No
Society being registered unless the government is satisfied that its objects are harmless - but I think the better plan in reserve of this Bill is to prohibit all secret Societies. If it should be found hereafter that any society, as Freemasons, exerts influence that is harmless, it may be specially excluded by an amending ordinance.
The Bill provides that the offences which it creates are punishable on summary conviction; this is in accordance with the Straits law and may perhaps be approved, though I felt some doubt whether, having regard to the severity of the punishment which may be inflicted in some cases - viz., 12 months' imprisonment with hard labour - the trial of other offences should not be reserved for the Supreme Court.
In Clause 9, it excludes from the definition of members of a Society those who have resigned, withdrawn from, or have been expelled from the Society, provided that such resignation (in the Bill misprinted "registration"), withdrawal, or expulsion is recorded in the minutes of the proceedings.
This condition would prevent a Society from escaping from its unlawful position without the consent of the Society. I think the words "such resignation, withdrawal, and expulsion having been recorded in the minutes of the Society" should be omitted; it would then be left for any person charged with being a member, and proved to be a member of an unlawful Society, to prove that he had resigned, withdrawn, or been expelled.
In Clause 10 – for "declared to be unlawful under this Ordinance", I would substitute "declared by this Ordinance to be unlawful".
It might be thought that the Ordinance should define "Secret Societies" - but I doubt whether it would be advisable to attempt much definition - the Courts will have no difficulty in practice in deciding whether any particular society is secret or not.
I approve of the introduction of the Bill with the amendments above suggested.
EW Baker
Acting Secretary for Chinese Affairs
Nov 22. D18/11
Page 306