I FEEL duty-bound to respond to the erroneous and distorted views expressed recently by a certain sector of the community on the Government's localisation policy. But, before I put forward the counter-arguments, I'd like to explain the background of this policy and clarify the definition of certain terms in Civil Service context.
The terms ''local'' and ''expatriate'' refer to two distinct sets of ''terms and Conditions of employment'' for the appointment of civil servants. The Government determines which set of terms to apply when an appointment is offered according to the candidate's country of origin.
The terms of employment offered are determined more on the basis of the officer's normal place of residence than his nationality. Hence, it is not uncommon to find ethnic Europeans employed on local terms and ethnic Chinese on expatriate terms.
Expatriate officers at all ranks are entitled to special leave arrangements with passage entitlement for the entire family, plus housing benefits. These benefits are not enjoyed by their local counterparts, an area which our association has found difficultto accept on grounds of fairness and equity.
Under the localisation policy, positions in the civil service should, as far as possible, be taken up by local people serving under local terms of employment. Provision has, however, been built in to enable people outside Hongkong to be employed on expatriate terms, on condition that no locals of the right calibre can be recruited to fill the positions.
It is therefore apparent that the localisation policy was meant to phase out civil servants employed on the more costly expatriate terms. The scheme was intended to encourage employment of local people on local terms of service and advocates fair and equitable treatment to all local residents who are willing to serve our community on equal terms and conditions. It is certainly not designed to discriminate against anyone on the basis of his ethnic background.
