they have at least 2 years service retain their earned pension benefits. On the other hand under the Ordinance which governed ntitlement to a pension at the time most Hong Kong pensioners were earning those pensions all benefits were lost on resignation no matter how long the officer had served. One could ask for early retirement at 45; but it was not always granted. Had Hong Kong civil servants enjoyed the same rights with regard to resignation and retention of pension benefits as U.K. civil servants enjoy the Hong Kong Government would have been driven to relate it's salaries much more closely to private sector salaries than was the case. In those circumstances the problems of pensioners would obviously be less than they are now since being based on a higher final salary their pensions would have been higher. I believe that it is now possible for Hong Kong civil servants who have opted for the new pension scheme to resign after 10 years service and retain the pension benefits earned. This change seems to have forced the Hong Kong Government to relate salaries more closely to those of the private sector than before, so proving the point I am making here. For if salaries have been pushed up as a result of allowing resignation and retention of pension after 10 years service they would clearly have been pushed much highed were the period 2 years.
Hong Kong civil servants are also prisoners of their pension scheme after retirement to a much greater extent than their U.K. counterparts. In the U.K., as I understand it, some pensioners are required to obtain permission to accept employment in the private sector but pensions cannot be withheld if they accept employment without permission. But if Hong Kong pensioners accept employment without permission they can lose their pensions as I know to my cost. I have personally been denied permission to accept employment and it was made clear to me at the time that I would lose my pension if I decided not to take notice of this refusal. I should add that the job I sought permission to take could not have been more remote from my responsibilities as civil servant. And at no time during my service did I have any dealings with my prospective employers area of business let alone the prospective employer. As a result of these very onerous restrictions plus the fact that they are effectively strangers to employers in the U.K. Hong Kong pensioners resident in this country are less able to obtain work to make good losses in the purchasing power of their pensions than their U.K. counterparts. So U.K.Government pensioners are much better off than their Hong Kong counterparts for it is easier for them to obtain employment in retirement although they have less need to do so because the purchasing power of their pensions is fully protected.
Notwithstanding the foregoing I should tell you that in my view the question of who does best in retirement is totally irrelevant to the problem that is causing a great deal of misery for Hong Kong pensioners living in the U.K. and worry for expatriate civil servants still employed by the Hong Kong Government. I am amazed that any Government and particularly a Conservative Party one, should give any weight whatsoever to such comparisons, but as you and your predecessor have done so I feel it is important to correct the record and
No comments yet.
Private notes are available after approval.