CO129-614-5 Protected Places (Safety) Ordinance 1946- proposed revision 26-9-1946 - 15-1-1948 — Page 29

ŵ

carries the risk, referred to in paragraph 2

of my secret despatch No. 245 of the 28th November,

1946, of bodily injury to the members of the civil

population. There is also, I imagine, some

possibility of political capital being made out of

the existence of this measure, especially in the event

of Chinese nationals being wounded or killed as the

result of the use of the exceptional powers granted.

by it.

4.

For these reasons; I should prefer to see the

Ordinance repealed as soon as possible. If, however,

you consider that there is a very definite risk of

conditions deteriorating to what they were when it

was enacted, I should not wish to offer any objection to

its retention for a further six months, as you propose.

In that event, however, I should not be able to agree

to its furtner retention beyond that period, without bresh

further review.

5. If, however, you consider that. while there is no

such risk at the moment, there is a definite possibility

of a recurrence,

currence at sem

at some time in the future of the state

of affairs which led to the enactment of the Ordinance. I

suggest the introduction of an amending Bill enabling

(3)

the operation of the Ordinance to be suspended by Proclamation

(which would be made immediately the Bill becomes law), while

retaining power to bring it into force again by proclamation,

should this prove to be necessary.

If this is done, the

opportunity would no doubt be taken to modify Section 4(1)(b)(i)

in the light of the comments in my secret despatch No. 245 of the

28th November, 1946. I should be glad to receive your comments

on this suggestion.

I have, etc..

(sgd) A Creech Jones.

29

(3)