CO882-(6-8) — Page 519

PUBLIC RECORD OFFICE

Reference :—

LTIC.O. 882

8

PUBLIC RECORD OFFICE, LONDON

ALLY WITHOUT PERMISSION OF THE BE REPRODUCED PHOTOGRAPHIC-

COPYRIGHT PHOTOGRAPH-NOT TO

1

Tise

Those

were

122

situation which he would like to enumerate for their consideration. From enquiries it appeared that steamers which used to call simply to bunker coals had, through lack of facilities, very largely deserted the port. Another matter was that the Chinese Owners did not the Docks unless they were absolutely bound to do so. Another matter was that hipa loading exports for home were using the Docks less and less, so that the charges for the Docks were increasingly falling upon the import and coal trade. matters which would have to be considered very carefully. To his in the reason for expropriation was very clearly summed up in a paragraph of the Secretary of State's despatch, in which he said that expropriation of a Company occupying such an exceptional position and involving a great public interest, stood in no need of justifica- tion. It was said that at the Colonial Office a grave misunderstanding had taken place, and that the Company was perfectly prepared to finance the large scheme proposed. But it was only an alternative scheme the construction of wharves to extend over thirty years and to paid for out of profits. All he could say was that the Company must have placed this matter very far in the background for such a mistake as that to have occurred. Of course, they wanted the support of Government and would keep it in the background. As was pointed out in the Colonial Office despatch, it was evident that if the money were provided and the proposed improvements carried out, the position of the Company would be materially modified. They had heard a good deal about the Government seeking to reap where they had not sown and having gone in for a policy of unlimited grab. Of course, the Government must pay what was fairly due, and the only question was whether this Bill was a fair one in that respect. If it was not fair then it must be amended. The Bill was drawn on the lines of the London Metropolitan Water Act, and it did not give any compensation for compulsory purchase. The argument was that as the local law on the subject gave 15 per cent., it was not right that Govern- ment should take the land belonging to the Company without giving that 15 per cent. He quite admitted that the question was a very serious one and must not be threshed out without very careful consideration; but he was there rather as the guardian of the public-personally he held very few shares in the Company-and therefore he thought it was the Council's duty to examine the Company's claim carefully. He had no doubt that claim would be very well put before the Council. He supposed it would be said that out here conditions differ from Those prevailing in England, because on the Statute Book here this 15 per cent. was placed, whereas in England it did not exist. That was quite so, but if they looked at any book on Compensation they would find it was customary to give compensation in England. Ma Cripps, K.C., in his book on the subject put it at 10 per cent., and he thought it would be for the Company to show why--if it was right in England to deprive shareholders of that percentage as undoubtedly they were deprived by the Metropolitan Water Act-it should be Improper to deprive them of the 15 per cent. here. That, as he had said, was a matter for very serious consideration, and for his own part he would not like to prejudge the case in any way. That closed what he had to say with regard to the expropriation of the Company? But there was another part of the Bill which was very important, and that was with regard to the carrying en of the Docks after the Company had been expropriated. He must confess he would prefer to have seen two different Bills, one dealing with the expropriation, and the other with the carrying on of the Docks. For two reasons, the first being perhaps rather a theoretical one that after the Dock had been taken over the sections which related to the taking over would remain on the Statute Book, and yet be quite without any effect at all at law." The second was the more practical one. The chief thing that took attention at the present moment was the actual expropriation, and they were rather apt to lose sight of the important question as to how the Dock was to be carried on after it had been taken over. In this connection, he thought the Council might ask for some information as to the state of negotiations with regard to the Harbour Scheme, and whether, if the proposed wharves were made, they would have come under the Tanjong Pagar Board. It seemed to him very desirable that they should be under The same Board. It would be a great pity to have one Board for the new wharves and one for Tanjong Pagar. Another question that suggested itself was, would the Board in that caso be charged with the whole expense of reclamation and making moles. These were matters upon which he thought the Council should have some information. With regard to the last lause of the Bill, which required the Company to pay over 6 per cent. of its revenue, he must say he agreed largely with the criticism that had been offered on this point. The figure appeared to be too large. What was wanted was to make the port as efficient and as cheap as possible- in fact, the most attractive port in this part of the East-and that could only be done by making the charges as moderate as possible, at the same time giving as good facilities as they could. He would like to see this 5 per cent. reduced. It had been stated that they could get the money at 34 per cent., and he thought only a fraction should go to the Sinking Fund. His last point was with regard to the composition of the Tanjong Pagar Dock Board. Everyone was unanimous that it should be a commercial body run on commercial lines. lle fully recognised the sound business capacity which had characterised the Board hitherto. In this connection he would point out that whereas at present they were directors of the Company and they had to look after the division of a dividend to the shareholders, under the new scheme their interest would be almost entirely confined to getting a cheap and efficient port, having simply to obtain the interest on what was paid. Whilst recognising the services of the present Board, he thought they should see whether the basis of a simple continuation of the present Board was broad enough. Mr. John Anderson, in his speech, which they would remember, said, "Quite irre- spective of the London Consulting Committee the directorate calls imperatively for radical' change in its constitution," and he pointed out the proportion of trade as represented by the Consulting Committee and the general trade of the Settlement. He compared this as being as a cupful to a gallon." If that was so, was it right that the remainder of the trade not now represented should not be represented on the new Board? That Board should be repre- sentative of every class of trade in the Colony. There should be a Chinese merchant upon it

123

who would give his advice and attempt to get back that class of Chinese business which had now practically left the Dock Company. These were all the remarks he had to make on the Bill, and he would earnestly appeal to the members of Council and beg them to remember that there is a tide in the affairs of men which taken at the flood loads on to fortune." He felt convinced that they were on that tide, and if they were willing to take it now, they would have the verdict of posterity that they had done what was best in the interests of the Colony. (Applause.)

