Central Committee Telegram Requesting the Central China Bureau to Submit Opinions on the Handling of Former Personnel (November 22, 1949)  To the Central China Bureau: We have received your telegram dated Xihao. With regard to the question of handling former personnel, please set forth your views point by point on the six questions you raised. [1]  Issued by the Central Committee on November 22, based on Mao Zedong’s manuscript.  Notes  [1] Refers to the six questions posed in a telegram sent by the CPC Central China Bureau to the Central Committee on November 19, 1949, in response to the Central Committee’s instructions of September 21 concerning the various principles for dealing with former personnel. The six questions are as follows:  (1) Does the term “former Kuomintang staff members who are being taken over,” as used in the Central Committee’s directive, refer exclusively to personnel of the Kuomintang regime, or does it also encompass those working in the economic, cultural-educational, transportation, and banking sectors? If the latter is the case, should there still be a distinction made between how personnel of government organs are treated and how those employed in enterprises, cultural-educational institutions, and similar organizations are handled, as well as between the treatment of former staff from these two types of institutions?  (2) As for the principle that “in general they should all be retained,” does this mean retention within their original units, or does it also include reassignment for training, deployment to rural areas, retirement, and other such arrangements? Are all individuals whose upkeep requires government funding considered to have been “retained”?  (3) Regarding the stipulation that “first, they shall not be restored to their former posts and salaries; second, their status shall not remain unchanged,” may this be understood as applying only to personnel whom the relevant organ no longer needs and ought to be streamlined, but who are nevertheless retained beyond what is necessary? Or should all retained employees—whether continuing in their posts or having been relieved of them—have their pay appropriately reduced without exception?  (4)

As for the principle of “three people sharing the meals meant for five, and crowding into the same quarters,” can this be interpreted in enterprise and government organs as meaning that currently needed retained staff should continue to receive their original posts and salaries, with adjustments made on an individual basis, while the practice of sharing and overcrowding applies only to those extra personnel retained following streamlining measures and to those undergoing retraining? Alternatively, should all retained personnel—whether formally appointed or retained temporarily—be subject to this arrangement without distinction?  (5) Concerning trainees, the instruction states that “during the period of training, their pay shall be reduced to sixty to seventy percent of the lowered rate.” What is meant by “the lowered rate”—is it the progressively reduced equivalent salary in effect during the Kuomintang regime, or the salary we have appropriately reduced since liberation?  (6) When organizing large-scale training classes, should the training be conducted centrally by region or by type of work, or should it be dispersed and carried out locally within various units? And should the costs be borne through unified planning and centralized allocation, or should each locality assume responsibility for its own expenses?  On November 26, in accordance with the Central Committee’s request, the Central China Bureau submitted its opinions on these six questions to the Central Committee.