its expenditure in relation to its income, or probable income, for the present, and the years to come. To introduce the wholesale reduction in the salaries of civil servants avowedly as a temporary measure is at best a makeshift arrangement which cannot afford a final solution.
It may well be that too sudden or too drastic a reduction in personnel must necessarily impair to some extent the existing high efficiency of the Administration. But just as it would be suicidal for a business concern to strive to attain the ideal of efficiency without taking due heed of bankruptcy, so I submit Government must restrict its cost of Administration within the limits of the Colony's capacity to pay.
I submit therefore that Government should not engage any more persons on sterling basis without consulting this Council; that no vacancy should be filled without similar consultation; that facilities be given to all officers recently recruited and not absolutely indispensable to leave the Service without subjecting the Colony to any liability to pensions, and that a real effort be made to utilise local talent, such as qualified doctors from the University of Hong Kong, etc. But in this connection I would like to make one suggestion.
For the sake of the reputation of the Government Service bribery or other irregular practice must be stamped out, and I venture to think that all new men employed should be engaged on the clear and distinct basis that their service is liable to be terminated if the Governor in Council, after enquiry, should be of the opinion that their continuance in office is detrimental to the interests of the Colony. Indeed, I consider that this rule should apply to the whole Service. I say this because, to my mind, and having regard to local conditions, it is quite futile to expect that, generally speaking, such evidence of bribery or corruption will be forth-coming as will secure a verdict of guilt in a Court of Law. I do not see why, when the Government wishes to dispense with the services of an undesirable employee, there should be required the same proof of guilt as would secure a conviction in a Court of Justice. All servants of the Government should know that they must be above suspicion of any corrupt practice, and I cannot see why they should be retained if the Governor in Council, after careful enquiry, should have reasonable ground for thinking that such practice has been committed, even in the absence of such proof as is necessary in a Court of Justice.
I submit that the question as to what constitutes proof of guilt in a criminal prosecution, and the question as to what are the circumstances under which an employer should be entitled to terminate a contract of service, are entirely different, and should not be confused.
The
fus
d