CO882-(8-9) — Page 524

PUBLIC RECORD OFFICE

Reference :-

C.O. 882

9

PUBLIC RECORD OFFICE, LONDON

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

104

It

excepted land premia, and also, in the case of reproductive concerns, the cost of running those concerns. But it has already been pointed out by the last speaker that the post office is really much more in the nature of a reproductive concern than anything else, and that no exemption is made in respect of that office at all. There are other matters, if you look at the figures under reimbursements in the revenue, on which it is patently unjust that we should pay. For instance, the Government, at considerable expense, has a map made of this island, or part of this island. it sells it may be at the cost price incurred in making that map at whatever price it fixes the map, or it may be at some small profit. But if they sell it at cost price, the Government gets nothing back from the work which it has done, if sold at a small profit, the Government reaps that profit, but the military contribution has to be paid, not on the amount of the profit, but on the amount which is charged to the public for the map

Sir. it cannot be said for one moment that the system which was accepted in 1×96, and modified in 1-99, was much more than a very rough system indeed, and one of which it cannot be said that we are not entitled to call for a review when circumstances demand in the interests of the Colony that it should be reviewed has often been suggested that the Ordinance of 1×96, which fixed the contribution at 174 per cent, without providing for the cost of buildings, was in the nature of a bargain, and that, being in the nature of a bargain, we are not entitled to go back Sir, I say there was nothing in the nature of a bargain about it at all So little was there of the nature of a bargain that that Ordinance has erased to exist, and the Ordinative which superseded it in 1899 had was amended again in December, 1899, There scomer superseded it, than it and since then there has been a further revision of the Ordinance in 1904. was to bargain, and there could be no bargain, because there was nobody to bargain But, Sir, if there had been a bargain in respect of that matter, part of that ithi bargam was this, that we should in no circumstances pay more than the cost of the garrison. If that be part of the bargain, if that, as it is, is part of the Ordinance, surely then the Colony is entitled to insist that some person should be appointed to see that the amounts which are allocated to the Colony are such as this Colony should So far as I know, there are no be called upon to pay, or whether they are not means of checking these amounts: there are no means for us to tell whether what is said by the military authorities to be the cost of the garrison is the amount which I am not in any way it is proper for this Colony to pay, or whether it is not. suggesting that sums which are said to be spent are not spent the point I wish to make is this, that there ought to be some authority on our behalf, or some middle peron, who will properly decide whether the proper amounts have been charged. I know it may be said, so many accountants, so many methods; that would not be quite true, but there certainly must be very doubtful and difficult questions arise as to what should be charged to particular Colonies, to particular votes, and against particular items.

Fit

Sir, I insist that in view of the fact that our financial difficulties, which, though perhaps, as I say, not so oppressive as the last speaker thought, are serious and likely to last for some considerable time, we are entitled at this time to ask once again for reconsideration of this matter of the military contribution, and to ask that it should be so reduced that we may put our finances upon a sound and lasting basis.

For my part. I doubt whether you can have any Ordinance, or any arrangement, which can be everlasting with regard to this matter, because nobody can foresee what It appears will be the state of this Colony, or of this Empire. 10 or 15 years hence. to me that this subject ought to be periodically reviewed, and it also appears to me that the time has come when a fresh review of it ought again to be undertaken.

*

*

I would like to say here that I quite agree Mr. HOTTENBACH : with making an appeal for a reduction of the military contribution. I do not think it is equitably applied in its present form. And I believe if it be properly put before the home authorities they will not wish an inequitable arrangement to con tinue. There is one point regarding this which I believe the honourable member who spoke last has inadvertently overlooked; that the percentage scale is applied on different principles. For instance, when the percentage for Hongkong was fixed, we were told that it was to be lower because Hongkong would have to pay on its municipal revenue. But it is overlooked that Hongkong is one Settlement only, whereas here we have to pay 20 per cent, on the revenue of three Settlements. have not only to pay for the revenue of Singapore but also for the revenue of Penang and Malacca. If we were treated like Hongkong we would only have to pay on the

We

105

revenue of Singapore and then our contribution would be considerably less. This contribution is at the same time a question of British trade. The contribution weighs so heavily that we are no longer able here to foster that trade and therefore it will harm the British Empire. If our representations go to show that without a reduction we can no longer do full justice to this mission, I believe the amount of the contribution would be adequately reduced.

