THE DOCK AND HARBOUR AUTHORITY
February, 1942
Port of Hong Kong-continued
Sir David Owen's Report having been brought to the notice of Mr. John Duncan, M.Inst.C.E., formerly Port Engineer of Hong Kong, the following interesting communication has been received from that gentleman. It will be recalled that Mr. Duncan's recommendations for the future development of the Port were published in the issues of this Journal for April and May, 1926:- To the Editor of The Dock and Harbour Authority"
Port of Hong Kong
It is indeed the irony of fate that whereas in 1924, the peak year of the colony's prosperity, I had the honour of advising the Government of Hong Kong on the commercial development of that great port; now in 1942, when that beautiful Colony with its excellent natural harbour, second to none, including even that of Sydney, after heroic resistance, has fallen to the Japanese, I feel impelled by the report of the late Sir David Owen to make comment on the same subject.
Conditions in 1924 and 1941
For many years prior to 1924 commercial interests had been clamouring for developments to meet more adequately and efficiently the needs of the Colony's growing trade. The problem was a difficult and complex one, not only because of the many competing, and in some cases conflicting, interests of peoples of different nationalities, but one further complicated by political considerations, of which-whilst the Government may be fully acquainted the man interested in his own commercial business may be quite unaware. The following remarks will serve to illustrate this point:---
I am fully acquainted of the fact that economic and political conditions in 1941 were vastly changed from those obtaining during a year or two prior to 1924, the peak year of the Colony's pros- perity. Advisedly, I use the word " prosperity" for, coincident with a record return in 1924 of shipping and goods tonnage enter- ing and leaving the Port, there was a tremendous boom in land values; and why? Because China, even at that late date, was still undergoing the process of regeneration caused by the overthrow of the Manchu regime in 1911 and, in consequence, internecine Coincident strife was rampant throughout the whole country.
with these unfortunate conditions, foreign political intrigue was active particularly in South China-exploiting China in its unfortunate state, but really directed against British interests in the Far East. That was during the presidency of the late Dr. Sun Yat Sen--but I must not dilate further on this theme, other- wise the Censor will intervene. Enquirers may well say: What has all this to do with engineering matters? Much; for the result was a great increase in the Colony's population seeking safety and security, many of whom would elect to remain permanently. There was such a flow of money into the Colony that the banks almost refused to accept it and when they did so, they paid little or no interest for it placed on deposit account. The result was a boom in land values, which, together with the increased population, affected very much the question of reclamation work and the provision of all public services, including such work connected with harbour development as ferry piers. It, therefore, behoved anyone dealing with the subject under review to give much consideration to the possible effect of political influences which may affect the problem. Fortunately, as it happens, I did so in 1924, for, as events subsequently proved, political influences had repercussions of a very unfortunate character in regard to
February, 1942
THE DOCK AND HARBOUR AUTHORITY
Port of Hong Kong-
the trade of the Port. I can now admit publicly that in 1924 I had secret information from Chinese sources-which proved to be well founded that a General Strike or boycott was planned for 1925, and, unfortunately for Hong Kong, it so happened. It was cunningly planned to take place just before Settlement Day in June of that year. Shipping was held up and commercial operations were not merely incommoded, but for some time practically suspended. Then the Colony received a setback, from which cause, followed by world-wide depression, the trade of the Colony has never recovered. In point of fact it has gone from bad to worse. Hence the reason why in 1924-to quote Professor Middleton Smith, M.Sc., M.I.Mech.E. (Taikoo Professor of En- gineering in the University of Hong Kong-now retired) who, in his article which appeared in the December, 1936 issue of The Dock and Harbour Authority, aptly and correctly interprets my advice I advised the Government to hurry slowly " with works recommended by me for the physical development of the harbour. Nevertheless, I have great hopes for the future pros- perity of Hong Kong. Given permanent peace and more equitable conditions of life, the problem under review-expurgated of such unfortunate political influences and provided goodwill and mutual trust exist between all concerned-will then be resolved into the simple one of control, economics and, so far as engineers are probably more interested, Physical Development. I agree with Professor Middleton Smith that "whatever the political future of Hong Kong may be, its geographical position and its wonderful harbour give it an almost unchallengeable future as the most important port in South China." Mr. Churchill in his address to both Houses of the Canadian Parliament on 30th December last, goes even farther when he describes it as "the greatest port of shipping in the whole world." It must and will always remain, at least, one of the largest ports in the world. We do not know what conditions exist in Hong Kong to-day. Even if we did, it would not avail us one iota for, if the Japanese should adopt the scorched-earth policy before they are driven out of Hong Kong, the whole matter, as your editorial comment says, may well call for fresh consideration at the close of hostilities and so, at the present time "the various proposals have little more than academic significance."'
The Report of 1924
I was unaware of the report presented by the late Sir David Owen last year. That report I have now read with much interest, but before proceeding to express my opinions on his recommenda- tions for administrative control and physical development, I must make an assumption and acquaint your readers with my recom- mendations in 1924, so that fair comparison may be made. There can then be frank and open discussion on the subject.
I cannot imagine for one moment that the Government would withhold from Sir David Owen any reports and recorded inform- action in its possession, relevant to the subject on which his advice was sought, so I am going to assume that he received a copy of the report which I presented to the Government in 1924.
