XN000022-1995-10-25 — Page 21

- 11 -

Reply:

Mr President,

With regard to part (a) of the question, the Administration understands that the City University of Hong Kong (CityU), which practises the system of withholding a salary increment of those staff who do not perform satisfactorily, is in the process of developing an incentive scheme in the form of double increments or annual bonuses to give recognition to excellence in work performance or outstanding contributions made by staff members. The Administration understands from the University Grants Committee (UGC) that details of the scheme are still being worked out and the University administration intends to put forward a proposal to the Council of the University for consideration in early 1996, after consultation with the UGC and government. Subject to the agreement of the parties concerned, the proposal may implemented before the end of the 1995-96 academic year.

be

On part (b) of the question, the Administration understands from the UGC that all the seven UGC-funded institutions already have a performance-based system for the granting of annual incremental credits to their teaching staff. The system may take the form, of withholding a salary increment for poor performance, unsatisfactory conduct or lack of diligence, or a system of floating efficiency bars. Under the latter system, staff can only progress beyond the bar points on the salary scale provided they have been assessed and an affirmative decision has been taken by the authorities concerned that their performance is sufficiently satisfactory to merit their passing the bar. The UGC considers that the existing performance-based systems adopted by the UGC-funded institutions have been designed to ensure satisfactory performance. promote continuous development and encourage improvement: hence they accord with the value-for-money principle. The objective of the new system being contemplated by CityU is to offer a further form of incentive for exceptional performance. Since details of the scheme have yet to be finalised, the UGC is not in a position to comment on whether the scheme accords with the value-for-money principle.

End/Wednesday, October 25 1995