56
closely to the current market rate. It is also
proposed to reduce the rate of levy/perhaps by 20%,
in which case the resultant saving would be in the
neighbourhood of $450,000. This would have the
double disadvantage, I think, of misusing the
emergency measure of a salary levy without making a
proportionately very serious contribution to the
financial stability of the Colony.
follows:-
The position may perhaps be summarised as
1. It is very doubtful whether the imposition
of the 1936 levy would have been sanctioned had the
improved financial outturn of 1936 (as here
estimated) been foreseen.
2. In spite of this despatch, and in the light
the of the falsification of earlier local anticipation of events in 1936, we cannot take for granted that 1937 will be so bad a year as the Governor fears.
The Governor has clearly been given to understand, in the final paragraph of No. 19, that he should not count on the levy for 1937, and hut
3.
subsequent correspondence gives the impression that this point has not been fully appreciated in
Hong Kong. (See Mr. Jeffries' minute of 5.6.36.
hereon.)
4. To allow the re-imposition of the levy in the present circumstances would, since no marked
improvement in Hong Kong finance.s can be reckoned
on
No comments yet.
Private notes are available after approval.