CO129-554-4 Companies Amendment Ordinance 1935 7-1-1935 - 17-12-1935 — Page 64

clearly a later addition.

I believe they were first inserted

64

into the Ordinance in 1924, but I have been unable to ascertain

the exact reasons for their insertion. One reason, no doubt,

was to indicate to persons dealing with British companies, that

they were dealing with companies with extraterritorial rights,

and another was to make clear the fact that companies not using

the prefix were not British. The latter reason is ineffective,

because it will be noted that the sub-section as regards the

prefix only applies to China companies and not to Hongkong

companies or to companies registered in England. The result

is that a Hongkong company such as, say, Wing On, whilst

benefitting from extraterritoriality, need not indicate their

British nationality when it does not suit them to do so, whereas

a company like ours being registered in Shanghai, is bound to

use the prefix whether it likes it or not. It would seem only

reasonable that all British companies whether registered in

Shanghai, Hongkong or London, should be in the same position.

British legislation is passed primarily to protect British

interests. In 1924 when the provision was first inserted in the

Ordinance, it may have operated in favour of the interests of

British companies, but today the position is very different and

with anti foreign feeling now rife, each company should be allowed

to determine for itself when and how and to what extent (if at

all) it should indicate to the world at large its British

nationality.

We have obtained a few representative views on the subject.

All such views are unofficial and have been expressed subject to

revision after further investigation:

In favour of the proposed change:

Imperial Chemical Industries

(China), Ltd.

China Printing & Finishing Co.,

Ltd.

Butterfield and Swire.

Not