RESTRICTED
and possibly indefensible. Could we really say that it was none of our business if someone retiring on 15 September had a safeguard some 10% higher than someone retiring on 17 September?
I very much hope that you can agree that we need not explore this option in detail. I believe that it simply confuses the picture considerably, for no real purpose.
5.
On early retirement, I think we must take Hong Kong's stated position on this as the basis for proceeding. Hong Kong have advised us that there are no plans to extend early retirement to all HMOCS officers. We have probed Hong Kong very thoroughly on this question. But their firm view is that, in political terms, they simply cannot do this. Our Embassy in Peking and UKREP JLG both consider that the Chinese would not agreed such favoured treatment and if we implemented it unilaterally could well state that the SARG would not pay the pensions until normal retirement age had been reached. judge it would also be impossible to obtain funding from the Finance Committee for large pay-offs for a small group of expatriates. I therefore suggest that it would in fact be wrong of us to flag up an option to Ministers which we are not in a position to implement and which we know for a fact Hong Kong are not currently considering.
We
(The Governor will initiate discussions on sensitive civil service issues when he visits Peking towards the end of this month but it will be a number of years before we are in a position to discuss how the Chinese see the future of Expatriates in the civil service post-1997.)
6. Hong Kong have recently advised us that they expect to receive final advice from the Hong Kong Bank on
private sector schemes early next week. As
soon as we have this, I shall let you have a copy: and then we should meet to finalise the options paper.
I am copying this letter to Mr Hughes in the GAD and Mr Fish at the ODA.
7.
J C Morris
Hong Kong Department
opt.saf.ADM
SLM
RESTRICTED
No comments yet.
Private notes are available after approval.