XN000022-1985-06-18 — Page 4

TUESDAY, JUNE 18, 1985

+NONETHELESS WE SHALL HAVE TO START SOMEWHERE, AND I AM GOING TO START ON THIS FOLLOWING THIS LUNCH, MR THOMAS SAID.

THE 1971 LEGISLATION IN HONG KONG, MR THOMAS SAID, MADE A DISTINCTION BETWEEN THE LEGITIMATE CHILDREN OF A MAN BY HIS WIFE OR HIS CONCUBINE, AND HIS ILLEGITIMATE CHILDREN.

ALTHOUGH THE ILLEGITIMATE CHILDREN MIGHT HAVE BEEN ACKNOWLEDGED BY HIM AND MIGHT WELL HAVE BEEN THE FRUIT OF A LONG-TERM STABLE RELATIONSHIP, NONETHELESS THEY WERE NOT BY STATUTE HIS CHILDREN, MR THOMAS SAID.

DURING A MAN'S LIFE HE COULD BE MADE LIABLE FOR THE MAINTENANCE OF ALL HIS CHILDREN WHETHER LEGITIMATE OR ILLEGITIMATE. BUT ON HIS DEATH HIS ILLEGITIMATE CHILDREN HAD NO INTEREST IN HIS ESTATE UNDER THE RULES OF INTESTACY, NOR DID THEY HAVE ANY RIGHT TO CLAIM AGAINST HIS ESTATE AS HIS DEPENDANTS, EVEN THOUGH HE MIGHT HAVE MAINTAINED THEM DURING HIS LIFETIME, MR THOMAS SAID.

IN HIS TALK ENTITLED +PROVISIONS FOR ILLEGITIMACY+, MR THOMAS SAID THAT IN THE PEOPLE'S REPUBLIC OF CHINA ALL CHILDREN OF A MAN, ACKNOWLEDGED BY HIM, HAD EQUAL RIGHTS. ENGLAND TOO HAD SHOWN A SIMILARLY COMPASSIONATE ATTITUDE BY ELIMINATING MOST DISTINCTIONS BETWEEN LEGITIMATE AND ILLEGITIMATE CHILDREN AND ALLOWING PERSONS WHO HAD ACTUALLY BEEN DEPENDENT UPON A DECEASED TO MAKE A CLAIM FOR PROVISION FROM HIS ESTATE.

BUT HONG KONG, HE SAID, POSSIBLY INADVERTENTLY, HAD REDUCED THE STATUS OF ILLEGITIMATE CHILDREN SO THAT THEY HAD NO CLAIM UPON THE IR FATHER'S ESTATE AFTER HIS DEATH.

+A MAN MAY MAKE WHATEVER PROVISION HE WISHES FOR HIS CHILDREN, LEGITIMATE OR ILLEGITIMATE, BY WILL. WHILE THOSE WHO LIVE TO AN ADVANCED AGE AND DIE MAY TAKE THE PRECAUTION

OF PROVIDING FOR ALL THEIR CHILDREN BY WILL, IT IS AN UNFORTUNATE FACT THAT MANY PEOPLE DIE WITHOUT HAVING MADE A WILL TO PROVIDE FOR THE IR DEPENDANTS.

+ THE PRESENT STATE OF THE LAW CAN LEAD TO VERY GRAVE INJUSTICES. THERE HAVE BEEN RECENT EXAMPLES OF YOUNG MEN WHO HAVE FATHERED CHILDREN IN LONG TERM, STABLE RELATIONSHIPS, AND WHO HAVE BEEN KILLED IN ACCIDENTS. BECAUSE THEY WERE NOT MARRIED TO THE MOTHER OF THEIR CHILDREN AND HAD NOT MADE A WILL, THE CHILDREN WERE NOT ENTITLED TO SHARE IN PROPERTY AFTER DEATH, MR THOMAS SAID.

IT MIGHT BE ARGUED THAT, BECAUSE OF THE VIRTUES OF CHINESE COMMUNITIES, PROVISION WOULD BE MADE ON AN INFORMAL BASIS FOR ILLEGITIMATE CHILDREN ON THE DEATH OF THEIR FATHER, HE TOOK THE VIEW, HOWEVER, THAT THERE COULD BE NO HARM IN ENSURING THAT THE LAW ACCURATELY REFLECTED THE VIRTUOUS PRACTICES OF THE COMMUNITY.

/+THERE IS