16
but no one will ever come forward and actually sign his name to a complaint. I cannot believe that these numerous complaints have no justification, but it is impossible for the Government to take action unless we can obtain clear evi- dence. I would ask the Chinese mem- bers to ask the Chinese Chamber of Com- merce to report any such cases at once.
MILITARY LANDS.
The hon. member referred to the un- fortunate postponement or cancellation of the military lands arrangement. The Oakley award was merely a statement of the amount of money which was to be paid if certain lands in the occupation and possession of the military were taken from them. There was no obliga- tion upon us to take these lands and no obligation on the military to leave them. The only point Sir John Oakley was asked to decide was, in the event of taking the land from the military, what was a fair price to pay. If we do not take the land the question drops at
once.
PORT DEVELOPMENT.
The hon. member referred to the heavy cost of the Port Development Depart- ment. I think that the figures in the estimates do not quite indicate the exact facts of the case, because the heavy personal emoluments and other charges which amount to over $100,000 look high in comparison with the actual expendi- ture on port works of $605,000. I must point out that the work of the Depart- ment includes the whole of the Praya East reclamation. There is only a very small proportion of the Government con- tribution included in the estimates, and this would reduce the percentage of per- sonal emoluments on the expenditure of the department to a very low figure. Then you also have to take into account work in connection with the reclamation at North Point. I should strongly de- precate any suggestion of replacing this department under the Director of Public Works because it would not effect any economy. We are paying the Port En- gineer precisely the salary that we should pay him as an assistant Director of Public Works and the staff of clerks. and accountants would have to remain the same. I would remind hon. members. that the main reason for the establish- ment of this Port Development Depart- ment was not that we had any doubt of the ability of the Director of Public Works to construct any works on the earth or in the water but simply because his time is employed so much on other matters that we thought we were not taking full advantage of his experience and abilities if he was tied down to work which might be done by other people. By relieving the Director of Public Works of the Port Development Depart- ment it leaves him at liberty to take more direct control over other matters. I think it would be a retrograde step to abolish the Port Development De- partment.
FIRE BRIGADE. The Hon. Mr. Bird's remarks about the Fire Brigade have been dealt with by the Colonial Secretary. Mr. Bird said that if such and such was the case- I regret I did not take a full note of his remarks our views did not coin- cide. Well, I am afraid our views do not coincide. (Laughter.)
NEW TERRITORIES.
With regard to the question of farms in the New Territories I am not less pleased than surprised to hear that there are thousands of acres in the New Ter- ritories suitable for extensive cultiva-
412