fund, as given
are
Ord. no
the same.
in Schedule
1890,
30
as those
of the Straits Settlement Fund, and in view of the interpretation of the point in question given by M. Zilaisen,
I have the honour to inform you that I no longer think the amendment of the Ordinance suggested in my despatch, no. 195 of 7th Dec. 1893 is required.
Since the statement in the Enc. to that despatch from the officer transferred from this Colony to another, regarding the acquiring of an interest in the Fund, "which is not less than if he 'had contributed that amount during his whole service'", is now shown to have been incorrect and based upon a wrong interpretation of the rules.
3. I take this opportunity of pointing out that in the Schedule B to Ord. 30 of 1890, there are mistakes. [These mistakes arose from copying verbatim from the Ceylon scheme without duly altering the number of pars. thereof.] I suggest that the numerical references in certain articles to the "Illustrations of the Methods of Computing the pensions" are incorrect. viz. in Art. 2, the reference to "which Article 9" occurs four times, should read "Article 1"; in Art. 3, the words "Articles 9" ...