-
40
Objects and Reasons.
1. This Ordinance deals with a number of proposed amendments to the Widows' and Orphans' Pensions Ordi- nance which have been collecting for some time.
2. Though there is uo longer any widows' and orphans' prasion fund, certain reference to a fund are being allowed to remain in the principal Ordinauce. The reason for this is obvious throughout the title aud preamble. The word is being allowed to remain in section 3 (4) (d) because it was used in Ordinance No. 5 of 1921. It is being allowed to remain in section 2 (6), partly because of section 3 (4) (d) and partly because it did not seem worth while to amend section 2.
3. The effect of section 3 will be to exclude from the widows and orphans' pension scheme all Indian members of the staff of the Prisons Department. This is believed to be in accordance with the wishes of the present Indian members of the Prisons Department. In 1921 an amead- ing Ordinance enabled the Indian prison officers whose salaries were less than $120 a year to choose whether they would continue to contribute to the scheme or not and without exception they elected not to contribute. Indian prison officers who are now contributing are given by section 19 of this Ordinance the option of continuing to contribute. Any such officer who elects not to contri- buto will be allowed to withdraw on the usual terms, ie., he will get back one half of his total contributions without
nterest.
4. For many years the widows' and orphans' fund, and the succeeding widows' and orphans' pension scheme, were confined to persons permanently employed in the service of the Government and to certain members of the police force. In 1921 the sebeme was extended to persons appointed on agreement for any period exceeding two years. This caused various difficulties and it is now proposed to revert to the original rule and to confine the scheme to officers on the permanent staff. This is effected by the repeal of section 3(1)(c) of the principal Ordinance. It will be noticed that in that paragraph as printed in the present edition of the Ordinances "not exceeding two years" is a misprint for "exceeding two years". Certain members of the police force have always been included specifically because, though they in fact serve on agreement for successive terms of five years, they are substantially permauens officers. They are dealt with in section 3 (1), (b) of the principal Ordinance. Subordinate officers of the Prisous Department have another peculiar system of engagement. They are engaged in the first instance on one year's probation. If they prove satisfactory they are taken ou for a five years period which runs from the commencement of their year's pro- bation. If they still prove satisfactory they are taken on the permanent establishment. As explained above the Indian prisons officers are being excluded from the Ordi- nance. The proposed new sub-paragraph (c) of paragraph (1) of section 3 of the principal Ordinance includes in the definition of the term "officer" all European prisons officers except officers on probation. It should be noted that such officers should not begin to contribute until the comple- tion of the period of probation, whether that be the original period contemplated of one year or an extended period. This is in accordance with the present practice.
5. Sub-paragraph (d) of paragraph 1 of section 3 of the principal Ordinance is by section 5 to be made general, so as to include any persons who exercise an option under the present Ordinance.
6. Paragraph (2) of section 3 of the principal Ordinance is amended so as to give the Governor in Council power to exclude from the Ordinance any officer transferred to the Hong Kong service who is contributing in some other British possession or in some British protectorate. Section 12 of the principal Ordinance gives an officer who is transferred from the Hong Kong service the option of
41
ceasing to contribute to the Hong Kong scheme, but at least one other Colony does not give any option on transfer. Under sub-section (2) of the new section 33 which is to be added to the principal Ordinance by section
17 of this Ordinance the Governor in Council will have power to order a refund of any contributions made by any transferred officer before his exclusion from the Hong Kong section.
7. Paragraph (3) of section 3 of the principal Ordinance
is repealed as the matter in future will be lealt with by the new section 33 (2). In any case a provision of this kind is out of place in a definition section.
8. The sentence in section 7 (1) of the principal Ordi- nance which section 8 of this Ordinance will repeal is being repealed because it deals with the old exchange compensation allowance which is now obsolete. No officer now exists who draws that allowance.
31
9. Section 9 provides that abatement shall cease after "thirty-five years," instead of after "thirty-five successing years as in the principal Ordinance. The point is of very slight importance but it would seem reasonable that abatement should cease after 35 years contribution whether the 35 years have all been successive or not, In the vast majority of cases the years would all be successive, but very occasional cases of broken service might arise. This 35 years period is also referred to in the new s. 9 (6) and (10) and in the new proviso to s. tố (1).
10. Section 10 repeals section 9 of the principal Ordi- nance and re-enacts it with alterations, The new section 9 will deal almost exhaustively with the question of how far officers leaving the service are to have the option of continuing to contribute, with the cognate subject of refunds to officers so leaving who elect not to continue to contribute, and with the question of refunds to the legal personal representatives of persons dying in the service. There will be oue exception, ie, the case of officers transferred from Hong Kong to other services under the Crown. This case is dealt with in section 12 of the principal Ordinance, and it has not been thought necessary to incorporate that section in the new section 9. Section
11 of the principal Ordinance, however, is incorporated in the new section.
11. Sub-section (1) of the new section 9 gets rid of a good deal of repetition throughout the section.
12. No change is made in the caso of officers leaving
the service as bachelors. They will still have the option of continuing to contribute, and if they do not continue they will get back half their contributious. The case of a bachelor dying in the service, which in the principal Ordinance is dealt with in sub-section (2), will in the new section 9 be dealt with in sub-section (11).
13. Under the principal Ordinance an officer who leaves the service as a widower without peusiouable children gets back half his contributions since the termination of the last risk, but he is not given the option of continuing. This seems unreasonable if a bachelor is to have the option. The widower is at least likely to remarry as the bachelor is to marry. Accordingly the new sub-section (3) gives the option of continuing to contribute to the widower without pensionable children.
14. Under the principal Ordinance an officer who leaves the service as a widower with pensionable children is not allowed to continue to contribute after the last child ceases to be pensionable. Such an officer, however, might remarry after his children had ceased to be pensionable and it seems unfair that he should lose all chance of bene- fit from the scheme though he had contributed possibly for very many years. It also seems unfair when compared with the case of a bachelor who is allowed to obtain the
bear.
No comments yet.
Private notes are available after approval.