PUBLIC RECORD OFFICE
Reference :-
TLC.O. 882
للسائلينا
124
was an example of the most rapid and extraordinary conversion of opinion, which led one to doubt its wisdom and sincerity. During the negotiations that had preceded this Bill they found that the Secretary of State himself was opposed to any Government interference by assistance and control in the affairs of the Dock Company. Mr. Taylor, when administering the Government, in suggesting the appointment of two Government directors assured the directors who met him that he was not in favour of Port Trusts or Government control of commercial undertakings. Sir Frank Swettenham, they learned, till recently held similar views; whereas His Excellency himself on the 15th of June considered such a proposal "im- practicable and undesirable in the interests of the Port even if it were practicable.' This Bill presented a complete reversion of the opinions of the principal advisers to the Crown in this matter, and he was led to ask what was it that had effected this so suddenly and so completely. The objections which, as His Excellency had expressed it, rendered the step." undesirable in the interests, of the port even if it were practicable" existed to-day with just the same force as six months ago, and he ventured to think even more so. No fresh circumstances had arisen to render expropriation more desirable to-day than before. On the contrary, the Company after a long period of travail was about to bring forth a large and effective scheme for the improvement of their property and the benefit of the public interests involved. This at any rate had been delayed by the Government's action at a time when delay was of increasing importance. Had they all the cards on the table? Were they to believe that the reasons detailed in the Secretary of State's despatch were the only ones, or even the principal ones that led to this Bill? Or were they having laid upon their shoulders in the guise of a public benefit another burden in the shape of a Naval Contribution? Was it in order to get the Colony to undertake the formation of a large Admiralty Dock, which for commercial purposes must be a white elephant for many years, that the whole of Tanjong Pagar was to be bought up? But what were the reasons given by the Secretary of State? Apparently the prospect of the Company becoming too powerful had alarmed the Government. He wondered since when the Secretary of State woke up to this risk, or had this spectre haunted the minds of previous Governors? Was this why Sir Alex. Swettenham refused to confirm the grant of what was known as the submerged lease for a longer period than one year-as if anyone would put down important extensions on such a tenure? Had it been on account of this fear that the Company had in 1903 so much trouble in getting its foreshore straightened to allow of its new proposals being carried into effect? It was to remove this feeling of jealousy and in order to get into closer touch with the Government that the Company welcomed the proposal to place two Govern- ment nominees upon the Board. The Secretary of State proceeded to criticise the management of the Company and to repeat the threadbare statement that its affairs had been conducted without due regard to the public interests, and he referred to what he called the "powerful indictment" of the late chairman of the Company, whose place at that table he temporarily occupied. Ile did not willingly in that position refer to that extraordinary speech, but as the proposed expropriation appeared from the despatch to be the outcome of it, he felt com- pelled to make some remarks upon it. The withdrawal in the natural course of events of the early shareholders to Europe led in 1883 to the establishment of the London Committee. But it had always been the policy of the Company to have represented on its Board not only the share- holders but in a much larger proportion those interests which used its docks and wharves. Now, the Secretary of State in paragraph 5 said that the London Consulting Committee in addition to the "powers conferred by the Articles of Association is able to exercise a paramount influence over the Board from the fact that it represents a great majority of the share capital." He saw nothing to quarrel with in this. It was the custom and it was desirable that Boards should be representative of their shareholders. It was further a point on which the Secretary of State was himself very strong in regard to the share holding of the Government. The Secretary of State went on to say that "its members are senior partners in firms whose junior members are members of the local Board." He would ask the Council to consider the constitu- tion of the Board. The London shareholders' interest was represented by 3 directors out of a total of 8 or 9. They could be and, until the late chairman resigned, were constantly overruled. The Board had been quite well able to take care of themselves and it was ridiculous to seek to relieve them of any responsibility in the conduct of the Company's affairs. Every suggestion for progress made by them had been adopted. There had been no desire to thwart them in any way, the pressure for improvement and extension had originated from the Committee. The restrictions imposed upon them by the Articles of Association were for the protection of the shareholders, and naturally 80 when the shareholders' representatives on the Board were so small, nor in the light of recent events could it be said the restriction was unnecessary. What had been the policy of the Company? He did not deny that the present backward condition of the property was due to want of foresight 10 or 15 years ago. But were they peculiar in that respect? He could not see many establish- ments in this Colony that were up to date. Nor could the Government congratulate themselves on being better than private establishments in keeping pace with the remarkable growth of the town and port. They had only within the last few years put their hospitals in order. Their quarantine station improvements were even more recent. Was the police stronger and more efficient than it was 10 years ago? Was the education of the Colony what it should be? His Excellency himself and the Colonial Secretary came from a land where the value of education was known, and where it was cheap. Other members of the Council had come from Colonies where it was much more advanced than it was here, though we had the noble example of. Sir Stamford Raffles. The state of education in this Colony reflected very little credit on the Government. The honourable Colonial Engineer a few years ago attacked the Tanjong Pagar Dock Company but the Public Works Department over which he presided had for some time been undermanned and underpaid and did not occupy the position it ought to even now in a Colony of this size. The Municipality lay under the wing of the Government and was to-day discussing schemes of sanitation introduced 10 or 12 years ago and was still in perplexity about its water
125
