TNAG-0087-FCO40-123-Conditions-of-employment-for-Hong-Kong-Chinese-working-in-th-1969 — Page 78

Mrs. L.M. Jeger, MP,

il

2 -

3rd November, 1967.

Not true

(c).

Para. 2(a).

referring to the

matter of passages

F/2

(b).

?

If this had been true, there would have been no occasion for 'a misunderstanding' the correspondence the need to place the matter before three members of the House to devote time they like ourselves could ill afford, neither the expense of legal advice.

"For which he thinks the worker would be well advised to press"...

The only worker who would benefit by this contract would be a dishonest worker, for persons prepared to honour obligations by the very nature of their moral code, are at a financial disadvantage.

'The main difficulty' should read 'only difficulty*. This is the essential point of the letter and the point we have requested you raise.

If as suggested 'the number of cases is very low' once again I repeat there would have been no necessity for us to have raised the point.

This is a further attempt to mislead us because in his letter to you dated 23rd December, Mr. Gunter made no such statement. The paragraph he did write was unfortunately incorrect.

Mr. Gunter was not making reference to the number of cases of people taking advantage of the Hong Kong contract and leaving after they had commenced employment; he was making a general- isation that the number of foreigners arriving in this country, whether at the expense of their prospective employers or not, and refusing to take up the permit post would be given other work on request. Mr. Gunter informs you 'that cases of this kind are rare'.

You had stated on our behalf a person had or would arrive in U.K. at the expense of some £150. or more to his employer, could

Cont'd/....

Z