12
A
before we are asked to? If the situation again deteriorates the Ordinance can be clapped on again.
Draft despatch to Governor opposite.
This case went up to the Secretary of State before (vide his minute of 21st November 1946).
I send through Mr. Roberts-Wray for any comments he may have.
m
26.9.47.
I feel that this despatch is rather too firm. The Governor will probably say that matters have improved only because this Ordinance is in force, and that if it is repealed they would deteriorate.
I am not quite sure about the dates, but the Bill came into operation on the 9th December, 1946, and it was arranged that the necessity for its continuance should be renewed six months after that date. I gather the further six months re- ferred to in (9) would therefore terminate at the end of this year. In other words, if this is so we can, I think, agree to what the Governor proposes. Further, if he feels that the Ordinance may still then be necessary I suggest that he should consider introducing an amending Bill which would modify Section 4 (1) (b) (i) in the light of our comments in (3), and also suspend the operation of the Ordinance while retaining power to bring it into force again by Proclamation should this prove to be necessary.
23rd October, 1947.
+convenine
mover
Mr. Roberts-Wray
Mr. Seel
I have amended the draft, but we must,
I think, make it quite clear to the Governor that we could not agree to the potenties of this Ordinance unless there is a very definite risk of conditions deteriorating to what they were when it was introduced. The Secretary of State, in his minute dated 21st November, made it quite clear that he only agreed to the measure on the assumption that there was an exceptional state of lawlessness and resort to violence by criminals in Hong Kong
which