3
B
a case in which study leave could have been said
to be for the officer's private benefit, without any corresponding advantage to Government, and
such a case would only arise, in my view, when
an officer deliberately acquired a certain qualification, e.g., being called to the Ear, in
order to enable him to practice when he had
retired. Such cases must be extremely rare,
in ordinary circumstances,
and I should not like to leave it to the Governor's
discretion to decide whether or not a course is
for the officer's benefit.
(2) The Regulations seem to be drafted
without any regard to the fact that agreements
have been abolished for all payments in connection
with courses except those in which the officer receives additional payment in the way of
pecuniary inducement, and should not be drawn
up in regard to fees, railway fares, and lodging
allowances (see Circular of the 16th of January,
1929, and the reply from Hong Kong of the 5th of April, 1929, 24 on 60598/0.2/29).
(3) The wording of these Regulations seems open to question. For example, the second paragraph of 143B is not wholly clear. It lays down "a condition shall be attached by implication".
I do not know how this can be done, and surely
if a condition by implication is sufficient to
enable the fees to be refunded, what is the use
of having an agreement? (In any case, as
pointed out above, the Hong Yong Government
have agreed that an agreement is only necessary in cases where there are pecuniary inducements).
Further, 143B(1)(a), "not wholly satisfactory"
seems to be entirely verbiage, and I do not know
how