8.
40
f
Seniority Roll./
In view of the facts contained in the article
appearing in the South China Morning Post and Telegraph dated the
8th October 1946 which refers to questions raised in the House of
Commons and to enquiries instituted by His Excellency the Gover-
nor, Sir Mark Young, the following paragraph is quoted :-
"In addition, each man acknowledged on a form that he
was given no assurance that he would ultimately be
placed on the permanent and pensionable establishment
of the HONG KONG Government."
As these officers are not on the permanent and
pensionable establishment, they should not appear on the same
seniority list as the permanent and pensionable officers.
We would also draw attention to the HONG KONG
Government General Order No. 12 (Colonial Regulations).
We feel that the plans prepared prior to the
re-occupation by which it was deemed that very few, if any, of the
Pre-War officers would be able to resume duty, Police Officers
were recruited for HONG KONG. As it has been proved that the
greater number of Pre-War officers have been found to be fit
enough to resume duty, those officers recruited have been placed
on the Seniority Roll higher than and at the expense of the Pre-
War permanent and experienced officers.
This we feel is contrary to Mr. Secretary
Hall's letter and most certainly does not bear out the assurances
given by him or the assurances mentioned in para VIII of the
HONG KONG Police General Orders, dated the 9th November 1945.
(copy attached at 11).
Paragraph 11 is rather ironical in as
much that under the reorganisation scheme greater demands than
formerly are to be placed on the European (non-gazetted ?)
members of the force. A very high standard of conărt and
efficiency will be demanded by the Government. In considering the
final part of par 11 we are exhorted to bear in mind the factors
203