MR. WADDELL FOR THE COMPANY.

Mr. Waddell said: I rise to oppose the second reading of the Bill. In introducing this Ordinance, the Colonial Secretary described it as a "measure of vast magnitude and one of the most important that had ever been introduced into that Council," and in this everyone will agree with him, but up to the present, as far as I am aware, no satisfactory reasons have heen adduced by Government for the drastic and high handed measure suddenly brought forward by the Secretary of State for the Colonies, whose action is well described by a home shareholder, who on referring to a dictionary for the meaning of the word " expropriation," found that it meant "taking our own." In paragraph No. 5 of his despatch of the 4th November last to Your Excellency, the Secretary of State mentions that if the Company's management were beyond criticism the question before him would admit of an easier solution, but this is far from sing the case. Have Government ever taken any steps to ascertain if his statement is borne out by facts? No. If they had, they would have found but very little ground for the accusation. In such an immense undertak as the Tanjong Pagar Dock Company there are bound to be complaints, but I venture to say that no similar establishment in the Far East has carried on its work with greater satisfaction to its customers as regards equipment, time and workmanship, and it is those who subscribe largely to its revenue who are best able to judge whether the Company has done its duty in the past or not. It seems to me, Sir, that if Govern- ment had desired any alteration in the policy of the Company it could have appointed a Com- mission to enquire into the supposed abuses, or lack of enterprise, about which we have heard so much, and I can assure the Council that every effort and assistance would have been given by the Board to carry out any scheme of improvement or any recommendations that the Com- mission brought forward. A great deal has been heard about the difficulty the Company would experience in finding money to carry out the suggested extensions and improvements, but to any one who has an intimate knowledge of the Company's resources that idea may be at once set aside, in fact, had it not been that the suggestion of borrowing money emanated to some extent from the Government of the Federated Malay States, with whom the Chairman of the Company communicated, I doubt very much, Sir, whether we should ever have approached Government for financial assistance. The very able despatch of the Secretary of State for the Colonies was evidently written with a very inadequate knowledge of facta. For instance, he did not appear to know that when the proposal was made to him by the London Consulting Committee that Government should take up 8,000 shares as per paragraph 8, these shares would each carry a vote, and these with the Federated Malay States' holdings would put the Govern- ment in an unassailable position as regards the operations of the Company. Then, again, he refers to the long period required by the Company to carry out the proposed extensions and improvements. What I am informed took place at the interview referred to by one who was present was, that it would take about 30 years to complete the work out of the surplus revenue of the concern.

No one, however, suggested that the course should be adopted, and I understand that a definite statement was made, that the Company had the promise of sufficient money to carry out the proposed work in the shortest time that the engineers indicated as possible. As a matter of fuct the directors had drawn up a scheme of finance which might have been adopted if the Company had decided to carry out Messrs. Matthews' and Nicholson's proposals. That scheme included the issuing of shares and debentures, sales of land and the use of surplus And, Sir, may I conclude by reminding this Council that Singapore has attained and maintained its unrivalled position as a result of private enterprise, and without the assistance of a benign Government, and although I have no claims to prophecy, I venture to predict that neither the Dock Company's customers, nor the commercial community are like to benefit, either by a reduction in the rates, or in more expeditious or economical working, should Govern- ment pass the Ordinance for the expropriation of the Tanjong Pagar Dock Company. (Applause.) MR. SHELFORD'S MAIDEN SPEECH.

revenue.

Mr. Shelford said he should have preferred to remain quiet at such an early stage after his entrance to this Council, but the importance of the subject and the gravity led him to make some remarks. Mr. Napier had quoted the writings of a person previously in this Colony, who stated it was not respectable to speak against Tanjong Pagar.

Mr. Napier: Openly.

Mr. Shelford said these persons reminded him strongly of the frog in Aesop's Fables who ried out against King Log and got King Stork. Reference had been made to the loss of bunkering business, desertion of the wharves by the Chinese, but the question arose would these be recovered by the Bill, or would the charges not be increased by handing the Company's property over to the tender mercies of the Government. This Bill was based upon the London Water Act of 1902, the most up-to-date form of expropriation approved by the authorities. There was one important difference, however, in the circumstances under which the present Bill had been introduced, and those that led up to the other. The acquisition of the Water Companies had been regarded as merely a matter of time for nearly 20 years before they were expropriated, and their undertakings had been conducted during this period with a view the likelihood of their being ultimately bought out. These were differences that should affect some of the provisions of this Bill which would have to be dealt with in the committee stage. But though the expropriation of the Water Companies was an old story and had been considered by at least one Administration before it was dealt with, the expropriation of Tanjong Pagar

20303

E