CO885-6 — Page 382

45378

191

No. 109.

FEDERATED MALAY STATES.

MR. CHAMBERLAIN to HIGH COMMISSIONER SIR F. A. SWETTENHAM.

(No. 340.) SIR,

[Answered by No. 119.]

Downing Street, October 31, 1902.

I HAVE the honour to acknowledge the receipt of your despatch, No. 341, of the 16th September last, forwarding copy of a letter from the Resident-General for the Federated Malay States, explaining how certain Police appointments came to be omitted from the original draft of the Sterling Scheme submitted in your despatch of the 20th January last.†

2. I assume that it is not intended that these posts shall always be filled by officers not originally appointed as Cadets.

I have, &c.,

45378

No. 110.

J. CHAMBERLAIN.

SIR,

No. 111.

FEDERATED MALAY STATES.

MR. CHAMBERLAIN to HIGH COMMISSIONER SIR F. A. SWETTENHAM.

(No. 352.)

Downing Street, November 7, 1902.

I HAVE the honour to acknowledge the receipt of your despatch, No. 381, of the 8th ultimo, on the subject of the exact application of paragraph 4 of the notification printed with the revised scheme of sterling salaries for the Federated Malay States.

2. The proposal that the service of an officer who elects to come under the scheme shall count, for purposes of increment under the scheme, from the date when be first was permanently appointed to an office to which the same salary is attached

Secretary of State, Telegram, 18th October. Governor, Telegram, 19th October.

as that of his present substantive post, was agreed to in the telegraphic correspondence† noted in the margin.

I have, &c.

J. CHAMBERLAIN.

:

FEDERATED MALAY STATES.

HIGH COMMISSIONER SIR F. A. SWETTENHAM to MR. CHAMBERLAIN.

(No. 381.) SIR,

(Received November 3, 1902.)

[Answered by No. 111.]

Government House, Singapore, October 8, 1902. SINCE the publication of the revised sterling salaries scheme, forwarded to you with my despatch, No. 329, of the 4th September last, a question has arisen as to the exact application of paragraph 4 of the notification printed with the scheme, and as that notification was drafted only to give effect to what I understand to have been your intentions with regard to the introduction of the scheme, the point is one on which I think it desirable to obtain a decision from you.

2. The paragraph to which I refer reads as follows:-

"Where the sterling salary of his substantive post is shown in the appendix as varying from a minimum to a maximum rate, an officer will come on to the scheme as though it had been in force at the time when he received the substantive post which he is now holding." It happens occasionally, and it is possible that in the redistribution of appointments which may be necessitated on the first introduction of the scheme, it will frequently happen, that an officer is transferred from one appointment in a grade to another bearing the same salary in the same grade, and it is evident that in such a case the wording of the paragraph quoted above would preclude an officer so situated from receiving the increment under the sterling scheme to which he would otherwise have been entitled.

3. Three cases in which officers are so affected owing to transfers prior to the introduction of the scheme have already been brought to my notice, and as it is probable that there are other cases in which a similar question will arise, I should be glad if you would inform me whether you desire the paragraph to be strictly followed or whether an officer joining the sterling scheme, or hereafter claiming a periodical increment under it, may be allowed to count all service on the same salary, whether in one or various appointments, as service towards an increment. I imagine that this last is your intention, and I recommend it, for it seems to me inequitable that because the Government has moved an officer from one post on a certain salary to another on the same salary, he should thereby lose his claim to count for increment his whole service from the date of his first appointment to a post carrying the salary in question.

I have, &c.,

F. A. SWETTENHAM.

47537

SIR,

No. 112.

STRAITS SETTLEMENTS.

GOVERNOR SIR F. A. SWETTENHAM to MR. CHAMBERLAIN. (Received November 17, 1902.)

(No. 433.)

[Answered by No. 126.]

Government House, Singapore, October 20, 1902. WITH reference to paragraph 2 of your despatch, No. 230, of the 1st August last in which you comment on the fact that a certain post as not been included in the Sterling Scheme submitted in my despatch, No. 27, of the 20th January last,§ although it is not a clerical post and the salary attached to it exceeds $1,200 a year, I have the honour to inform you that the post in question is one of several which were not included in the Sterling Scheme because they were subordinate, were in most cases held by officers with an Eastern domicile, and are likely to be so held in the future.

2. Should you, however, think it advisable that these posts should, for the sake of uniformity and in order to conform to the $1,200 rule, be added to the schedule of the Sterling Scheme, I am prepared to agree to this being done, the sterling salaries to be drawn being, of course, lower than those which would be paid to officers of European domicile in similar positions.

3.

submit, for your approval, a list of the appointinents in question showing the salaries attached to the various posts under the dollar scheme, the estimated equivalents of these salaries in sterling at the exchange rate of 1s. 9d. to the dollar and the rates of sterling pay and increments which I suggest in each case.

4. I shall address you separately on the subject of Mr. Coveney's memorial which was enclosed in your despatch above referred to.

I have, &c.,

F. A. SWETTENHAM.

• No. 101.

+ No. 48.

‡ No. 92.

* No. 110.

† Nos. 103 and 104.

29715: not printed.

No. 48.

PUBLIC RECORD OFFICE

Reference:

བ]

TPELLI C.O. 882

6

PUBLIC RECORD OFFICE, LONDON

ALLY WITHOUT PERMISSION OF THE BE REPRODUCED PHOTOGRAPHIC.

COPYRIGHT PHOTOGRAPH—NOT TO