E
. I have tried to investigage how much the idea of a British master and of other officers and orew being British subjects is part of the unalterable tenets of British registration and was told that from 1854 right down to 1919 there was no requirement at all of British nationality for the personnel of a British flag ship, not even for the master. The 1919 Act (Alien Restriction (Amendment) Aot), which has certain similarities to the Merchant Shipping (Aliens Employment) Ordiance of Hong Kong, restored the restrictions which had not applied in England for 65 years this was probably largely as a result of world. war I but even sŋ the 1919 Aot exempted ships which were employed habitually on voyages outside the United Kingdom a state of affairs applying to a great number of World-Wide ships.
5. Similar considerations apply to other aspects mentioned in your letter but in particular I suggest that approval of Japanese shipyard construction should be envisaged without the necessity of a Hong Kong representative specifically being in attendance during the period of construction. The problem we face in this respect is that in today's market the Japanese yards are reluctant to accept orders · because of the difficulties imposed by the British requirements. If any progress is going to be made some pre-arranged schedule of acceptability should be drawn up with reliance placed upon the surveillance of olassification surveyors ooupled with a final survey on delivery which in my opinion would suffice to guarantee adequate standards of seaworthiness safety, and orew comfort.
. I understand that it is not going to be an easy matter to find a solution whereby the Hong Kong flag is established as an autonomous flag with its own regulations fashioned to meet the particular giroumstances of Hong Kong and Hong Kong's ship owners but I feel it is something which should be strived for and it would be a laudable objective to come to an arrangement whereby H ng Kong ship owners would be governed by Hong Kong regulations rather than those of a foreign flag to whom they really have no allegiance but superficial attraction only for very practical reasons. The additional revenue which Hong Kong could thus secure would not be inoonsiderable. I know this is not an objective but might constitute an incidental inducement to find a satisfactory way.
7. I am confident that Hong Kong, having so many ship owners, would become a veritable maritime "power" who could then be a full member represented not only at the assemblies of the various international and regional bodies concerned with shipping but become an active participant in the planning and rule-shaping committees which decide on vital technical, coological, and commercial issues today.
Incidentally, Mr. Nigel tells me he mentioned to you on the telephone a few days ago that we in World-Wide would welcome any form of participation either in a consultative or advisory capacity to assist Hong Kong in its participation in intergovernmental maritime consultative organization and this offer I again repeat, hoping always that it may lead to Hong Kong's fuller participation. I understand that elsewhere it is quite common to have as members or co-opted members or as advisers to be various bodies and committees, representatives and experts who are staff members of shipping organisations such as ourselves. This we would readily co-operate in.
7. As a conservative estimate the amount of tonnage, irrespective of flag, which Hong Kong ship owners own and have on order at the moment is in the region of 6 million tons and it has been estimated by 1973 this will reach about 18 million tons of which World-Wide will represent about 7 milliỏn tons. The issues therefore go far beyond local considerations and due to their importance require the full support and collaboration of the industry and government.
No comments yet.
Private notes are available after approval.