12
73. I think that the doctrine of "laissez fairo" well describes what has been the attitude of the Government to the Harbour, and, taking everything into consideration, I am of opinion that, in the best interests of the community and of the Colony in its broadest sence as a source of supply of trade to the Empire at large, it is not desirable to allow matters to remain as they are.
74. The course (b) mentioned in paragraph 63, therefore, requires consideration, that is, whether some improved method of Government control could be devised. One way would be to form a special Government department for the purpose of controlling the Harbour, with possibly an outside Body to advise on Port matters. There are not many Ports in the British Empire run by the Government, in fact, I believe this is the case only in South Africa where the Government there own and control all the railways and harbours. A Minister of the Government is responsible and directly under him is a General Manager in charge of the railways and harbours. This system does not prove altogether satisfactory to the commercial community, although the Government of the country is on a democratic basis and members of the Legislature can air the grievances of their constituents. In Hong Kong there is no form of democratic Government, that being obviously impossible in the circumstances.
Control
of the Port, even by a special department of the Government of Hong Kong, would in effect be bureaucratic control, and that form of control is not highly regarded nowadays. It is feared that it would hardly make for pheapness.
75. In South Africa again, there is a Harbour Advisory Board at Such Boards can each Port, but this also does not give satisfaction. only express opinions and make recommendations without any guarantee that they will be carried out, and it is hardly within the capacity of human nature for a person to spend much time and thought on the problem of Port development with a fruitless result.
76. I therefore rule out direct Government control in the form
In this mentioned, even with the assistance of an Advisory Committee. connexion I would refer to the Advisory Board and Committee alluded to in paragraphs 11-15. It is interesting to note what has been done in Hong Kong in that way, for it clearly indicates, as it were, a groping in the dark for some solution of the Port problem. I can only remark that in some respects the constitution of the first Advisory Board seemed hardly a happy one. For instance, the appointment of a Government official in the person of the Harbour Master as the Chairman, could scarcely be expected to lead to the best results, and this not from any personal point of view, but from that of his office.
77.
There
There remains, therefore, course (c) to be considered, that is, whether some form of Port Authority or Trust would meet the case. is a wide-spread fear among the mercantile interests in the Colony that such a Body would inevitably increase the charges on vessels and goods, and this seems to be founded on the assumption that the creation of such a Body would mean the acquisition by that Body of all the piers and godowns and the operating of them by that Body. I must, however, point out that by no means is that necessarily so.
78. The misconception may perhaps have arisen from a statement made by Messrs. Coode, Fitzmaurice, Wilson & Mitchell, Consulting Engineers,
In their who were asked to advise on certain Port matters some time ago. Report dated 24th November, 1922, they spoke of the possibility of the "formation of a Port Trust which would take over existing wharves and manage the new wharves and those taken over", the inference which might be drawn being that the formation of a Port Trust would necessarily mean their taking over and managing all wharves, etc.