6
ask the Yos. to
Noq.
We do not know whether the Hong Kong
the misgivings of the
Gout was aware
Hongkong Chamber
time that Ordce No 26
Commerce all the
of 19
1932 was
passed
or whether the possible repercussions
in
The Hong Kong
Cumia were taken into conson. The
foot would probably
be averse
to
making
ang substantial amendment in the Ordce.
Ithink however that we
right to give the F.O. the opportunity of formulating any oft amendments which they consider would make the Ordce less objectionable from tacer point of view without altering its main
purpose
a that
aft acmendments
any aft
So formulated should be sent to Hong Kong
for the conson
H.K. Look.
of the H.K.
? Reply that the Ordee has been in force since Aug 19th 1932 and that
as non disallowance has been
regnified
the only method of altering the law would
be by
meaus
of
ben
Contiune on line of
amending Ordce.
of my
minute above
but asking whether the F.O. would like
to formulate such
r
the
oft amendments & saying that if
so we should be willing to consult the H.K. Goo? further upon subject. Say we will bear in mind the possibility that Hongkong legislation may occasionally have