で。
The Hong Kong Government do not deny that their requirement is unfavourable to an employer in circum- stances whore an unscrupulous worker walks out on his contract after having obtained a passage to the United Kingdom et his employer's expense. There are, however, legitimate circumstances in which a worker night reasonably wish to torminate a contract which he has si_nod without full knowledge of working conditions in
this country. The Hong Kong Government have gone some way towards making it Lore difficult for the unscrupulous worker to terminate employment, by extending the period of notice recommended in their model contract, from one month to three months, and there is, of course, nothing to prevent the employer and the worker freely negotiating a longer period. The long Rong Government have not, however, been able to devise a suit ble 1tornative provision which would s feguard the employer against obuses and, at the same time, protect the interests of Chinese workers proceeding abroad for employment. It is this latter objective which is, of course, the essential purpose of the legislation.
The second aspect of the passages problem is the employer's liability to bear the repatriation expenses of the alion worker whom he has brought to this country. This again is a requirement of Hong Kong law, based on Article 13 of 1.1.0. Convention b.64: Contracts of Employ- mont (Indigenous Workers) Convention. Here too the bias in favour of the worker is recognised. But the reason for this is that, unlike Commonwealth citizens, alien workers brought to this country (and both the Ordinance and the contract apply only to them) are not entitled to stay indefinitely and cannot be allowed to become a charge on the State. In this respect the Hong Kong law corresponds
/to