14
Mr. Seel.
The similar Singapore legislation is, I think, still in force, and I have not heard of any suggestion that it should be repealed or suspended. I realise that circumstances differ between the two places, and you are I assume satisfied that the difference is sufficiently marked to justify the maintenance of the legislation in Singapore even after it has been repealed or has ceased to be used in Hong Kong. On this assumption I agree that we should put firmly to the Governor of Hong Kong the arguments against the retention of this legislation for a further period, and should ask that unless he wishes to make further representations steps should be taken to bring its effective operation to an end. But I feel doubtful whether we should ask for the repeal of the Ordinance. It would be unfortunate if there- after conditions should deteriorate so quickly and so markedly that the Governor felt compelled to seek authority for an early re-enactment. Would it not be possible instead of repealing the Ordinance to legislate so as to provide that the Ordinance could be suspended by Governors Proclamation and again be brought into force when necessary by similar means? The suggestion to be put to the Governor should of course be that if this procedure is adopted we should immediately after the amending Ordinance issue a suspending Proclamation.
1.
Will you please have this suggestion considered?
Mr. Mayle.
Te. Lond
30.10.47.
The Singapore Protectie Plaves
Dedica
originally
year,
was
brought. When inte
Love
15th Auguer 1946 for vel
and at the OAG's request was
ممکن
العلمقالات
Minuti of 18/1
from 15th Aug. 1847.
faroler year (see my
ひん
Lw with Mr. 57277/27
No comments yet.
Private notes are available after approval.