WEDNESDAY, JANUARY 11, 1984
5
* THE AMENDED VERSION GIVES THE COURT POWER TO MAKE A
PROHIBITION ORDER AGAINST AN ALLEGED DEBTOR, INCLUDING A VISITOR, FROM LEAVING HONG KONG BUT THERE WILL BE NO POWER TO ORDER IMPRISONMENT. THE ORIGINAL PROPOSAL WAS THAT SUCH PROCEDURE SHOULD NOT BE AVAILABLE AGAINST FORE IGNERS WHO COME TO VISIT HONG KONG.
MR WONG BELIEVED THAT THE BILL IN ITS AMENDED FORM SHOULD MEET MOST OF THE OBJECTIONS RAISED.
+ IN FACT, THE INTRODUCTION OF PROHIBITION ORDERS IS AN IMPROVEMENT UPON THE EXISTING LEGISLATION.
+FURTHERMORE, THE PROVISION OF DETAILED RULES REGARDING THE EXAMINATION OF DEBTORS AND OTHER RELATED MATTERS WILL FACILITATE COURT PROCEEDINGS, HE SAID.
HE THEN ELABORATED ON THE AMENDMENTS THAT HE WOULD BE MOVING AT THE COMMITTEE STAGE.
ON THE EXAMINATION OF DEBTORS, THE NEW RULE 1A PROVIDES THAT WHERE THE EXAMINATION IS ADJOURNED, THE COURT MAY ORDER THAT THE DEBTOR BE IMPRISONED UNTIL THE RESUMPTION OF THE EXAMINATION.
→IT WAS CONSIDERED THAT IMPRISONMENT SHOULD ONLY BE ORDERED IN SPECIAL CIRCUMSTANCES AS THE DEBTOR MAY AT THE END OF THE EXAMINATION BE RELEASED BY THE COURT.
+UNDER NORMAL CIRCUMSTANCES, A PROHIBITION ORDER SHOULD BE AN ADEQUATE SAFEGUARD TO ENSURE THE DEBTOR'S APPEARANCE AT THE RESUMED HEARING OF THE EXAMINATION. AMENDMENTS TO THAT EFFECT WILL ACCORDINGLY BE MADE, MR WONG SAID.
HE WOULD ALSO PROPOSE AMENDMENTS TO MAKE THE FORMS MORE READILY UNDERSTANDABLE AND EASIER TO USE.
HE STRESSED THAT HE WAS OF THE VIEW THAT THE CRUX OF THE PROBLEM WAS TO DEVISE AN EFFECTIVE MACHINERY TO RECOVER MONEY FROM A DEBTOR WHO HAD EITHER ASSETS OR REGULAR EARNINGS AND THAT IMPRISONMENT WAS INADEQUATE TO MEET THIS NEED AND ITS MANY INJUSTICES AND ABUSES SHOULD BE TERMINATED.
+THE MEASURES NOW PROPOSED ARE A COMPROMISE WHICH GO FAR TO MEET THE LEGITIMATE NEEDS OF THE FINANCIAL AND TRADING COMMUNITY IN THE SPECIAL CIRCUMSTANCES OF HONG KONG WHILE RECOGNIS ING THE LIBERTY OF THE PERSON IS AN IMPORTANT FREEDOM WHICH ONLY THE COURTS SHOULD TAKE AWAY, HE SAID.
THE AIM OF THE BILL IS TO STRIKE A RIGHT BALANCE AS BETWEEN THE CLAIMANT AND THE DEFENDANT, THE HON JOHN SWAINE SAID.
HE STRESSED THAT THE UNDERLYING PRINCIPLE OF THE BILL HAD NOT BEEN CHANGED THOUGH A LARGE NUMBER OF AMENDMENTS WERE TO BE MADE AT THE COMMITTEE STAGE WITH SOME OF THEM INVOLVING POINTS OF SUBSTANCE.
+THAT PRINCIPLE