in the Hong Kong Merchant Shipping Ordinance (Cap. 281), and on such an account, any changes contemplated, would need to be preceded by amendments to that Ordinance. The two courses of action referred to in the draft which it is opined could be followed without legislative changes are not understood in this context. As stated however such courses of action have already been considered, although with slight variations, 1.8.
(1) Foreign certificates of competency could be
accepted for the issue of comparable Hong Kong certificates, in those cases where ti holders were proficient in the English language, and the standard of examination associated with the national certificates. was not less than that prevailing under the Hong Kong system
(ii) Foreign subjects could be allowed to sit the
examinations for issus of Hong Kong carti- ficates of competency relative to the more senior grades of officer.
At this point in time, it is aammed the master of a Hong Kong registered vessel will need to be a British subject, and considering the question of proficiency in the English language, it is accepted there could be no substitute. The aforementioned assumption is related to ensuring British control, whilst the second paint can be associated with safety, and the handling of ships'
Possibly the first mentioned relaxation would prove to be the most logical – if not the most practical – choice, because assuming language requirements being met, it is felt that many foreign certificates of competency, particularly those associated with E.E.C. countries, must be comparable with our own, so far as they are associated with examinations and experience Whilst taking the point regarding possible difficulties which such courses of action might introduce, as discussions are soon to take place with both sides of the industry, regarding recognition of certificates of competency
/between....