Cutting civil service pay sets bad precedent and will damage morale

While the Government is considering implementing cuts in civil service pay it may wish to consider that, 10 years ago, it tried the same thing for one group within the police force, its researchers. The officers concerned took legal action and won. The court restored their pay scales and ordered the repayment of lost wages with interest. This would appear to be a sound legal precedent.

Now, if labour laws are changed so that pay levels can be arbitrarily cut to save money, where will that leave every employee in Hong Kong? The simple answer would be that they would be left with no protection against unscrupulous employers. Internationally, who would contract to work here knowing that the terms on which they had accepted work could be changed to reduce their wages and benefits? The result would be that Hong Kong earned a reputation worldwide as a place to avoid rather than the exceptional city it was becoming.

A further issue is that changing the law to save money is hardly likely to remain limited to wages. Pensions cost a great deal annually. If a simple legal device can slash salaries, pensions will soon follow, then other benefits for wider and wider sections of the population. One may also wonder why next year's reduction in salaries tax receipts has not been mentioned unless, perhaps, the intention is for yet further cuts to compensate for this.

People are more aware of their rights than they used to be and will, quite properly, take action to preserve them. If the Judiciary is part of the group to be hit by substantial pay cuts then even their impartiality could be strained to breaking point by arguments on which judgment has already been given. Little prescience is needed to determine that cuts will destroy staff morale and create serious conflict, and that eventually those responsible will be held to account.

Conflict on this scale would be a disaster for Hong Kong. Why not simply impose a pay freeze and wait for the economic recovery we have been promised?

These proposals are divisive, unwanted and simply take money out of circulation when only spending will boost our economy.