חחחי
PUBLIC RECORD OFFICE
Reference :-
CO. 882
9PUBLIC RECORD OFFICE, LONDON
ALLY WITHOUT PERMISSION OF THE BE REPRODUCED PHOTOGRAPHIC- COPYRIGHT PHOTOGRAPH-NOT TO
106
of fact Hong Kong pays the same as us, 20 per cent, and she pays it on the municipal
rate-
There is
The GOVERNOR
I have very little to add to what has been said As to the vexed question of the by my honourable friend the Colonial Secretary military contribution, even the Unofficial Members would not be so pleased as we on this side of the table if that contribution were substantially "reduced nothing gives greater pleasure to those charged with the Government than to have plenty of money to gratify every possible demand and gratify every possible wish. even at the risk of offending the honourable member from Penang That contribu tion, as my honourable friend pointed out, is practically a bargain, for the terms of which is honourable friend, the member for Petang (Mr Hüttenbach), must be held mainly respotesible Whether it was a provident bargain or not it is hardly For me to say but I will say this, that I think those who were responsible for framing But if we ask for it took it ver. pessimistic view of the future of the Colony revision of that agreement, we shall have to bring forward some substantial change in our circumstances, otherwise we shall be simply inet with the answer, You agreed to this, what reasons do you bring forward now, which did not exist at the time. for asking for a revision The honourable and learned member (Mr. Fort) pointed out that there were various inequalities in the rate of contribution of different parts of the Empire that certain places pay very small amounts, while we and Hong Kong pay very subst in ially We Luth pa.... as a matter of fact, 20 per cent.. but in the case of Hong Kong, as the Colonial Secretary pointed out, it is harder than in our case, because they have to pay the 20 per cent on their municipal rates, while we are fortunately in the position of having independent municipalities, and therefore But, after all, I think we have got to remember we escape that part of the burden
that every cent that this Colony is relieved of has to be borne by the taxpayers of the United Kingdom I think that if the burden of defence which the taxpayers of the United Kingdom have to bear at this present moment is considered, their case for There is also another part celief will perhaps be held to be quite as strong as ours.
of the Empire which pays very heavily for its defence, pays not 20 per cent, but I think that whatever may be said of our 25 per cent practically, and that is India poverty, which my honourable friend who represents the Chamber of Commerce bewailed, the case for India, on the ground of poverty, is very much stronger, and. as I say, if this Colony and the other Colonies which have hitherto paid contributions are to be relieved, the burden will only be transferred from our shoulders to the No doubt their shoulders of those on whom the burden is already a crushing one. condition if the military contribution were transferred would not be much more trying than it is, but still if we put our claim on the heaviness of the burden and on our poverty, we must not forget that those to whom we seek to transfer the burden are labouring under a burden still more heavy I only say this in order to let honourable members know the case we shall have to meet if we put forward a claim Before we can really claim such revision, we for the revision of the contribution must be in a very strong position, and have some very strong arguments indeed for a change, and, in spite of the gloomy prophecies of the honourable member who thinks we are outrunning the constable. I do not think that our poverty is so conspicuous. He says that we have a deficit, in round figures, of half a million. What is the main cause of that deficit! The main cause of that deficit is that next year we are pro- posing to spend exactly that sum on capital expenditure in connection with our railway What is the sign of bankruptcy in that? We are investing that part
up
his of our balances in improving our railway, and the honourable member lifts hands in despair, and says that we are on the verge of bankruptcy, whereas the whole of that deficit is caused by that capital expenditure. I do not see any reason: why we should despair of the future.
Enclosure 2 in No. 128
STRAITS SETTLEMENTS.
LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL.
Monday, 4th November. 1907. SUPPLY BILL.
The COLONIAL Secretary moved that the Council should go into Committee on this Bill
+
107
DEFENCE CONTRIBUTION.
On the vote of $1,757,695 for defence contribution.
Mr. BAKER said: Sir, I hesitate to take up the time of this Council again on the subject of this military contribution, but I feel I owe it to the Singapore Chamber of Commerce to say a few words in reply to the remarks of Your Excellency at our last meeting Your Excellency said that the whole of the deficit on the budget for 190 is due to the fact of capital expenditure on railways. Now, Sir, I presume that capital expenditure on railways is as much a matter of urgency as expenditure on any other public work, or as much a matter of urgency and necessity as any other item of expenditure in the accounts, and though you ascribe that deficit, which, when we have passed these amendments, will amount to nearly three-quarters of a million dollars instead of half a million, to capital expenditure on railways, I suppose other people have a right to say that they ascribe it to any other item. I am inclined. Sir, to ascribe it to the military contribution.
*
Referring again to the subject of the military contribution: if, Sir, this Colony is to pay the full cost of the garrison, to defend and protect itself, then, Sir, we have a right to a different form of Government. We have a right to be an independent Colony, instead of a Crown Colony, and then we should not ask, and would not be anxious to heap upon the shoulders of the taxpayers at home the burden that we now grumblingly bear. I should like to propose, therefore, that this item of expendi ture should be reduced to $857,000, the same as it was for 1898, the year when the 20 per cent. arrangement was come to and applied.
Mr. ANDERSON: I have pleasure, Sir, in seconding the motion of the honourable member who has just spoken. I do not believe that there is a single man in this Colony, Government officials included, who is not in sympathy with the feeling that it is an absolute necessity that there should be a very large reduction indeed in the payment that we make annually as defence contribution." In thinking over this matter, Sir, I was struck by a remark which you made in the address that you presented to this Council on the 11th October, in which you said that, in 1908, We have estimated for an increase of $102,000 in our receipts from stamps, in view of the changes proposed in the measure now before you.' Well now. Sir, what does that amount to? It amounts to this, that instead of taking off charges on the trade and on vessels which come to this port, you are. going to add to them. And why? For nothing else than to pay this military contribution. We had hoped, when the Government decided on the expropriation of Tanjong Pagar, that when once the property came into Government hands, there would have been such a reduction in the charges of the Board as would have constituted greater attraction to trade and shipping to this port. Unfortunately, the price the Government had to pay for the Tanjong Pagar property very heavily exceeded the expectations of many people and the Government as well. I am afraid it has not been possible, so far at any rate, to make such reductions as might have constituted greater attraction to shipping and trade. But the methods which the Government propose to take for procuring more revenue are not in keeping with the ways that would have occurred to me. My idea of increasing the prosperity of this place, and of making it more attractive to shipping and trade, would be to do something which would induce more ships and more trade and more overturn of business here. Instead of that, there is to be introduced a stamp ordinance, the effect of which will really be to impose more on the trade and overturn of this place than it has had to bear in the past. I had hoped that the Government would have considered, for instance, the possibility of some such scheme as this--this being a port that is dependent for its prosperity on steamers coming here that a vessel coming here and taking away, let me suggest, 1.000 tons of bunker coals, might be exempt from light dues, from dues at Tanjong Pagar Wharves, and might also, perhaps, be exempt from pilotage; if she took less than 1,000 tons for her bunkers, say only 750 tons, she should benefit in ratio, and so on, on a scale varying according to the quantity of coal she took. But the Govern- ment, as far as I know, do not appear to have considered such means of attracting that trade: it seems to prefer a course which will really mean an added imposition on the trade and shipping coming here, such as by this new Stamp Act, a measure which I hope some of us will have an opportunity of dealing with on a later day.