35
other or could cross examine. It was therefore
impossible for the Petitioners to put teir case
adequately to the Committee.
(a) even if the Ordinance had merely implemented the
Advisory Committee's report, disallowance would
(e)
(f)
(g)
be justified; the Committee were outside their terms
of reference in recommending reservation of a fixed
percentage of accommodation for residents and the
Petitioners had had no opportunity of making
representations on this point e.g. the "Lucky"
Apartments and the "Tuck Lin" Apartments which were
Chinese apartment houses catering for transients, had
been wrongly classified with European hotels and now had to
reserve 100% of their accommodation for Hong Kong
residents; the Committee had seen only a few accounts,
paid a few visits and had received but a very small
number of letters expressing dissatisfaction with
prevailing rates.
the Ordinance however went far beyond the Committee's
recommendations; s. 4 enables regulations to be made
covering such wide ground that the Qurtering Authority
might be better placed to run the hotels than the
hoteliers themselves; there is no right of appeal except
on very limited ground, despite the Committee's
recommendation,
it was no answer to say that regulations made under s.4
by the Quartering Authority had to be approved by the
Legislative Council and that embers of the Legislative
Council are sensible people who would see control did
elected
not operate harshly; they are not alloted representatives.
the Ordinance, without the backing of the Advisory
Committee recommendations, was passed into law with only
12 days between First and Third readings, without
/proper