frequently reviewed with a view to their
release as soon as the security situation
permits.
You suggest in your letter that "if the
processes of law could be used to better
advantage, our image would probably be improved.
Take in slipp T
ship]
You may well be right insofar as a very limited
section of the community is concerned; but
recent comment in most independent Chinese
newspapers in Hong Kong indicates that such a
*
view is not shared by the general public in
the Colony (whose interests are, after all,
those primarily involved) and that "the
emergency regulations had not caused any
inconvenience to law abiding people in Hong
Kong. The regulations ... should continue to
be enforced until all threats to the Colony's
security were removed".
Flag
ray bansang led
Contheytany
B
In his letter to you of 31st December
between
Mr. Litton draws a comparison with the procedures det ant and the Emerency andin Regulation 31 of the Primaqul & Emergency (Deportation and Detention) Regulations but those
The former
regulations are designed to deal with quite a
different set of circumstances. ✓ For one thing,
They are not intended to meet the same
requirements of urgency and speed which are
in
essential characteristics of ja situation such
posed
eventi
as that caused by the evidence of 1967. Again,
in the particular circumstances of Hong Kong,
deportation is nearly always an impracticable
solution for dealing with aliens (where
Chinese are concerned). For this reason, the
Deportation and Detention Regulations do not
have the same purpose of dealing with an ad hoc
situation as do the Emergency (Principal)
Regulations. For the same reason, it seems
Regulations
They relate only
A
to alieve whore deportation has proved impracticable,
and cannot be appled to persons who possess or can daim British status
NOTHING TO BE WRITTEN IN THIS
*
No comments yet.
Private notes are available after approval.