which the covering Savingram itself says with the proposed amendments, it is difficult to conceive of circumstances in which it might be of actual practical value in view of the diffi- culties of enforcement which would involve the arrest and prosecution of large numbers of striking workmen".
7. This piece of repressive legislation should also be seen in the context of the efforts which have been made since the troubles of 1967 to improve labour legislation and industrial relations in Hong Kong, the policy stemming from the Minister of State's personal intervention. Great improve- ments have been and are being made and it would I think be no service to Hong Kong to encourage them to enact this quite useless piece of legislation which would be bound to be a centre of controversy, both here and in Hong Kong at a time when the efforts of the past two years have immeasurably improved the industrial image of the Colony.
(G. Foggon)
Overseas Labour Adviser
20 January, 1969.
Mr. Aust is away sick.
I have therefore looked at the points raised in paragraph 5 of Mr. Fogon's minute of 20th January.
2. I agree that, in view of the proviso to Section 3 (5) of the Ordinance, it is difficult to see what effect the insertion of the words "take part in" in that subsection can have, at any rate in relation to a strike as opposed to a lock-out.
3. I think that under the proposed new Section 3 A, there must be a strike which has already started before the Governor in Council can declare it to be illegal. If it is desired that the Governor in Council should be able to declare that threatened strikes will be illegal, it seems to me that the new section will need alteration.
4. As I understand the proposals, a strike may be illegal because it is declared to be illegal by Governor in Council under the new Section 3 A or because, though not so declared, it is nevertheless illegal because it falls within.the terms of Section 3 (1) of the Ordinance. Where acts are done inciting or instigating a strike before the strike is declared by a Governor in Council to be illegal I agree that it would not be sufficient for the purposes of a prosecution in respect of those acts merely to show that the Governor in Council had subsequently declared the strike illegal. But I think that if it were possible to show that the strike was illegal under Section 3 (1) at the time the acts instigating or inciting it were done, the prosecution would succeed.
Room 44/5, FCO Downing Street (West)
Main B, Ext. 1154.
Defenda Smil
(D. G. Gordon-Smith) 21 January, 1969
No comments yet.
Private notes are available after approval.