supply What assurance had the Government to give the public that when they bought up the Dock Company they would be able to conduct or supervise the affairs of the port more ably or more comprehensively than their own? He viewed the transfer with the greatest apprehen- sion, Not that he doubted His Excellency's will or ability, for in many matters since His Excellency came to them a new era had appeared to dawn, and, indeed, the Company rejoiced to think that man had come at last who understood their difficulties and their needs and with whom they could work in cordial co-operation. But this was a shifting population and with many changes of persons came many changes of opinion, and Governments moved slowly. Indeed, it was only when some great and pressing need came on them or the threat of some great danger, that they moved at all. Now, the London Committee were in a different position. They were always with them-like the poor. Representing as many of them did not only shares but also shipping interests, they were the first to feel the pinch, the first to raise the howl. And so in 1899 and 1900 when the Boxer troubles brought out warships and troopers from every nation in Europe and the facilities of the Company broke down under that incursion they awoke to the urgent necessity of putting their house in order. One of the first steps taken was to send out Mr. Mainsty to report on extensions necessary to meet the increasing trade. His report did not find favour either from the Board in Singapore or from the Committee in London, and judging from the report of the present engineers, which had been approved by the Secretary of State and accepted by the Company, events had amply justified the decision then arrived at. Then followed proposals to dig out the lagoons behind the wharves, but these were referred back to the Board because the Committee declined to sanction any further temporary wooden structures --a reason His Excellency would certainly preciate and had himself referred to in the First Reading debate. It was at this juncture the appointed the late Mr. Rutherford, followed a year later by the appointment of Mr. Nicholson. The schemes put forward by him were first adopted by the Board and he went home at the Committee's request to consider them with Mr. Matthews, with a view to obtaining Government co-operation. He submitted that the Company had not been slow to make good its deficiencies. It was deplorable but not uncommon that when great changes had to be made great friction and heartburnings should be caused. That was the secret of the recent disputings; both sides striving for the same end in different ways feeling strongly and seeing only opposition in the other's actions. One had to give way and the late chairman retired on the ground that Mr. Nicholson's report should be made public. He was overruled on the ground that it was premature to publish it till a financial scheme for carrying it out had been prepared. Since then matters had gone forward far more smoothly and rapidly. Schemes had been prepared for finding the money, powers had been taken to borrow, financial houses had promised to provide the wherewithal. It was at this moment the Government chose to step in and raise up the bogies and misstatements of the past and to stop their plans. This was not progress. By this time they would have been considering the tenders, and in six months the works might have been started. When could they be started now? The Company and the Government and the new Board would have their minds and their time fully occupied by the terms and the details of transfer for some time to come.
Much capital had been made of the desire to maintain a 12 per cent. dividend. It was obvious that any reduction of this must reduce the borrowing power of the Company. To have reduced it on the top of going to the public for large subscriptions to new capital would have been an act of suicidal folly. There seemed to him to have been no need for fear of any reduction. The Company divided to its shareholders just about one-third of its profits. The other two-thirds had gone back into the business. Since 1st January, 1900, to 30th June, 1904-four and a half years the Company had spent in upkeep of wharves, godowns, coolie lines, house property, roads and machine shops $941,664. Its net profits over and above had been $6,138,000, of which it had spent on capital account for extension of wharves, godowns, coal sheds, docks and machine shops, purchase of land, tugs, launches, steel lighters, barges, roads, railways, &c., $4,006,490, dividing as dividend $2,072,000. He claimed that that was a record to be proud of. It dispelled the false idea which had been circulated that the shareholders had been bleeding the trade of the port, and he ventured to think it compared very favourably with what Government had done to relieve the congestion of traffic on the Singapore River-a congestion of much longer standing than any at Tanjong Pagar. He should have thought the Secretary of State would have made himself acquainted with the figures before he emphasised this point, but there were other matters on which he had been mistaken and which had led to this Bill. In paragraph 9 he stated in criticising the Company's offer that the 10,000 shares that would be held by the two Governments would confer a voting power of only 500 votes. He was amazed that he should not have known that the articles of association were altered on 11th June, 1904, only five months previous to the writing of the despatch, giving one vote to each share so that the 10,000 shares would represent 10,000 votes, or very nearly one-fourth of the total share capital. At the meeting of shareholders last March Government voted against the Board and he found that on that division the Board polled 1,956 votes, representing 19,304 shares, against 512 votes repre- senting 5,139 shares, of which Government held 93 shares representing 1,677. 12,557 shares were unrepresented at the meeting; it was to be concluded they were not controlled fromı London. Supposing the Government had accepted the offer of 8,000 shares, equal by the old computation to 400 votes, the figures would stand 1,956 to 912 or 2 to 1. By the present com- putation of votes they would be 19,304 to 13,139 or 1 to 1. He need not point out the advan- tage of a solid vote of 11,000 shares which would be Government holding. Such a voting power, especially if it was supported by public opinion, would ensure the Government the control they desired. It might not be complete control, but if used in the interests of the port and trade would be sufficient for any unreasonable opposition. At any rate the Secretary of State was under an extraordinary misconception of the extent to which the Company were prepared to go in order to meet the views of the Government. He further found in paragraph 10 of this despatch that a term of 30 years was suggested by the Committee for the completion of the works. That statement greatly astonished him as it was entirely foreign to any intention held by the Board and certainly to the views pressed forward with such persistency by the
20505
B 2
8
PUBLIC RECORD OFFICE, LONDON
ALLY WITHOUT PERMISSION OF THE BE REPRODUCED PHOTOGRAPHIC- COPYRIGHT PHOTOGRAPH-NOT TO