CO882-(6-8) — Page 463

PUBLIC RECORD OFFICE

Reference :-

LUC.O. 882

ALLY WITHOUT PERMISSION OF THE BE REPRODUCED PHOTOGRAPHIC- COPYRIGHT PHOTOGRAPH-NOT TO

8 PUBLIC RECORD OFFICE, LONDON

12

THE PORT AND THE COMPANY'S INTERESTS IDENTICAL.

The Tanjong-Pagar Dock Company is a Singapore Company, and even if every share on its register was held by gentlemen resident in Europe this could not and never will affect the unquestionable fact, that the Company has grown into such a relationship and responsibility to the port, that it has become not only imperative that it shall be managed in and for Singapore alone, but there is also this conclusive argument for that course, viz., that so absolutely does the well-being of this Company hang on the success of the port, and so unquestionably does the port's advancement depend upon what the Company can and must contribute to its attractions and welfare, that unless the Company is managed for the port, the Company itself must decline and its Shareholders suffer.

THE COG-WHEEL OF OUR TRADE.

It is not possible for any thinking and observant man who has on the spot closely watched the development of this Company, and its much grown and growing relationship and responsi bility to the trade of the port generally, to deny that the interests of the port and of the Company are so linked to and dependent on one another, that each has become essential to the other. The relationship of the Tanjong-Pagar Dock Company to Singapore has grown into that of being the chief and all-important pinion wheel of the inachinery that works our large shipping and couling trade, on which this port may be said to live, move, and have its being, That relationship is an unquestionable fact; it is the point from which we must now start, and If the one goes from which to-day and in the future there is no possibility of getting away. down, so must the other, and it is only by management of the Company firstly in the truest interests of the port, that the best interests of the Shareholders can in the end be attained. Experience has now proved it to have become an essential condition that the direction and management of the affairs and business of this Company must be in and from Singapore only and alone, but this cannot be attained, and never will be attained, so long as there exists in London, 7,000 miles away, a body of gentlemen known as the London Consulting Committee, who have already in great measure become, and are daily striving more and more to become. the governing and supreme directors of the policy and affairs, and even of the details of local management and working of this Company. (Hear, hear.)

ABSENTEE CONTROL.

I have already told these gentlemen, and I repeat it here to you, that it might just as reasonably be claimed or arranged that there should be a governing or controlling voice in London, that voice having and exercising the right of veto-over the daily deliberations, decisions, and doings of the Singapore Municipal Commissioners.

OUR "SENIORS IN EUROPE."

The Tanjong Pagar Dock Company was founded in 1863 with capital then of $125,000. By the year 1883 many of the Singapore gentlemen who held material interest in the Company had retired to Europe for good. In that year these retired gentlemen-who had become what are often referred to locally as our "Seniors in Europe "-e., the senior partners in Europe of Singapore firms whose junior partners or managers represent them in Singapore, decided that there should be created in London a body called the "London Consulting Committee," and that the Directorate in Singapore, which is, of course, headquarters of the Company, must not do certain things unless and until the sanction to these of this London Committee had first been obtained. This London Committee was created in April, 1883, the capital of the Company then being $1,000,000.

It is, I think, beyond question that the original intention and the intention expressed in our Articles of Association, as these to-day stand, was, and is, that this body was to be u Consulting Committee, i.c., a Committee only to be consulted when anything arose or was proposed in Singapore that limitations in the Articles of Association compelled the Directors to first refer to this Committee.

For some years the existence and doings of this London Committee were in accordance with the intentions of the Shareholders. Speaking generally, for each retired senior partner sitting in London on the Committee, there has always eat and now sits on the Directorate in Singapore the junior partner or manager of the same firm, who, of course, is under command whenever the London senior elects that this shall be so. To-day that is the position, except that the Directorate is numerically larger than the London Committee, there being on the Board here a very limited number of gentlemen who are free to act and vote on their own judgments, and who do so.

NOT FULLY REPRESENTATIVE.

The London Consulting Committee claim, I am told, that they present and voice the views of the Shareholders of this Company in Europe. This I venture to deny, for I know that there are important Shareholders in Europe whom they do not and probably never will represent. I will go further and express the belief that if many of the Shareholders in England knew fully and accurately of all that has been passing behind the scenes, they themselves would come to question the expediency of that body continuing to exist.

