Dear Lord Caithness,
Crosswinds
24 Budworth Road.Oxton.
Birkenhead. Merseyside L43 97! 17th December 1990
Mr. Paul, Head of Hong Kong Department, has sent me a copy of your letter to Mr. Keith Speed MP dated 29th November on the subject of Hong Kong HMOCS pensions. It was sent to me because it was thought it covered the points and questions I had raised in my letter to Mr. Francis Maude. Unfortunately your letter does not answer my questions which I would still like to be answered and commented upon.
many
My first question was how did Mr.Maude arrive at his belief that the "majority of pensioners) regard them! SPOS arrangements) as satisfactory"? Also,
as a result of this belief,was"not convinced there was a case for changing them." I have never been circulatedto be asked my view on SPOS, neither have others to my personal knowledge. If asked I would reply that SPOS was ludicrously unsatisfactory and to back this up I would quote my May and September 1987 SPOS which was 10pence and 19 pence respectively for a loss in pension when calculated against my personal exchange rate(PER) of £350.00 in those months. Currently my pension is about $375.00 less than the same monthin the first
ま
year spent on retirement in this country,6 years ago, and nearly $800.00 less than I would receive if calculated at my PER. Surely such facts clearly illustrate the gravity of the situation of depreciating pension income for post 1976 Hong Kong pensioners.
The longer such beliefs are held and passed on to others, in this case that SPOS is satisfactory to the majority, the more difficult it is for an argument to presented by pensioners and considered properly by HMG. May I suggest that a first step should be to ask all post 1976 Hong Kong pensioners what they think of SPOS.
My second fundamental question was obviously similar to Mrs. Mansell's, ie, how did another belief arise that Hong Kong pensioners, post 1976", continue to
1976"continue do reasonably well, certainly in comparison with UK counterparts"?
In
your letter you give three reasons .I would be grateful if you would consider my comments on these reasons.
(a)To achieve a full 33 years pension benefit from Hong Kong an officer would need to be appointed at the age of 22 or earlier. For the majority of
post/
No comments yet.
Private notes are available after approval.