Comil.
2.
33
37%
Secretariat File No.
5/1681/47c
No. 253
Sir,
54247/9/47
GOVERNMENT HOUSE, HONG KONG
31st betaler, 1947.
(35) With reference to previous correspondence resting with your
(36)
savingram No. 723 of 3rd October, 1947, I have the honour to forward for your consideration a petition signed by certain European members of the Hong Kong Police Inspectorate. Although it is signed by only ten members of the Inspectorate, it is understood that the petition represents the views of all the European members of the Inspectorate recruited in the United Kingdom after the war.
2. The petition as now forwarded differs from the version mention- ed in Mr. MacDougall's personal letter to Mr. Mayle of 12th September, 1947, and has been modified by the petitioners themselves as a result of a discussion between representatives of the petitioners and the Principal Assistant Colonial Secretary.
3. The petitioners have three principal grievances -
4.
(1) that they were given to understand that their home pension rights would be preserved on transfer to the Hong Kong Police Force;
(2) that they were led to expect an improvement in rank,
which they allege has not materialised;
(3) that their full previous police service has not been
taken into account when assessing point of entry on the Hong Kong salary scale. I propose to deal with each point separately.
I consider that the major grievance of the petitioners arises from the fact that in the majority of cases they resigned from their United Kingdom police forces, without reserving the right to return to those forces at the termination of their present contracts should they so wish, and that they have thus forfeited their rights to pension earned during their previous service. They realize fully that they resigned from their home police forces, but at the interview mentioned in paragraph 2 above the representatives alleged that a police officer who accepts transfer to another force in England is required to resign formally from his original force without forfeiting pension rights, and that they considered a transfer to Hong Kong was in no way different. I am not convinced that this is a valid claim, as there is evidence that would-be recruits were informed that the appointment in Hong Kong would involve their resignation from their mother force within the ordinary meaning of the word, and that certain of them on learning this made no further efforts towards seeking appointment in Hong Kong. On the other hand, I feel that there is a certain justification for their con- tention that they considered that their pension rights would be pre- served. The Home Office circular to which the petitioners refer(a copy of which I attach for ease of reference) was specific on the point of im- mediate loss of pension rights, but contained a proviso to the effect that
Kus
THE RIGHT HONOURABLE
A. CREECH JONES, M.P.
RECEIVED
10 NOV.;47
C. O. REGY