MR ALLAN Roger (Sunday Morning Post, March 14) considers the civil service ''policy'' on localisation should be scrapped. He presents a number of solid points in support of his contention. On the same issue, I have the following questions: Is there, in fact, a properly endorsed localisation policy, i.e. a statement of Government intent that has been endorsed by the Executive and Legislative councils? Under the current policy and the counter prevailing clauses of the Basic Law and Bill of Rights, where do the children of expats born and educated in Hongkong stand? Are they to be treated as ''second class'' citizens in applying for jobs in the civil service? What is the definition of ''permanent resident'', being a principal criterion under the Bill of Rights for eligibility for employment in the civil service? If the localisation ''policy'' is to continue to apply, who among the local corps of civil servants should benefit, given many hold overseas passports and have intentions of leaving the territory? Is the localisation policy applicable to Hongkong-born people and their children who have emigrated and taken out a new national identity but subsequently wish to return to Hongkong to work? Given the private sector hires and fires on the basis of performance, why should the Government not adopt the same principle or, conversely, take steps to require the private sector to follow the localisation policy? What action, if any, do our legislators, the Secretary for Constitutional Affairs, the Commissioner for Administrative Complaints, the Secretary for the Civil Service and the Governor intend to take to ensure that Government affairs relating to employment in the civil service are implemented on an equitable basis, as required under the Bill of Rights? NAME AND ADDRESS SUPPLIED
