18 February 1992
D Fish Esq ODA
East Kilbride
Dear Dave,
CONFIDENTIAL
Pouch
File 53
Foreign & Commonwealth
Office
нка 23311
London SWLA 2AH
Telephone: 071-
HMOCS ISSUES: JUSTIFICATION FOR OUR COMPENSATION PROPOSALS
<<
1. We have recently briefly discussed how defensible our compensation proposals are both to the Treasury and to HMOCS officers. I would now like to pursue this in more detail.
2.
As I understand it, the normal practice in previous territories was to grant compensation on the basis of actuarial factors which assumed that the officer would have
The no further career in the newly independent country. factors were approximately twice as high as those we are proposing to use in Hong Kong. I should be grateful if you would confirm whether this is correct or not. If this is correct, I should be grateful to know on what basis this assumption was made.
3. What I have in mind is the need to be able to point to specific documents, policies or regulations which discriminated against expats/HMOCS. If such documents did not exist, on what basis did the Actuary (or HMG) decide to give such compensation? I have particularly in mind the example of Brunei. I understand that the Sultan of Brunei refused to pay compensation, on the basis that expatriates would continue to have a career in his government. HMG nevertheless paid full compensation. If the Sultan was on record as saying that HMOCS officers could continue and if indeed many of them did continue - why was compensation paid (and early retirement allowed) and why should we not be doing the same for Hong Kong?
J
HMOCS officers are bound to seize on our method of calculating compensation. We need to be sure that there are no precedents that they can quote.
4.
On the Treasury front, you have told me that, from an initial reading, the Government Actuary was not fully persuaded that our even much reduced compensation proposals
5.
MVSADA
No comments yet.
Private notes are available after approval.