CONFIDENTIAL
Imagine
Bernard
Levin on
-
popular being to use the rate on the date that the JD was initialled.
- It was wrong to use the 1991/92 salary range as a base. Salaries in 1997 should be used was the most popular alternative.
6.
Some respondents focused on the absence from the proposals of other elements to a package which they saw as essential:
- there should be provision for alternative employment.
the problem of security vetting for jobs in the UK armed services/civil service should be resolved.
the problem of Consular protection for Chinese race spouses should be resolved.
7.
We were expecting to receive most of these points. Given that we were unable to put forward the package (with sterling safeguards and SPOS) that even we felt was adequate, it is hardly surprising that no-one thought highly of our proposal. The two points I found most telling were:
the comment that it was quite wrong effectively to force a servant of the Queen to work for a foreign (communist) Government in order to obtain his pension. portable in Hong Kong).
(Pensions are not
- the deep irony that on the one hand we were urging HMOCS officers to stay on but on the other, we could not guarantee consular access to their spouses of ethnic Chinese race. What sort of show was this?
8.
In summary, a very clear message of frustration comes through many of the letters. Frustration both at the inadequacy of the proposal, after eight years of gestation, and, in respect of the police, frustration at the position they find themselves in with the HKG and hence the more let down, they feel by HMG on this issue.
Miklusetare Mühl
M V Stone
Hong Kong Department
WH 304 270 2651
15 May 1992
SISADP
CONFIDENTIAL
No comments yet.
Private notes are available after approval.