TNAG-1858-FCO40-2633-Legislative-Council-of-Hong-Kong-memoranda-and-minutes-of-me-1989 — Page 134

19 July 1989

-一九八九年七月十九日

21

HONG KONG LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL ———

香港立法局

borrowing for the account of the Exchange Fund. The word "on" towards the end of section 3(3) (underlined above), however, had caused confusion and led to the argument that the borrowing limit in section 3(4) applied when the Financial Secretary "borrowed" from the General Revenue for the account of the Exchange Fund.

This argument has now been refuted because it has been determined that when money is transferred from the General Revenue Account to the account of the Exchange Fund, Government is merely transferring its assets from one of its accounts to another on the basis that the Financial Secretary will arrange for those assets to be returned to the General Revenue when required, and will account to the General Revenue for the interest payable whilst the assets are credited to the Exchange Fund.

Government as one legal entity cannot lend to itself. Since neither the Exchange Fund nor General Revenue has separate legal persona, it is not correct legally to consider a transfer from the General Revenue Account to the account of the Exchange Fund in terms of a lending/borrowing transaction. This view was further confirmed when research revealed that the word "on" was likely to have been a typographical error that crept in when the Ordinance was revised in 1951, and that the correct word should be "of". Section 3(3), therefore, should have read "may borrow ..... on the security of the general revenue". In any case, even with the use of the word "on", the legal advice we have received is that it should be interpreted as "of" in the context of section 3(3) of the Exchange Fund Ordinance.

Since a change to the borrowing limit can only be introduced with the approval of the Secretary of State, the matter has been brought to his attention. Formal acceptance of the correct interpretation surrounding the borrowing limit has already been obtained from the Secretary of State.

Lawyers' proficiency in both official languages

5. MR. PETER WONG asked: In view of the present requirement to enact all new legislation in bilingual form, will the Government inform this Council what steps are being taken to ensure Hong Kong lawyers' proficiency in both languages?

ATTORNEY GENERAL: Sir, from 7 April 1989 and in accordance with the requirements of the Official Languages Ordinance, all new principal Ordinances,

}