History must be replete with instances where the stated intentions of legislative actions have diverged from the actual effects. However, for two reasons it is difficult to demonstrate such variance empirically in actual case studies. For one thing, legislators often tend to express their intentions in such vague terms as “to improve welfare.” How can one measure by any commonly accepted criteria how well the observable effects attributable to a given piece of legislation fulfill such an intention? Second, before observed effects can even be attributed to a given enactment, it is imperative that implications be derived which can be confirmed or falsified by facts; and this, in turn, demands sufficient information on the relevant constraints.

The rent control in Hong Kong enacted under the Rents Ordinance of 1921 presents an exceptionally useful case. The legislative intents could not have been stated more clearly: rent control was imposed to keep a roof over the heads of the sitting tenants and to encourage the construction of new buildings on vacant lands. And although most of the records were destroyed by the Japanese occupation of the colony during World War II, adequate information is still available to allow derivation of some crucial implications of the control.

THE ARGUMENTS FOR THE RENTS ORDINANCE

“The object of the Bill is to protect the tenants, not landlords,” declared the Hon. J. H. Kemp, Attorney-General of Hong Kong, on July 18, 1921, in the second reading of the Rents Ordinance Bill which passed the same day.