One naturally refrains from drawing attention to any eulogistic comment on, or criticism of one's own work, but, having regard to the fact that no reference whatsoever has been made to that report, which, if I may say so, was comprehensive, based on years of experience in Hong Kong, intensive study, and exhaustive research, I may perhaps be pardoned, if, under the circumstances,. I first refer to one or two press comments on it.
On December 30th, 1924, editorial comment all much on the same lines--was made in: The China Mail, Hong Kong: The Hong Kong Daily Press; and The Hong Kong Telegraph; and at later dates in other newspapers in the Far East and elsewhere. This is what The China Mail said:—
"
+4
*
"Historic is the only term that can describe the report pre- sented by the Colony's Port Engineer, Mr. John Duncan, "M.Inst.C.E., on the commercial development of our "harbour. For historic it is in many ways. The Colonial Secretary said yesterday that a more interesting and im- portant document has seldom been laid before the Council. Sir Claude Severn could have gone further without over- stating the case. He could safely have said that the report may prove the most important document in the Colony's history, for, upon the commercial development of the harbour, as everyone knows, depends the future prosperity of the whole Colony. Other harbour reports there have "been in the past, but they have all been so much tinkering with the problem. Even the late Sir Maurice Fitzmaurice "dealt with only one aspect of the matter the providing of wharves to meet Kowloon's future needs as a railway terminus-which Mr. John Duncan's report, if it does not say so in as many words, shows to be the wrong angle from which to approach the problem, looking to the fact that the through railway from the North is not likely to be completed for many years and anyway the bulk of the colony's trade will always be waterborne..
16
In all fairness to the late Sir Maurice Fitzmaurice and his firm, then Messrs. Coode, Fitzmaurice, Wilson and Mitchell, Consulting Engineers to the Crown Agents for the Colonies, I would here
--continued
67
interpolate that the matters on which his firm's advice was sought in 1920 were:—
1. Improvements of the harbour generally.
2. The provision of wharves and warehouses provided with
railway communication.
3. Improvement of the Mongkoktsui Harbour of Refuge. 4. The question of dredging plant generally; the refitting of the dredger St. Enoch being considered in this connection. 5. The best means of providing facilities opposite Statue Square' for landing from, or embarking on launches and small craft generally. The consulting engineers adhered strictly to the terms of reference, which did not require them to deal with anything but In consequence, their report practically re- engineering issues. solved itself into one dealing with the provision of wharfage, by the construction in the bight of Hung Hom Bay of a reclamation of 48 acres from which were to project in a southerly direction a series of six jetties.
In the April and May, 1926, issues of The Dock and Harbour Authority a succint resume of my report was presented for the in- formation of your readers and in your editorial of the latter issue you refer to it as:-
*
a very lengthy document embodying the result of a great deal of painstaking research and containing a considerable "amount of valuable information on all phases of the
problem...
J.
It will perhaps be conceded that at least in some quarters, the information contained in that report was considered of some value. But, if Sir David Owen considered it of little or no value, I submit that he would have added more to the solution of the problem by adverse criticism, rather than by eschewing all refer- ence to it. In point of fact, he almost denies its existence, for, does he not say in paragraph 68:-
"It may further be noted that there does not seem to have "been much in the nature of planning for the future develop- "ment of the Port... .
That statement is quite incorrect, for, apart altogether from the plans prepared by my staff on my instructions, I might here ask: What about-
1. The plans of Jetties and Reclamation at Hung Hom Bay and of extensions to Mongkoktsui Breakwater prepared by Messrs. Coode and Co.
2. Plans of Wet Dock at Kowloon Point proposed by Captain W. Davidson, marine superintendent of the Canadian Pacific Railway Co.
3. Plans for Wharfage and Reclamation at North Point recommended by the late Mr. T. L. Perkins, C.M.G., Director of Public Works.
4. Plans of a Passenger Depôt at Victoria, proposed by Mr. Robert Sutherland, M.B.E., o/c Shipping Department of Messrs. Jardine, Matheson and Co.; and
5. Plans for the Development of the Harbour Front in General, recommended by The Hong Kong Town Plan- ning Committee.
I do however agree with Sir David Owen that there" has been no officially adopted plan of development."
I trust your readers will not interpret any criticism I have to make as being made in any captious or cavilling spirit, for such is far from my mind. I had a great interest in the development of the harbour of Hong Kong. If in any way I can assist to- wards the most satisfactory solution of the difficult problem under review, then I shall feel happy in having accomplished something. One regret we all have, is that Sir David Owen has passed away; and so we shall not have the benefit of such reply as he may have felt disposed to make on any of the conflicting opinions which, apparently, have been already expressed on his report.
Whereas the Government's instructions to me in 1924 were limited:-
to prepare and submit for the consideration of the Govern- "ment a complete scheme for the Development of the Port." I note that the terms of reference given to Sir David Owen were extremely wide; even to the extent of taking into account political conditions at a time when the Colony was threatened with war.
Nevertheless, and fortunately as it happens, I considered it my bounden duty to take into consideration all influences: political, economic, or physical, which, in my opinion, had any bearing whatsoever on the question of the future control and development of the Port.
Proposed Port Administration
For the information of your readers I would now draw their attention to the " Policy, Control, Management and Adminis- tration which I recommended should be adopted by the Govern-
ment.
"
"In my opinion, a properly-constituted Advisory Port Authority, Board, or Impartial Tribunal is the first need." (May I here draw attention to a printer's error in Professor Middleton Smith's article wherein he states that I was emphatic
71
Page 70Page 71