fcc
37
ohe or
Of
I
This
THE HON. MR. POLLOCK-In supple- menting the remarks of the hon. member opposit, I wish to address the Council clause. Sir, I may mention, unlike all shortly on Clause 20 of the Bill. the other provisions of this Bill. is with- out precedent; that is, so far as I know.
HONGKONG LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL which the Attorney-General gave just your Excellency to deal with, but that now. I think he said it was grossly has apparently been settled, unfair that a certain section of the com-
There aro munity should pay probate while others detail which we can deal with in Com- two other points of minor racaped. This is one of the cases, Sir, mittee. Coming now to Section 20, we I maintain, where it is very inadvisable think it is most undesirable that that to too closely follow English law, though section should stand, and we propose to I quite agree that English law should be ask your Excellency to delete it. followed in Hongkong as far as possible, course, we recognise it would practically The position of people who are residents mean the re-casting of the Bill. but we and have businesses in the Colony and consider that it is not in the interests of die here, and have nroperty vested in the the Colony that that Section should Colony, is very different from people stand. I think, Sir, those are the main living in Great Britain. Now we look points that have occurred to me. very largely for our prosperity to our believe one or two of the unofficial mem- Chinese friends, most of whom are sub-bers wish to make some remarks on the jects or citizens of the Chinese Republic, Bill before and come down here for the purposes of trade. We welcome them, and are glad to see then make their residence here and invest money in the Colony, and anything which is calculated to decrease their confidence and drive their business and money away from bere should be deprecated. The opinion of the un- official members in that the Probate Bill is calculated to diminish their confidence: There is no preced nt in Heme legisla in the Colony. We know perfectly wel? that any British subject, and others not of Asiatic birth, if they die bere, their accounts will be promptly milled, bat it is a different matter with the Chinese, many of whom have property entrusted to them by friends and relatives to bring down here for investment. It is very difficult, almost impossible, to collect property probate, even though it may be due. Therefore, we, on general principles, deprecate the charge of any probate duty at all. However, probate has been in force in this Colony for some time, and we have got to accept the situation. The Bill that the learned Attorney-General has put before us has, as he rightly pointed out, been altered in very many material points and we gladly welcome the alterations that have been made in the Bild now before us, because these altera introduces quite novel principle. tions are very necessary for the prosperity Under Claus 20, outside or third parties, of the Colony. But there are still further who have nothing to do themselves with alterations we would ask the Government the administration of the estate of the to accept. The original Bill was con- sidered by the unofficial members in con deceased, whether junction with certain Chinese residents, administrators, are asked to come in and bere, but unofficial members have not had make a report. To show how sweeping the opportunity of consulting these with this Claure is as at present drawn. it regard to the amended Bill now put for would come to this: Suppring 1 am the ward, and so, therefore, I am speaking manager of Chinese shop and an not exactly with their permission. In employ dies to whom the shop ewes $20 sub-section of section 3 the words " or for wages, that has to be reported under charge upon property situated in this a penalty of $500 being incurred by the Colony
appear. That Was
manager b'cause. Sir, as this clause of the things we were going to ask reads. it says that a report has to be made
مين
an
tion, or in any gislation in this Colony or in any legislation in the Straits Bettle- ments, or any other Colony of a similar nature, for that which appears in Claust 20. and I think, Sir, the reason why we cannot find any precedents of similar legislation is obviou It is because Clause 20 attempts to introduce entirely new principle in regard to the administration of estates. Of course, we admit the principle that an executor or administrator has to report truly every- thing in his charge that he has to do under the law at present in force in this Colony, and it is quite reasonable, and noon has any objection by the adminis trators or executors being asked to giva duty might be properly paid-but Clause an account of his stewardship so that
MA executors
of
tor.
HONGKONG LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL
558
38
80
That is, in Clausa
9, section 3, where it says "No allow ances shall be made for debts due from the deceased to persons resident out of the Colony unless contracted to be paid in the Colony."
expects to retire in the East buys a house Supposing man who at Home, or small property at Home, and borrows money, and not wishing to disturb his investiments here he con- tracts this debt. And then he dies, and the debt is not, by this Clanse, allowed to be deducted from his estate. I think that would be very unfair to his heirs. On general principles, Sir, I am unable to support this Bill.
on any interest, which, of course, means THE HON, MR. LANDALE-I should any interest, however small in value, like to say that I quite agre with whether as partuer, depositor, or cradi- the hon. member opposite that pro-
Therefore, any interest, however bate duty in this Colony small in value, has to be reported. It unfair tax, and I go
is has to be reported whether the man is a
further and say that probate is an unsuitable tax o partner, a depositor, or creditor of any general principles, I think the State is description whatsoever, whether as AD
only entitled to charge the estate of outside creditor with whom the frm is deceased persons a sum which would bo dealing or merely as a coolie or employee sufficient to defray the cost of the of the shop to whom a few dollars are due machinery which insures that the money as wages. Therefore. Sir, I think it is passed to the rightful owner, and, quite clear that this provision, altogather roughly speaking, that would be about 3 without precedent na ita, is totally treating capital as income, and in my per cent. Any large charge, I think, is unreasonable. It is not fair, we submit, Sir. It is not fair, I submit, in the Arst There is one other point that will be opinion it is not a correct thing to do. place, that an outside person should be brought up in Committee that I would made a sort of inquisiter, and, condly, like to refer to now. it is wholly unfair that he should have to report all these details down to small amounts due to a deceased employee of a shop, bank, or other business undertak ing. That is very strongly urged on be half of the unofficial members, who very strongly feel that this clause should be omitted from the Bill, If it is found possibl by the Government to bring Lor- ward & modified clause which is not open to the objection I have pointed out, then I would submit it would be quite easy for the Government to bring in their amending Bill, but I think, Sir, it is quite obvious, so this Bill at present stands, that it has a very wide mesh it. deed and is altogether unreasonable. Another point in regard to this Clause which is objectionable is the last sub- section of it. That is objectionably from two points of view. First of all, because it puts the onus on the person charged to show that he is not guilty, and, a.condly, it is very difficult, indeed. to realine what the
meaning of the amend ment really is. Your Excellency is familiar with the legislation of this Colony and is familiar with clauses which say that a man shall be deemed to know certain things, or to have certain infor- mation in his possession with guilty knowledge unless he proves that such is not the case. But here, Sir, in this last sub-clause of Clause 20 cf the Bill, we have a very vague and general statement in regard to the legal meaning of it, and there must be great uncertainty on the point. As my hon. friend opposite point- ed out, unofficial members object to Clause 20 in toto, and when the time comes we shall movs that Clause 20 be
omitted altogether.
Or
THE HON. MR. LAU CHU PAK- In connection with Section 20 of the Bill, to which my remarks will be confined, I would like to explain how the Chinese lend money to the shops and firms in this Colony deposit money with them. in support of the contention that, although we have had many concessions, sincs the first reading, granted to us, there are still points very objectionable in business and also unprofitable in every-day practice. It is becoming a rule amongst Chinese to lend money to shops or firms, or to deposit money with them in the names of their wives and sons, and sometimes in those of their relatives, and in many cases they use fictitious names. they die their wives or sons, as the cast may be, are paid the money at ones on producing their receipts. In the case of relatives the same arrangement in made. As regards creditors, most of them are shops or firms in the mainland, and in the case of private individuals they do not live in Hongkong. They might be scattered all over China. As a matter
When
=
No comments yet.
Private notes are available after approval.