TNAG-2669-FCO40-3866-Hong-Kong-Civil-Service-1993 — Page 70

- 2

(b) The new arrangement would prolong the employment of overseas contract officers unnecessarily, and generate a lacuna of local officers in the upper

upper echelons of the civil service thus making the compliance of Articles 61 and 101 of the Basic Law difficult.

(c) Overseas terms have been premised on the proposition that overseas officers are merely "transit" employees of the Government. Such terms provide extra benefits to overseas officers to ensure that they can maintain and renew their home ties regularly and are given substantial "gratuities" after their service in the Government is over. Civil Service Regulation 115(4) further ensures that overseas officers can retain their "overseas" status notwithstanding their residence in Hong

in Hong Kong during employment by the Government. This provision has been made use of by overseas officers to keep on renewing their contracts on "overseas terms" and thereby to preserve their privileges in the days when renewal of contracts was not a problem at all.

The government ignores this background and is introducing, artificially, a new definition for "local officers" in favour of its overseas staff. Overseas contract officers who have voluntarily accepted

accepted the "transit" status in return for the extra benefits, and who have

have fully enjoyed such benefits could not argue that their residence in Hong Kong during their employment on

contract terms entitles them to have an automatic claim for further employment by the Government.

(d) A contract is a contract because it can be terminated by either party. There is no apparent need for the Government to justify the termination or non renewal of contracts.

(e) There was a complete lack of consultation before this new arrangement was decided and implemented. This has clearly damaged staff relationship as well as the existing consultative machinery.

The way forward

We are in full support of any fair and reasonable measure to bring in international experience to Hong Kong, and we are aware of the fact that many overseas officers have made contributions to Hong Kong and developed ties here, but we are in strong opposition to the Government's new arrangement of abolishing the remedial localisation policy for the benefit of a small number of overseas officers.

should

-

Accordingly, it

it is

our demand that the Hong Kong Government

1) withdraw the new arrangement immediately, and devise a fair solution to address specific problems after full consultation with all parties concern;