If the London Consulting Committee claim to represent the Shareholders in Europe it will be a fair question to ask when, if even ever at all, they last called all Shareholders in England together, to enlighten them as to what was being done or what was proposed, and generally to take them into council and conference, and to obtain instructions. I have never heard of any such meeting, but I have heard of a group of London Shareholders, certain members of the Committee being of this group, who meet in London,-independently of the London Committee as a body, and of other Shareholders, and who decree what shall or shall not be

13

done, and how and when to do it. That is one way in which the all-vital affairs of Singapore are managed and directed from 7,000 miles away.

A POLICY OF ENCROACHMENT.

WHY NOT A LONDON DIRECTORATE?

"WE HAVE spoken of THAT."

Well, gentlemen, the encroachment of the London Consulting Committee on the province, cluties, and responsibilities of the Directors has for years past grown and extended, and is still growing. When I was last in England this encroachment on the province of the Directors was a subject of conversation that I had with one member of the Committee, who had been and is particularly active in this way.

I said to him, "Why don't you people openly abolish in Singapore the Directorate of the Company, transfer the Directorate to London, and create a mere Committee out in Singa- pore"

His reply was: “Oh, we have spoken of that, but I have quite made up my mind that it would never do to take that course. You see, if we did that, the Company would lose the sympathy of Government and of the Singapore community."

And yet this same gentleman is one of the mainsprings in increasing and strengthening that control and direction in London, behind the scenes, that is the cause of our trouble.

Now, gentlemen, I am going to give you an idea of what some of us here have been subjected to at the hands of some members of the London Consulting Committee, a body that I maintain has been the cause of bringing about a condition of things that must end in the abolition of what has grown into a drag on the free progression and advancement of a Company the responsibilities of which to Singapore I have already laid stress on.

ADVICE TO THE LATE Mu. RUTHERFORD.

T

STEER CLEAR OF LOCAL EXPERIENCE."

"NOT PRODUCED Mucu."

When the late Managing Director died in April, 1902, there were handed over to me as Chairman of this Company his papers on the affairs of this Company. Among these was a letter marked "Confidential," this for the protection I can only assume of its writer, because it is purely and solely on the business of this Company. It is from a member of the London Committee and is addressed to the first managing Director of this Company. The letter is dated 15th January, 1901, and was written just after the late Managing Director had left England to take up his duties here. It opens by inviting private correspondence from the Managing Director on the affairs of the Company, tells him that the London Committee thought the decision and action of the Board in moving the Company's staff down to the dock and wharves a great mistake, that he (the writer) had written to his Singapore partner on this matter and hoped on this that the Board would at once, without waiting for his (the Managing Director's) arrival at Singapore, transfer back from the dock and wharves the secretary and staff to an office in town; that he hoped the Managing Director would manage the concern as his (the writer's) firm had managed another Company in Singapore; that a telegram addressed to a given address in London would always find the writer, and the letter then goes on to say:--

"You will, of course, listen to what the Directors and Mr. Sellar (the Manager) have to say, but I regret their wisdom has not produced much in the past. As soon as you feel your feet sufficiently you had better let Mr. Sellar have a holiday. Local experience is a very good thing in its way, but it is possible to have too much of it, and you had better keep as clear of it as you possibly can." (Laughter.)

DICTATION EVEN IN DETAILS.

CHAIRMAN'S DIABOLICAL PURPOSE.

A word of explanation is necessary here on the reference to our having moved, and centralized, the offices of this Company. This Board, some years ago, before the days of Managing Directors, felt that the working of the Company's business was suffering materially by reason of its whole staff not being centralized on the spot where the Company's work and business was being carried on, and the Board thus decided to build offices near the docks and wharves, where all the heads of our various departmenta and the administrative staff could be accommodated under one roof. The pressing need for this move was apparent to every one here; the offices were built, and the staff moved into them, and, of course, as any one could have told would prove the case, the change has produced very great improvement indeed. To this the London Committee actually cabled out desiring us to divide things up again and move the office back to town. I declined. The office is at the wharves and docks, and is likely to continue there.

Here you have evidence of not only unconstitutional interference, but of how these people in London think that the whole concern, even in the conduct of its local affairs und details, must be managed by the London Committee. And when we came to enquire what had led them to attempt thus to dietate to us on a matter unquestionably outside of their province, we learned that it was because they thought that the Chairman, ie., myself-had made this move so as to make things difficult for the Managing Director!

The decision to concentrate the staff for the better and improved working of Company's business, and the decision to put up a large block of offices near the docks and wharves for that purpose were come to, it happens, when I was not on this Board. The decision was joined in by the representatives on the Board of these London gentlemen, but that, of course, could not stand in the way of their availing of an opportunity apparent to them for painting dark