7
officer on a higher scale of salary can afford to pay
more out of his salary towards the cost of living,
which is no doubt true, but ignores the fact that
salary is also a reward for the work and
responsibilities of the post which the officer holds.
The adoption of the Committee's recommendation would
mean a considerable reduction in the total salary
payable for the higher posts, which does not seem to
me to correspond to the importance of the posts in
question. I should have thought that the result
would be considerable dissatisfaction among the
officers concerned.
At the other end of the scale the gradual
increase in the residential allowance paid will again
probably produce at least as many anomalies in
practice as the former proposals. The increase in
the allowances paid, up to a certain point, is no
doubt meant to represent the extra cost of living for
officers who are likely to get married, but I cannot
see that it will necessarily correspond with the
period in which officers actually do get married.
If this is in fact the aim of the increased allowance,
I would suggest that it will be preferable to pay a
marriage allowance proper as an entirely separate item.
However, the latter objection is perhaps less serious,
and if Hong Kong wish to have the gradually rising
allowance I think on the whole that we need raise no
objection. I do suggest, however, that the allowance
should not gradually diminish after it reaches the peak
but should remain fixed at the maximum of £100 a year,
which officers would receive until they become
eligible for free quarters on appointment to specific
posts.
New