CO129-554-16 Lepers Ordinance 1935 14-6-1935 - 13-7-1938 — Page 6

6

for appeal to the Supreme Court as, for example, in Section 137 of the latter Ordinance. Section 132 is also a useful provision.

I also think that Hong Kong should

amend their Ordinance on the same lines.

3/6/38.

/t. Duncan.

I agree

to the action proposed as regards the

F.M.S., but I should deprecate any instruction to

amend the Hong Kong Ordinance at present. I do not

see that it is open to serious objection. It is true that it empowers the Director of Medical Services

to order the d tention in a leper settlement of a

person he finds on examination to be a leper. But

take the Basutoland Proclamation. It lays down that

the Government Secretary may issue a detention order

in the case of a man certified to be suffering from

leprosy. Similarly the Fiji Ordinance empowers the

Governor to order the detention of a man reported

to be a leper. The Mauritius Ordinance requires an

order for detention from a magistrate on the report

of the Leprosy Board. Presumably this does give some

additional protection; but I don't see that the

Fiji and Basutoland laws give any more safeguard

than the Hong Kong law, which moreover provides for the appointment of justices of the peace as visitors

of leper settlements, with power to make such

examination and enquiry therein "as may be deemed

necessary".

#lowed

5.6.38

Han

Zou any

comments?

Am.

7.6.38.