Mr. ADAMS:

*

But I join heartily with all the previous speakers supporting any claim which we may constitutionally advance for a revision of the enormous military contribution.

*

*

The COLONIAL SECRETARY Sir, I notice that in their report the Select Com- mittee on the Singapore and Malacca estimates have asked that there be added to the estimates $54,337, to this may be added $45,000, as they have struck off the amount for the Mount Zion reclamation, and as I understand if the dredgings are not dumped on that reclamation, the cost would be exactly the same to take them out to sea, that is, until we get our own lighters, so that means an addition to the estimate of $100,000. I notice that the proposed addition to the Penang estimates is over $260,000. Well, Sir, I have stated these figures simply to show that I do not think that the Committees take that gloomy view of the financial outlook of the Straits Settlements. The honourable member who first spoke was one of the members of the Singapore Committee, and I must say that I did not understand when he was on the Committee that he was willing to cut down the expenditure more than the other members of the Committee. He stated, Sir, that we were unable to meet our obligations except by increasing taxation. By that increase of taxation I pre- sume that he alludes to the stamp duties. Well, Sir, if he will look further down on the revenue side. I think it is the next item, he will find that the light dues are decreased by a large amount. The increase in taxation and the decrease in taxation practically cancel one another. The retrenchment indicated is a reduction of the military contribution. If the Council consider that the Colony is unable to continue the undoubtedly large proportion which it at present pays, I certainly think the Council is justified in asking the Secretary of State to reduce that contribution, but I think the words in which the honourable member spoke of the gross receipts of the Post Office being placed in revenue and 20 per cent. being deducted, as being a monstrous injustice" is not a correct expression. It practically calls into question the justice of the Secretary of State, or of the Government in carrying out the instructions of the Secretary of State. In 1894 I must go far back--a despatch came out from the Secretary of State, in which he proposed that the contribution of the Colony should be for the year 1896, £100,000, for 1897, £110,000, and for 1598, £120,000. At the end of that period they were to reconsider what the Colony should pay the revision was to be carried out in quinquennial periods, and the average at that time, I believe, was about £90,000 a year. Well, Sir, there was a great outcry on the part of the Unofficial Members, and the then Governor wrote to the Secretary of State and put forward their views, and his own view was that there should be fixity of the basis on which the military contribution was to be carried out. There were long debates in this Council, long speeches chiefly by the honourable member for Penang (Mr. Huttenbach), and he referred very largely to the entries in the revenue called reimbursements, and there were certain items in these reimbursements which he considered were cross entries, and which should not be taken into consideration as revenue on which the military contribution was to be charged. The Government at the time, and all the other Unofficial Members, considered that it was not advisable to higgle, the word that was used, I remember, was higgling "there was no use in higgling in this matter. I cannot agree with the honourable member on my left (Mr. Fort) that no agreement was made. I consider from reading the despatches that practically an agreement was made, and I think the present Governor of Ceylon pointed out to the honourable Mr. Huttenbach that he was not like the chubby boy in Pears' Soap picture; the honourable member had got what he wanted, but he was not happy, and he still wanted more. Well, Sir, I have into the history of the defence contribution, and I think the Secretary of State has carried out his share of the agreement, and if we wish to represent to the

gone Secretary of State that the Colony is not able to pay that 20 per cent., then I consider that we should do so, but I do not think that we should call what is done at present a "monstrous injustice." The honourable Mr. Huttenbach stated that we pay more than Hong Kong, as Hong Kong does not pay on its municipal rates. As a matter