Mr. Johnson
Trouble you again, but I think that you are sorry to not quite commit to the adoption of the new Tables after we knew from 10913/03 that the Directors and Executive Council of Hongkong unanimously approved the taking over of the Fund. We, of course, assumed that this step would be taken; but the calculations in 3571/05 by Ink Young do not appear as if the Fund being taken over. It says "if the Fund be transferred to the Govt., saving could no doubt be affected in expenditure which could be set against the additional Reserve required by the Ceylon Table. But omitting this consideration, it will be observed that adopting the result in C, the increase $73307 is covered by the surplus disclosed in the valuation of 1900".
L. Cochran So I don't think that we should not have agreed to the new tables being adopted in Hongkong if the fund was taken over. We shall not be bringing immediate disallowance a further Ordinance may in these circumstances be considered not necessary.
What I might then say is that the Actuary had never committed himself to recommending new tables in the case of abolition of Fund; the Establishment. I still think it safer to disallow the Ordinance by telegram, as otherwise it comes into operation as from 1 Jan.
Johnson
Mr. Fraser
54929
1. In view of my recent telegram, I assume that it is agreed that we need say nothing about the Ordinance being disallowed.
2. Thank you. One point to which it is necessary to call attention is the provision allowing a transferred bachelor to continue as a contributor. It is new, but I have no objection to it, though of course when he leaves the Hongkong service, he can have no claim otherwise than to look to that or to support a family acquired after he left.