2
7
f
Prisoners of War
2.
But, with your permission, Sir, I should like to begin by referring to the controversy which has
recently surrounded the Government's treatment of those
who were POWS in Hong Kong during the war. This subject
was not raised in this debate but, in view of the petitions received in support of a campaign for pensions for all
POWs as of right, I think Members would wish to know that Your Excellency called for a review of the papers. A senior officer without previous involvement in the subject,
was detached from his normal duties and assigned to this
task.
3.
The officer concerned completed his task
over a month ago and he came to six main conclusions.
The first was that pensions payable to ex-POWs or
their dependents under the Volunteer and Naval Volunteer Pensions Ordinance in respect of disability or death have been paid at the same rates and on the same conditions as applicable to members of Her Majesty's regular forces.
The second conclusion was that medical treatment available
to POWS living here compares favourably with that in the United Kingdom. The third conclusion was that, although
it was the concern of the Government of the day that charitable funds set up after the war should benefit all who suffered personal injury as a result of the Japanese occupation and not just POWS, it is the latter who have been among the main beneficiaries of the War Memorial and Far Eastern Relief Funds. At current levels, the grants paid by
these funds to beneficiaries are much higher than those available through the local public assistance scheme, and are fair and reasonable in relation to average present-day household incomes in Hong Kong.
The fourth conclusion
was that the medical considerations brought to light in the Richardson Report on former Canadian POWS of the
/Japanese....
No comments yet.
Private notes are available after approval.