CO129-614-5 Protected Places (Safety) Ordinance 1946- proposed revision 26-9-1946 - 15-1-1948 — Page 11

before agreeing to the

Ordinance.

retention

of the

gram

Draft savingram 44.0.

هستند

J. 3. Whyte 12/

......

Mr. Roberts-Wray

Mr. Mayle

Please see (9). The Governor of Hong Kong considers it advisable to retain the Protected Places (Safety) Ordinance, 1946, for at least another 6 months.

The Ordinance was brought into force on 9th December 1946 (para. 2 of 5), so it has been in force for over 9 months already. In his despatch of 28th November 1946 (3) the Secretary of State said that, in his view, the Ordinance should be repealed as soon as the situation improved

sufficiently to permit of this and that, therefore, the necessity for its continuance should be reviewed 6 months after its enactment.

Among the points raised in the despatch

of 28th November 1946 for the Governor's consideration was one of amendment of Section 4 (1)(b)(i). In his reply (5) the Governor said that the question of amending this Section would be considered if it were decided to continue the Ordinance in operation after he had reviewed the situation in 6 months. There is no reference to amendment of Section 4(1)(b)(i) in the despatch now before us. But the amendment which we suggested is not of basic importance. We could not now ask the Governor to go to the trouble of amending this Section and then turn down his proposal for retention of the Ordinance. We should therefore now decide whether or not the Ordinance is to be retained and only if the decision is to retain it, refer again to the amendment of Section 4(1)(b)(i).

I

The Governor's report shows that the Ordinance has been a valuable measure, has been administered with prudence, and has aroused no criticism. have served sufficiently long at the other end of the line myself to know that in such circumstances, were I in Hong Kong, I should unhesitatingly favour a retention of the Ordinance. But I venture to note that in Burma - where conditions have been at least as lawless as in Hong Kong We never had anything quite so severe as this Ordinance (e.g. Section 7).

There has been no criticism yet of the Ordinance. But one day there might be. On the Governor's report the situation has improved sufficiently to permit of the repeal of the Ordinance. Would it not be better therefore to make the gesture of repealing it

before