X
14
see paragraphs 50-53 of the Report.
establishment
seem to have found this system in being, and to have
been content to perpetuate it, merely altering the
X
scales, though they laid emphasis, in their paragraph
18, on the importance of the proportion of establish-
ments. One would have liked, however, before
throwing the system over, to know what was its
raison d'être, and in particular what was the real
justification for the "Special Class" and the special
treatment for non-Chinese which its constitution
involved.
The scale asked for by the petitioners is
clearly unacceptable, both as being too expensive
and also as getting clerks to the top too fast, and
therefore merely transferring the points of stagnation
efore mere
higher up. The defect of transferring the stagnation
higher up, it seems to me, is likely to apply also to
the scales proposed by the Governor, though in a
lesser degree, unless the considerations mentioned at
'A' above are borne in mind in fixing the establishments
in his three classes. The following table, though the
second column is my own guesswork and the sixth has
to be left blank for lack of information, shows I
think that in his provisional proposals on this subject
this has probably not been done.
Time
Proposed
Class
proportions
Estimated "wastage"
Result of deducting
"wastage"
II
5.5(550)
33.
3.7
proportion
4 (16 years)
Weighting for abnormal intske
ruitment
I
1.0(100)
10%
0.9
Special
0.7(70)
an average
2 ( 8 years)
0.7 ? 4.6 (16-21 years)
The conclusion to be drawn would be that, on The Special Grade could only alsor 4.3 men a
lthough the ne
Glass Hy-only
year, and the consequent congestion working down through
the top of Sleco II, only one out of
were part of year) will result in sever out of
Class I (which, if it
abssar 11.3 men
a
a
could every
long grade,
[ever