94
HONG KONG LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL.
2. that the 2% on "past capital expenditure out of General Revenue" should now be used to build up a Renewals Fund.
The first "modification" is of course a mere correction of an accounting error; the second "modification", as I hope to show later in the course of my remarks, leaves entirely unanswered the objections raised against the original proposal. Although it is officially stated that "the proposals in the Financial Secretary's memorandum published last April have been considered in the light of the comments made on them by the District Watch Committee, the Chinese Chamber of Commerce and other bodies and in the Press", the truth of the matter is that all the "comments"-at all events by the District Watch Committee and the Chinese Chamber of Commerce have been entirely ignored by Government.
In setting out our objections to some of these proposals I deal first with a minor point, namely the relative rates as affecting the various localities concerned.
On the abolition of free allowance, the present charges, the new charges, and the difference between them, for the different localities, are as follows:-
Present Charges.
New Charges. Difference.
Peak
$1 less 15% - 85
cts.
45 cts.
40 cts.
Rest of the Colony 50 cts.
Upper Levels
15
422 cts.
25 cts.
50 cts.
>>
422 cts.
35 cts.
171⁄2 cts.
7% cts.
It will be seen that by giving up all free allowance, the Peak charges, as compared with the existing charges, are to be reduced by 40 cents per thousand gallons, the rest of the Colony by 17% cents, and the Upper Levels by 72 cents only! On the face of it I cannot see how these new charges can be fair if the old relative rates were not inequitable. I do not say that the Peak charges are not high enough: I suggest that the rates for the rest of the Colony are not low enough, and I do say that the modifications of the relative rates are inequitable. I understand that the official answer is that the old charges of $1.00 for the Peak, and 50 cents for the Upper Levels, less 15%, mean nothing in practice because consumers in these districts are, as a whole, always within their free allowance and so never had to pay any excess charges. But I fail to see how the assumption that the Peak and Upper Level residents do not exceed their free allowance can affect the point of my criticism, since the old rates were rates which they would have to pay if they did exceed the free allowance. But though in this, as in so many other matters regarding the question of water supply, the public is totally in the dark as regards figures supporting this contention I, for one, cannot accept this assumption. The Economic Commission's Report stated that in 1933 it was estimated
10
Page 10Page 11