220
44
HONGKONG LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL
before us carried.
at the last meeting will be
How. MR. HEWETT-Your Excellency, as I spoke on this question at the last meet ing, I have very few words to add to what I said last week. The only valid reason so far as I can understand, and to my mind it is not convincing, which induced my hon. and learned friend the senior unofficial member to speak against the proposed tariff has now fallen to the ground, because, as he explained, I misunderstood what he said. The hon. and learned member has gone very carefully into statistics and into the increas- ed proportion of taxation per head of the Chinese as oppose to the European. I do not propose to follow him into the figures, because statistics can be twisted round, and we all know that. The point I made last week, and which I reiterate, is: Is the taxa tion unfair to the poorer classes of Chinese as opposed to the poorer classes of the Eur opean? The taxation on beer is 24 cents per gallon. Beer is imported either in bottle or in wood, and it is drunk in the same condition as it is imported. It is not watered down at all, and contains, ronghly, 6 per cent, of alcohol. But the increased taxation which the Government now pro- poses on the lowest grades of Chinese liquor is based on its alcoholic strength of 25 per We know cent., going up to 55 per cent. perfectly well that Chinese do not drink their liquor at that strength. At the very most it is 15 or 17 per cent., and that is probably very exceptional. The lower classes will water their liquor down and probably drink it at a much lower strength. The proportion of increase therefore in the taxation now proposed is not as inequitable as the hon. and learned member wishes us to believe. When the original tariff was drawn up two years ago this was entirely a new departure, and neither the Government nor any one here knew exactly what the effect of the regulations would be. We estimated that it would bring in more re- venue that it has done. However, that is no argument. On the new departure a cer- tain scale was adopted as being compara-Chinese wines in 1910 came from Clase A tively equitable. Two years have passed since then and the Government by very carefully watching the whole of the trade has drawn up a new tariff which is objected to by the senior unofficial mem- bers. I trust that the objection begins and end with those hon. gentlemen. It appears to me after the Government's care in drawing liquor containing less than 40 per cent. ing up that new scale that the tariff put of proof spirit (with the exception of ale,
THE COLONIAL SECRETARY--Sir, I regret to state that the Government is unable to accept the resolution proposed and second- ed by my hon. friends who represent the Chinese Community in this Council. In 1910 the actual duty-paid figures for the two classes of liquor to which this resolution relates were as follows:-Class A (25 per cent. of alcohol), Imported, 1,020,047 gallons; Locally distilled, 529,817 gallons; a total of 1,549,864 gallons, upon which Class B (35 $282,479 were paid in duty, per cent. of alcohol), Imported, 10,670 gallons; Locally distilled, 2,260 gallons; total, 12,930 gallons, upon which $2,586 were paid in duty. If my hon. friend's resolution were adopted, then (supposing the number of gallons to remain constant) Mr. Tratman estimates that we should get from these classes only $78,000 per annma, or $62,000 as from the 16th instant; and, as the result, total additional revenue due to the revised tariff would in 1911 be $122,000. instead of $286,000. That is to say, the Government would lose $114,000. We are not in a position, Sir, to forego so large a sum of revenue. Perhaps the Chinese mem- bers of Council do not realise the enormous preponderance of the liquors in Class A over other Chinese liquors consumed and paying duty in the Colony, and they may have been misled by the huge shipments of Mui Kwai Lo, Sz Kwok Kung and of all the wines in Class C which arrive bere from Tientsiu and other Northern Ports. But, as a fact, these strong spirits are for the most part re-export. ed. Thus, taking round numbers, in 1910 there were 414,000 gallons of such liquor re-exported as against 29,000 gallons con- sumed locally, whereas of Class A only 300,000 gallons were re-exported as against 1,550,000 gallons which paid duty in Hong koug. It must be borne in mind that no less than 20 per cent. of the revenue from
and that therefore no substantial increase of revenue can be attained without increas ing the duty on this class. A comparison with the Singapore tariff shows that the Chinese in Hongkong get off very lightly by contrast with their friends in the Summits Settlements. At Singapore on all intoxicat
45
HONGKONG LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL
HIS EXCELLENCY Gentlemen, -~ When I spoke at our last meeting on the subject of the proposed new liquor duties I ventured the opinion, subject to correction, that whereas beer and stout form part of the meal of a large class of the European community native wines and spirits do not form part of the meal of the corresponding class of Chinese. I was corrected, and I accepted the correction of the hon. and learned member on my right (Dr. Ho Kai), but, as has been pointed out by the two last speakers, the strength of samshu is very much greater than that of beer and stout. I want to make this point, at the risk of repetition, as clear as I can, since it has weighed very considerably with myself. The poorer class of the European com- munity cannot afford as a rule to drink spirits with their meals. If they do they water them down very considerably. If Chinese drink samshu at the alcoholic strength at which it is taxed per gallon they will be drinking a liquor much stronger and more expensive than is drunk by the corresponding class of Europeans.
