ed.
Reforl
1. hope, report by bis davis Owen
вори
This report has the merits of brevity and succinctness. The recommendations are set out in brief on pages 43 to 48 with cross references to the appropriate paragraphs of the main report. It is therefore hardly necessary to recapitulate Sir David Owen's points.
Briefly however it will be seen that he considers that the prosperity of Hong Kong is so closely bound up with the fortunes of the Harbour that with the possibility of rivals competing for the entrepôt trade, the work of harbour administration and development is too vital to be left as in the past to private enterprise working within facilities provided under the aegis of more than one Government Department, whose executive controls are not formally co-ordinated. He also is not in favour of increasing Government control by setting up a specific Harbour Department even with an advisory committee of unofficials. view partly based on experience elsewhere, is, I think, sound. A clash between officials and the business community under such an arrangement would be far from unlikely and the general good suffer accordingly. His point about the discouraging effect of serving on an advisory committee without executive power is also a strong one. He concludes accordingly that the solution of the problem lies in the formation of a Hong Kong Harbour Trust with powers of" control" but not "operation" over the port. The
This
i proposed composition of the Trust, allowing for the Governor's
veto, gives the Government an adequate control of the Trust but I doubt whether the Government could or would be prepared to allow the Navy to have one oot of the three officialsets. Sir David Owen has I think, slipped into the error of grouping all "officials" together but there may well be occasions in which Naval and Colonial interests clash and I should have preferred a minimum of 3 seats for the Hong Kong Government officials and an extra seat for the Navy. One other point in his proposals may lead to difficulties viz that the pier leases expiring in 1949 should be renewed for ten or twenty years. I doubt whether the present leaseholders could be expected to accept such a proposal at all willingly after the controversy with the Chamber of Commerce over the renewal of the 75 year leases in the Peak and Kowloon. However this other suggestion that leaseholders should not be allowed to sub-let, while leading to some protests from certain holders should be accepted.
Other suggestions which strike me as likely to lead to difficulties are (1) the removal of the Royal Naval Depot from the east side of the Kowloon Peninsular to make way for new piers north of the Hong Kong and Kowloon Wharf and Godown Company's present piers and the taking over of the Military lands south of Austin Road to allow of railway connexions or sidings for these new docks. However nothing can obviously be done about these proposals either as far as the services or the civil Government are concerned so long as the war lasts and the position may be clearer when hostilities are over.
(2)
The transfer of ship building yards from Cheung Sha Wan to Yau Tong Wan, which would involve a lengthy transfer of labour force etcwould also set the yards with their junk traffic very near the main steamer track through the Lye Mun Pass. It also involves a longer haul and one through the Main Harbour for the junk and barge traffic bringing timber for the yards from the Pearl River area.
(3)
The proposed removal of the Air Port from Kai Tak to the "New Territories" (sic) presumably to the flatter land near the frontier. This means a reversal of the accepted policy which is
far