otu.
Chinese newspapers, public opinion is in favour of the emergency regulations being continued-in force "until all threats to the
Com this
would entity Colony's security" are removed. I agree, however, that if the emergency powers in their most severe form are no longer required it is
much better to revoke them, relying on the
substantive law and strengthening this where necessary. This is a course which the
Governor has been following; the emergency / regulations dealing with intimidation, disp rsal of assemblies, prohibition of meetings, fireworks (to name a few examples) have all been revoked following upon the
enactment of stronger permanent legislation
relating to the control of these matters.)
In his letter to you of 31 December
Ir. Litton draws a comparison between the procedures set out in the Emergency
1
(Deportation and Detention) Regulations and in Regulation 31 of the Principal Emergency Regulations. The former are designed to deal with quite a different set of circumstances. They relate only to aliens whose deportation has proved impracticable, and cannot be applied to persons who possess en can claim British status. They are not intended to
meet the same requirements of urgency and speed which are essential in a situation such as that posed by the events of 1967.
In any
case I cannot accept that the procedures are for so very different. All persons detained under Regulation 31 have been told of the
reasons for their detention. They have
nitarim been told of their right to make objections against their detention to the Committee of Review set up under the regula-
tions for this purpose. That Committee
admittedly is and must be an advisory body (as is the Tribunal set up under the Deportation and Detention Regulations), since it is the Governor who is ultimately respon- sible to the Secretary of State and Parliament
for the internal security of Hong Kong and
/the decision
?
NOTHING TO BE WRITTEN IN THIS MARGIN