beer, stout, porter, cider and perry) a minimum duty of $1.00 per gallon is pay- able; and upon inquiry from the Colonial Secretary of the Straits Settlements in last December this Government was informed that in the Straits "there is no distinction as regards liability to duty between Chinese and other wine." "Ale, beer, stout, porter, eider and perry pay in the Straits the same duty as in Hongkong, viz., 24 cents per gallon. It should also be noted, as was pointed out by the hon. member for the Chamber of Commerce, that beer has only to of the alcoholic strength of the liquors in Class A, and that it is therefore mislead- ing to institute a comparison between Class A and the class of European liquors which is charged a duty of of 24 cents per gallou. As regards the in idence of the liquor duties, the following figures, which have been worked out by Mr. Traiman, may be of interest to the Council. In 1910 (omitting the Arary and Navy from the population and the rebates granted to them from the revenue) it appears that 13,000non-Chinese contributed $122,859 in liquor duties, or $9.41 per head, whereas 328,000 Chinese contributed $257,981 only, or $0.80 per head. Thus, in 1910 the non- Chinese population paid from 11 to 12 times per head more than the Chinese. For 1911 the Army and Navy and the duty paid by them must be included in the figures.
The population is, therefore, 323,000 Chinese as before, while the non- Chinese population becomes 18,000 instead of 18,000. The anticipated increases in 1911 owing to the new tariff (from revised figures supplied by Mr Tratman) are $37,000 On European and $199,000 on native liquor, Thus, 18,000 non-Chinese are to contribute $87,000 extra, or $2.05 por head, whereas 823,000 Chinese will contribute $199,000 extra, or $0.61 per head. Each non-Chinese has, therefore, to contribute about three times as much as each Chinese to the extra Council that one of the main reasons which Finally, I would remind the compelled this Government to impose liquor duties was the decrease in our opium re- venue. The entire opium revenue was paid by the Chinese community, and I think, therefore, that the representatives of that community have little cause to complain of an increase in the liquor tax which falls upon the non-Chinese community thrice as heavily as upon our Chinese fellow-citizens. (Applause.)
révenue.
The whole system of taxation is based on alcoholic strength. If the Chinese drink at the same strength as beer and stout they will pay only 10 cents per gallon as against 24 cents on beer and stout. Whether or not the Chinese of the lower classes do water down their samshu to that alcoholic strength I am unable to say. But what I do wish to emphasise is that if they cannot afford 30 cents duty per gallon, they can water down their samahu to the sano alcoholic strength as beer and stout and drink it then at a duty of ten cents per gallou. It appears to me therefore that samshu has been let off too lightly in the past, as was suggested by the senior uu- official member (Dr. Ho Kai). The hou. member quoted figures regarding the pro- portion of the tax paid by Europeans and by Chinese,
Those statistics have been dealt with by the hon. Colonial Secretary, and I have little to add, except to note once more that these revised figures bear out my general statement that the Chinese pay only about one-fifth as much as non-Chinese do of the increased duties. They are twenty- fives times as numerous as the other races here and they pay $250,000 of the increased duties. The proportion therefore on Eur- opean and other races would be $10,000,