41
ceasing to contribute to the Hong Kong scheme, but at least one other Colony does not give any option on transfer. Under sub-section (2) of the new section 33 which is to be added to the principal Ordinance by section 17 of this Ordinance the Governor in Council will have power to order a refund of any contributions made by any transferred officer before his exclusion from the long Kong section.
7. Paragraplı (3) of section 3 of the principal Ordinance is repealed as the matter in future will be dealt with by the new section 33 (2). In any case a provision of this kind is out of place in a definition section.
8. The sentence in section 7 (1) of the principal Ordi- nance which section 8 of this Ordinance will repcal is being repealed because it deals with the old exchange compensation allowance which is now obsolete. No officer now exists who draws that allowance.
66
9. Section 9 provides that abatement shall cease after thirty-five years," instead of after "thirty-five successive years as in the principal Ordinance. The point is of
19
very light importance but it would seem reasonable that abatement should cease after 35 years contribution whether the 35 years have all been successive or not. In the vast majority of cases the years would all be successive, but very occasional cases of broken service might arise. This 35 years period is also referred to in the new s. 9 (6) and (10) and in the new proviso to s. 15 (1).
10. Section 10 repeals section 9 of the principal Ordi- nance and re-enacts it with alterations. The new section 9 will deal almost exhaustively with the question of how far officers leaving the service are to have the option of continuing to contribute, with the cognate subject of refunds to officers so leaving who elect not to continue to contribute, and with the question of refunds to the legal personal representatives of persons dying in the service. There will be one exception, .e., the case of officers transferred from Hong Kong to other services under the Crown. This case is dealt with in section 12 of the principal Ordinance, and it has not been thought necessary to incorporate that section in the new section 9. Section 11 of the principal Ordinance, however, is incorporated in the new section.
11. Sub-section (1) of the new section 9 gets rid of a good deal of repetition throughout the section.
12. No change is made in the case of officers leaving the service as bachelors. They will still have the option of continuing to contribute, and if they do not continue they will get back half their contributions. The case of a bachelor dying in the service, which in the principal Ordinance is dealt with in sub-section (2), will in the new section 9 be dealt with in sub-section (11).
13. Under the principal Ordinance an officer who leaves the service as a widower without peusionable children gets back half his contributions since the termination of the last risk, but he is not given the option of continuing. This seems unreasonable if a bachelor is to have the option. The widower is at least likely to remarry as the bachelor is to marry. Accordingly the new sub-section (3) gives the option of continuing to contribute to the widower without pensionable children.
14. Under the principal Ordinance an officer who leaves the service as a widower with pensionable children is not allowed to continue to contribute after the last child ceases to be pensionable. Such an officer, however, might remarry after his children had ceased to be pensionable and it seems unfair that he should lose all chance of benc- fit from the scheme though he had contributed possibly for very many years. It also seems unfair when compared
with the case of a bachelor who is allowed to obtain the
60
Page 50Page 51