32
7:
however, that if the proposed new method had been in operation
in the past, we should have received considerably less than we
have received on the existing basis. The table referred to at the end of para 16 of the Governor's despatch of 24th June,
+
W
+
Sar. Tatt1/26
1926, was not enclosed with the copy of that despatch sent to us
キ
It is true that the Governor's.
with Colonial Office letter of 12th October, 1928, but we make
out that if the proposed new basis had existed since 1901 we
should have received a total of about 11,000,000 dollars less
than we have in fact received.
despatch gives reasons why the revenue basis yielded much more
in certain years (1922-25), but is this much comfort to us?
Even if we miss out those years our total loss since 1901 would
apparently have been over 5 million dollars.
Endeavouring to
(2) So much for the facts of the past.
peer into the future, it has been suggested to us by one of our
own people who has recently served in Hong Kong that we
likely to lose on the change, and for this reason. In the past,
rents (and presumably valuations) have been exceptionally high
owing to the fact that the main residential and business area has
been in Hong Kong itself, where building on steep slopes is
~ the 14661/26. + el 0280 2800
(its net pundice
तु
/expensive
13
2
No comments yet.
Private notes are available after approval.