|
+
TUESDAY, JUNE 18, 1985
+THERE IS CONSIDERABLE BENEFIT IF THE LAW ENSURES THAT THE RIGHTS OF PERSONS ARE SAFEGUARDED WHEN IN INDIVIDUAL CASES THE COMMUNITY'S HIGH STANDARDS ARE NOT OBSERVED FOR SOME REASON, + HE SAID.
THE LAW, HE SAID, RECOGNISED AND ENFORCED THE OBLIGATION OF A FATHER TO SUPPORT HIS ILLEGITIMATE CHILDREN DURING HIS LIFETIME AND THERE WAS A PROPOSAL GOING FORWARD SOON TO THE EXECUTIVE COUNCIL THAT THE MAXIMUM RATE AT WHICH HE COULD BE COMPELLED TO DO SO SHOULD BE ABOLISHED.
THE LAW ALSO ALLOWED A FATHER TO SEEK THE EXCLUSIVE CUSTODY OF HIS ILLEGITIMATE CHILDREN, MR THOMAS SAID.
+AS A MATTER OF CONSISTENCY AND OF JUSTICE, THEREFORE, IT WOULD SEEM DESIRABLE THAT THE ILLEGITIMATE CHILDREN OF A MAN WHO CAN PROVE THAT THEY WERE DEPENDENT UPON HIM DURING HIS LIFETIME - AND WERE MAINTAINED DURING HIS LIFETIME - SHOULD BE ENTITLED TO SEEK REASONABLE PROVISION FROM HIS ESTATE IN THE EVENT OF HIS UNTIMELY DEATH WITHOUT A WILL HAVING BEEN MADE NAMING THEM AS BENEFICIARIES,+ MR THOMAS SAID.
SPEAKING OF THE LONG-STANDING VIRTUE OF CHINESE COMMUNITIES' CLOSE FAMILY RELATIONSHIPS, MR THOMAS SAID, BUT EVEN IN HONG KONG IN RECENT YEARS, FAMILY TIES HAVE LOOSENED THROUGH PRESSURES OF MODERN LIFE, ESPECIALLY IN URBAN AREAS, AND AS A RESULT OF FAMILY MEMBERS DISPERSING AROUND THE WORLD.
THE PO LEUNG KUK PLAYED AN EVER-INCREASING ROLE IN HELPING THOSE UNFORTUNATE PERSONS FOR WHOM FAMILY SUPPORT WAS EITHER LACKING OR INSUFFICIENT.
AMONG THE MANY YOUNG CHILDREN UNDER THE PROTECTION AND CARE OF THE KUK WERE A SMALL MINORITY BORN OUT OF WEDLOCK, AND HE THOUGHT THEY WERE +A PARTICULARLY DISADVANTAGED GROUP+, MR THOMAS SAID. HE THOUGHT IT WOULD BE APPROPRIATE FOR HIM TO REFER TO THESE ILLEGITIMATE CHILDREN TODAY FOR TWO REASONS: FIRSTLY BECAUSE, AS A GROUP THEY WERE, ALMOST BY DEFINITION, WITHOUT A REPRESENTATIVE VOICE TO SPEAK FOR THEM; AND SECONDLY, THE PROBLEMS, PARTICULARLY OF A LEGAL NATURE WITH WHICH THEY WERE FACED, WERE PROBLEMS THAT HAD TO SOME EXTENT BEEN CREATED AS A CONSEQUENCE OF STATUTORY PROVISIONS THAT DID NOT ADEQUATELY TAKE THEIR RIGHTS INTO ACCOUNT.
/5