1
HKK/14/4 Reference..
with (2)
Mr. Carter
These
Please see Mr. Murray's Minute above. papers are on a TJ because the substantive files are in action over a recent saving despatch in which Hong Kong proposes to change certain of the recommendations made to the Secretary of State in 1965 and approved as a basis for future legislation on Chinese marriages in Hong Kong in 1966. I do not think that these previous files are required to deal with Mr. de Basto's letter to Lord Shepherd at (1), particularly in view of the endorsements on that letter.
2.
With his letter Mr. de Basto sent the Minister a copy of a report on Chinese marriages in Hong Kong by the sub-committee of the Hong Kong Bar Association, of which he is Chairman; he was also a member of the sub-committee. The report was completed in December 1966 and published "a few months ago", Mr. de Basto's evident purpose in sending it to Lord Shepherd is to try and ensure that it influences any future legislation. He makes the general complaint with which we are familiar, and which indeed was one of a number he discussed with Lord Shepherd last August, that the opportunities for public debate of such legislation as this are limited. In particular he contrasts the expertise of his profession in the legal problems of marriage, with the inexperience of Government departments again a familiar theme.
3.
-
As Mr. Murray has said the Governors proposals for the regulation of Chinese marriages, the fruit of many years study and consultation, were submitted in 1965 and approved in 1966. Of course, this is a subject of extreme complexity and politically most sensitive, so that it will neither be dealt with in haste nor necessarily with unbalanced regard for Westernised legal opinion. We have no indication that legislation in the Colony is imminent - indeed the reverse but in any event when a Bill is drafted there remains at least the possibility it was, given preliminary consideration 3 years ago, and that it will fall within the reserved category under the Royal Instructions. Whether it does or not, the draft will certainly come here, and I am sure that measures of such importance go up to the Secretary of State. I labour this point, because it emphasises what Mr. Murray has said that at this stage Mr. de Basto's direct reference to the Minister is untimely. He has no knowledge that the Bar Association's views have not been or will not be taken into account when the stage of legislation is reached.
4.
It is worth
offe
bur's bl
1
ering evidence that once again Mr. de Basto's handing of such matters is not disinterested. He méntions in his letter as "most essential to the interests of justice...
the inclusion of some form of judicial safeguard against the all too prevalent abuses of consensual divorce". It is interesting to see in a report that the members of the Bar Association's sub-committee were not united on this subject (a Chinese lawyer differing
/from