HONG KONG PROVISIONAL URBAN COUNCIL
pension, retirement gratuity, related benefits as well as other benefits and privileges. I would like to ask the Chairman of the Select Committee if such provisions are by now outdated and invalid. This is my first supplementary question.
My second supplementary question concerns real examples of the Department invoking Section 320 of the Civil Service Regulations to require a staff member gone missing to forfeit one month's salary in lieu of notice. I would like to ask the Chairman of the Select Committee how it is possible to make a missing or supposedly dead staff member to forfeit one month's salary in lieu of notice. I query whether such provisions are a reflection of heartlessness and rigidity which does not solve the problem in real life situations at all.
My third supplementary question asks whether the Department can deal with cases of confirmed or suspected missing staff members in a more humane manner, or visit families of those concerned in order to find out the truth instead of issuing dismissal notices outright.
MR. SUEN KAI-CHEONG (in Cantonese): With regard to the three questions raised by Mr. To, I would first of all deal with the first one on whether Section 63 of the Colonial Regulations were invalid. As pointed out by Mr. To, the Colonial Regulations no longer apply after July 1. We all know that Hong Kong returned to China on July 1 and is now no longer a colony. Hence, the Colonial Regulations no longer apply. On July 1, the Chief Executive approved the Public Service Administration Order to replace the Colonial Regulations in regard to the civil service. The spirit of this Order basically takes after the now obsolete Regulations. In other words, the Colonial Regulations no longer exist, but the new Order which takes after it is now in effect.
The second part of the question concerns absence from duty without leave and not giving a reasonable explanation. Government has the power to ask the staff concerned to pay one month's salary in lieu of notice to resign. That is the provision and it applies to all. But of course, for special cases, I believe the relevant department will give them special consideration.
As to whether a more sympathetic stand should be taken, I do not wish to comment here. Members are free to make their own judgment.
MR. DANIEL WONG KWOK-TUNG (in Cantonese): Mr. Chairman, I would like to follow up and ask if the Department has the power to dismiss a staff on the ground of absence without leave. The legal interpretation of absence without leave is being absent without reason. How do we know the absence is without a reason? If a staff goes missing, there is no way we can find out if he has a reason or not. I do not think this dismissal stands legally. In face of a basically unclear situation, how can the Department dismiss one for absence without leave? The most appropriate way to deal with this is to suspend the staff from duty pending
Page 382 of 654