I refer to the letter from Siu Kwok-chu (June 18) suggesting that some civilians in government are overpaid and that their salaries be cut rather than reduce the police force.
A whole class of people considers itself to be unjustly under attack - all government workers, including the police. It is a mistake to give credence to the injustice to one part of the class by offering another part as sacrificial lambs, on the basis that your interests are protected.
The true problem is the injustice. The letter specifies cleaners, clerks and workmen, who draw the lowest pay among civil servants. In 2002 (before the first pay cut), the lowest pay in the civil service was about $8,000 per month. Despite ostensible protection under Article 100 of the Basic Law, many cleaners, clerks and workmen lost their jobs after layoffs, redundancies and privatisations. They have had to seek jobs in the private sector for much less pay.
In its first report on principles and practices governing civil service pay (1979), the Standing Commission on Civil Service Salaries and Conditions of Service recommended 'that the remuneration of the lowest paid in the civil service should not be governed solely by market forces ... the government should be among the better-paying employers in relation to the lowest paid'. The objective was to achieve equality of benefit, not equality of detriment, for both private and public-sector workers. In recent months, your paper has reported that despite the economic upturn, 30 per cent of Hong Kong workers earn less than $7,500 monthly, and even then they may have to work a 15-hour day.
It seems that 'big market, small government' does not distribute the vast wealth of Hong Kong as optimally as the principle recommended by the standing commission in 1979.
MICHAEL SCOTT, The Peak
