74
Our view is that the charges for water supply in the Colony have for years been excessive, and have oc- casioned hardship and dissatisfaction in the community. A casual perusal of the Hansard Reports for the past few years will show that this subject has formed anxious representations by various Honourable members of this Council.
In the Budget Debates for the past two years, in which I had the honour to take part, I endeavoured to ex- press the dissatisfaction of those whom I represent against the ex- cessive water charges. And it will be recalled that in the Report of the Economic Commission, published in February, 1935, the Commissioners expressed the view that existing charges for water "may be fairly de- scribed
as unreasonably high- clearly some relief here is overdue." A Great Disappointment Such being the position, it neither surprising that Government's proposals, as contained in the Finan- cial Secretary's original andum, should be a great disappoint- ment to the Chinese community, nor that this disappointment should not have been removed by the sub- sequent modifications of such pro- posals.
is
memor-
For, on a critical analysis, and de- spite their attractive
appearance,
what do these "modifications" in truth amount to? They amount to this:
a
1. That the Financial Secretary had, in his original estimate of ex- penditure, erroneously included sum of $202,160 for Military Contri- bution on the interest payable in respect of the $14,000,000 Loan, and that, as in fact no Military Contribu- tion was payable in respect of the interest on this Loan, it was decided that this surcharge should be utilised towards the reduction of 5 cents per unit for domestic supplies, and
2. That the two per cent. on "past capital expenditure out of General Revenue" should now be used build up a Renewals Fund.
to
Al-
The first "modification" is of course a mere correction of an ac- counting error; the second "modifica- tion," as I hope to show later in the course of my remarks, leaves entirely unanswered the objections raised against the original proposal. though it is officially stated that "the proposals in the Financial Secretary's memorandum published last April. have been considered in the light of the comments made on them by the District Watch Committee, the Chinese Chamber of Commerce and other bodies and in the Press," the truth of the matter is that all the "comments"-at all events by the District Watch Committee and the Chinese Chamber of Commerce- have been entirely ignored by Gov- ernment.
In setting out our objections to some of these proposals I deal first with a minor point, namely, the re- lative rates as affecting the various localities concerned.
On the abolition of free allowance, the present charges, the new charges, and the difference between them, for the different localities, are as follows: Peak-Present charges $1 less 15% 85 cents, New charges 45 cents, Difference 40 cents.
Rest of the Colony-Present charge | 50 cents less 15% -42% cents, New charges 25 cents, Difference 171⁄2 cents.
SOUTH CHINA MORNING POST
16th September, 1938.
( 2 )
Upper Levels Present charge 50 cents less 15%=42 cents, New charges 35 cents, Difference 72 cents.
It will be seen that by giving up all free allowance the Peak charges, as compared with the existing charges, are to be reduced by 40 cents per thousand gallons, the rest of the Colony by 172 cents, and the On Upper Levels by 72 cents only! the face of it I cannot see how these new charges can be fair if the old relative rates were not inequitable. I do not say that the Peak charges are not high enough; I suggest that the rates for the rest of the Colony are not low enough, and I do say that the modifications of the relative re- lative rates are inequitable. I un- derstand that the official answer is that the old charges of $1 for the Peak, and 50 cents for the Upper Levels, less 15 per cent., mean noth- ing in practice because consumers in these districts are, as a whole, al- ways within their free allowance, and so never had to pay any excess charges. But I fail to see how the assumption that the Peak and Up- per Level residents do not exceed their free allowance can affect the point of my criticism, since the old rates were rates which they would have to pay if they did exceed the free allowance.
Public In The Dark
But though in this, as in so many other matters regarding the question of water supply, the public is totally in the dark as regards figures sup- porting this contention I, for one, cannot accept this assumption. The Economic Commission's Report stat- ed that in 1933 it was estimated that 32 per cent. of the metered proper- ties did not exceed their valuation allowance, and I should like to know whether this percentage still holds good and, if so, whether the pro- perties affected are wholly situated within the Peak and Upper Level districts.
This, as I have said, is only a minor point. The substantial ques- tion is whether the public has to pay under the new scheme more than under the existing system. If the former, the present scheme is not an alleviation but a burden.
It is suggested that the poor in the Colony will pay less since, although free allowance has been abolished, they will pay at the rate of 25 cents per thousand gallons from the first gallon, instead of 421⁄2 cents for ex- cess water. But it seems clear to me that unless the consumption in rela- tion to any particular assessed pre- mises is very greatly in excess of the free allowance, the old rates are much more favourable. The free allowance is based on 40 cents per thousand gallons: it is obvious that in order to make the difference of 15 cents per thousand gallons count in favour of the consumer, the amount of gallons consumed in excess of the free allowance allowed must be very considerable. The inescapable fact remains that out of the 68 per cent. consumers who do exceed the free allowance, all whose excess con- sumption is at a rate insufficient to neutralise the effect of free allow- ance must pay more under the new scheme.
Likely To Pay More
I therefore submit that, on the whole, it is more than likely that the consumer will pay more under the new scheme than he has been paying under the old.
I am aware that from the answers given to my questions in this Council on September, 1, 1938, it would appear that, on the basis of the figures for the first seven months of 1938, the Government obtained a higher revenue in respect of water under the old scheme than it would have done on the basis of the new charges. It was, however, pointed out in the official answers that the revenue based on the new charges could only be approximate since "exact figures would take over a month to work out, as the recorded consumption through every meter would have to be taken".
But this question, though import- ant on the merits of the scheme, is not really fundamental; because once we accept, as I do, the principle that the consumer should
pay for all current water charges, the question must assume a new form, not whether the new charges are higher than the old, but whether the new charges need be so high on the figures presented, and on the as- sumption that the consumer has to foot the bill. I propose to deal with this question, but before doing so I wish to dispose of one point, as to which I find myself in acute dis- agreement with the views of my Honourable friend the Financial Secretary.
Reasons Advanced
In recommending to Government that the existing two per cent, rate- which has always been regarded by Government, as well as by the com- munity, as a payment for a supply of water at the rate of 40 cents per thousand gallons up to a prescribed limit of supply-should be retained, but that the equivalent free supply should be withheld, he advances various reasons, which I must deal with seriatum.
First, the Financial Secretary says that the retention of the two per cent. rate may be regarded as a general charge to cover the cost of water supplied, for communal pur- poses, hydrants, street cleaning, sewers, public buildings, free supplies to hospitals, etc., The answer is this: If the rates were reduced to 15 per cent. the landlords would still be contributing nearly one-sixth of the total revenue of the Colony, and there can no valid reason why the landlords, as such, should be made to pay for this "communal supply".
Secondly, the Financial Secretary says that provision has to be made in the water account for Military Contribution. He does not explain why landlords, as such, should bear the burden of Military Contribution in respect of the water revenue.
Thirdly, the Financial
Secretary says that the rates at 17 per cent. are decidedly low. Here I do not know on what grounds this opinion is based. Over one-sixth of the total revenue of the Colony is derived from the 17 per cent. rates, and I submit that one-sixth cannot be re- garded as a negligible contribution
to revenue.
As against the Financial Secre- tary's observation I may quote from the Economic Commission's Report: "Rates. Some years ago the rates
on property were raised from 13 per cent. to 17 per cent. on the ground that the low exchange necessitated an increased revenue to cope with the large portion of the Colony's ex- penditure which is based on sterling Since then exchange has risen again to its former level and property owners, who have suffered
very
No comments yet.
Private notes are available after approval.