XN000022-1996-02-07 — Page 53

Reply:

-

35 -

(a)

(b)

(c)

how the Post Office deals with losses arising from embezzlement or theft since it has started to operate on a trading fund basis in August last

year,

whether consumers will be required to bear the losses referred to in (a) above; and

What measures the Government will adopt to prevent theft in the Post Office?

(a)

(b)

(c)

Since the Post Office changed to trading fund operation in August 1995, there has not been any loss arising from embezzlement or theft. As a general rule, losses arising from embezzlement or theft, if proven to be irrecoverable, are written off in the accounts. A civil servant, whether in a vote-funded department or a trading fund, is subject to the standard Government surcharge provision and will be held liable for any losses caused by mismanagement.

Since the Post Office has not suffered any loss after the change to trading fund, the question of consumers bearing losses does not arise. Whereas it is the standard procedure to write off any irrecoverable loss, the amount involved, even by taking the 1992/93 losses as an example, would have negligible effects on the costs of services. In that year, the losses of $400,000 represented 0.016% of the total service costs of $2,475 million.

The Post Office has taken the following measures to prevent theft:

(i)

For stamp vending machines installed at the frontage of post offices, additional bolts and locks have been installed after the 1993 incident. Furthermore, the Police have offered assistance by alerting policemen on beat patrols to pay closer attention to the machines after office hours.