"
104
means.
HONGKONG LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL
the attenuated resources, and if a fair com- parison of the respective burdens is made between ourselves and those resident at Home it will be seen that we pay nearly four times the taxes in proportion to our The second heading which I take is the cost of Defence of Trade and Property. Statistics show that in 1909 £60,000,000 was spent in the United Kingdom on Defence, including the expenditure on the Navy-and it is important to remember that the money spent on the Navy is not omitted from the calculation. The trade of Great Britain-imports less re-exports and exports amounted to £1,000,000,000 ster-
that full share amounts to. I have thus shown, Sir, that we are already much more heavily taxed in proportion to our means I have than those resident at Home. further shown that the Contribution for defence properly leviable for the Colony should not exceed $974,000, and as I do not | believe that the Secretary of State is deaf to reason I beg your Excellency to place the views which I have expressed before him in order that a re-adjustinent of the Contribu- tion may be made and the much needed relief obtained. (Applause.)
These
HON. MR. POLLOCK-Your Excellency, ling. This added to the value of property I rise to second the motion, and I think increases the figure to £51,000,000,000 | that the figures which have just been laid sterling. Local statistics are non-existent, before us by my hon. friend are of a very but the trade of Hongkong can be arrive at striking character, for they show that romi- by making an analysis of the total exports pared with our individual ability as taxpayers and imports of China herself, which in 1909 to pay we are more heavily taxed in this amounted to £98,600,000 sterling. The Colony for defensive purposes than are the proportion of those imports and exports inhabitants of the United Kingdom. In from and to Great Britain, Hongkong, truth, Sir, the present system of assessing India and all other British territories are set our military contribution is hopelessly down in statistical tables at 51 per cent. of illogical, for it is based upon the fallacy the whole, or £50,000,000 sterling, and this that the more revenue we raise to meet the added to the value of privately-owned pro- expandling needs of this Colony the more perty increases the figure to £75,000,000, prosperous we must be and the better able which represents the value to be defended. to bear a large amount of military contribu- This compared with £51,000,000,000 shows tion. Sir, as a striking instance of the our proper proportion for Defence under absurdity of such a theory I will refer to this head to be in the neighbourhood of the duties ou imported liquors. £88,000 per annum, or, speaking in the duties were imposed for the first time in currency of the Colony, $974,000, which is September, 1909, and constituted an entirely considerably less than we are paying at novel form of taxation. These were increas present. I submit that the argument, ed at various times subsequent to that date, although apparently in favour of a Con- and on March 16th this year a resolution tribution of 8974,000 a year, is stretching was passed by this Council increasing them the point to its utmost limit, in so far as to a very considerable extent. Now, Sir, the so-called trade of the Colony, broadly the astonishing circumstance is this, that speaking, although reckoned as a living trade, while we are obliged to pay this heavy is only a transit one, and properly speaking, taxation upon our drinks we are compelled only a small portion should be brought into also to give 20 per cent. of that taxation to the calculation. more particularly as the the military contribution upon the unsound figure taken covers a great variety of in- theory that we are able to pay a larger terests which merely pass through the contribution, whereas the contrary is mani- harbour en route for destination and are festly the case. Let me pass on now to I believe it is never landed or handled here. I appeal for a consider another point. reduction only on the grounds of equity. I sometimes argued that because we do not would be the last to hold that we should try pay in this Colony the entire cost of our to evade payment of our fair proportion of the garrison it must necessarily follow that the uecessary expenditure for imperial require amount which we pay for military contribu- ments. On the contrary, being part of the tion cannot be considered an unreasonable Great Empire of which we are so justly amount. Sir, such a contention has at all proud, we are glad to pay our fullest share, events the charm of novelty, for the Secret- and my endeavour has been to show what' ary of State in his dispatch dated 20th
་
WE
HONGKONG LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL
February, 1890, stated that the Colony would then be called upon to pay one- seventh of the then cost of this garrison, namely, £40,000 out of £280,000 annually. That assessment of £40,000 was based up- on a garrison of 2,525 troops. That force, Sir, has been considerably increased, and I believe now stands at somewhere about 4.400. But, Sir, the amount which we are paying as a contribution in this Colony bus increased during these twenty years out of all proportion to the increase in the number of the garrison. Whereas twenty years ago were paying in sterling £40,000 per anuuma we paid last year, notwithstanding the enormous drop in exchange which has taken place within the past twenty years, no less a sum in sterling than roughly £110,000. If we look at it from a dollar point of view the result is even more strik ing, for we shall find that we paid last year five times as much in dollars as we did twenty years ago. Moreover, since the present system of reckoning the contribution came into force in the beginning of 1901 our payments have gone up in an astonish ing degree. Whereas in 1901 we paid eight and a half lakhs for military contribution, we paid last year 14 lakhs of dollars is military contribution. Sir, the unofficial members of this Council yield to no one in their devotion to the Empire, but we are the trustees for the ratepayers of this Colony, and there are extensive public works clamouring to he executed, amongst which I may mention in particular the con struction of the new typhoon refuge, which is estimated to cost two million dollars, and the extension of the water works at Tyam, which, I believe, is estimated to cost roughly three million dollars. Besides that, Sir, we have a heavy payment to make annually on account of the railway. I submit that it is imperative that these works should be pushed on with all speed and that they should not be delayed or hampered by reason of other schemes coming forward requiring large sums of money to be speut upon them. With regard to the typhoon refuge in particular, I would submit that it is imperative that it should be pushed on in order to complete the work by the contract date. Sir, thero has already been too much delay in this matter. On referring to the pages of Hansard for 1906, I find that on 1st November of that year I addressed the following question to the Government:
· 105
"When does the Government intend to commence work on the construction of a new harbour of refuge?" To that the Director of Public Works replied: "As soon as the necessary plans and estimates can be prepared." That. Sir, was over four years ago, and it is only within the last few months that the work on this refuge has been commenced. Sir, a junk- mau or a sampanman or a cargo-boatman may not be a very heroic figure, but in au important shipping port like this he is a very important factor, and I think that it will be a disgrace to this Colony if through any cause the completion of this harbour of refuge is postponed beyond the contract date. 1 think there is reason to fear from our experience in the past that if this military contribution is continued at the present rate the claims of other works to he accomplished will be pushed in and this work will be postponed. Sir, it may be said that I am anticipating evil needlessly in suggesting the possibility of postponé- ment, but when one considers the new law courts, which have become ok before they are new, and when one considers the fact that under the original contract the law conta were to be finished in the year 1906, I think, Sir, I have shown sufficient grounds for healthy scepticism. The unofficial mem- bers of this Council are unanimously in favour of this resolution, and they desire a division to be taken. We are not seeking for any favour or grace. We are simply asking in the interests of the ratepayers for what is fair and just. (Appause.)
1
THE DIRECTOR OF PUBLIC WORKS May I rise to correct one or two state- ments made by my hon. friend on any left? He stated first of all that work on the typhoon refuge had only begun a few months ago.
It is true that the coutract
for the construction of the breakwater was let only some six months ago, but I would remind him that the preliminary dredging was begun more than two years ago. In the matter of the law courts, he stated that the contract was due for completion in 1906. The contract to which he refers did not in- clude a considerable amount of work that was necessary to complete the law courts. It included merely structural work, such as masoury, roofing, &c. and did not include the finishings and fittings for the building. These formed the subject of a later contract.
58
uly