HONG KONG LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL.
177
tion for the masses. Since Your Excellency's arrival in the Colony you have spared no effort in providing and increasing social amenities for the Colony in every direction possible, and the Colony owes Your Excellency a very heavy debt of gratitude. But the list of omissions is necessarily still formidable.
As the South China Morning Post, in its leading article published on the 13th October, 1939, pointed out:-
"The upper ranks of the Government Service are not open to the Hong Kong citizen: he has no vote nor does he enjoy the full privileges of a British subject-his nationality is only stressed for taxation purposes. The Colony is predominantly Chinese. It has therefore a dual allegiance and a dual commitment. These have emphasised themselves in the Far East war that has been raging for two years--a war which has profited some in the Colony, but bled the majority through many economic wounds. No other part of the Empire has suffered this strain.”
In connection with the above I feel it my duty to give expression to the sense of injustice felt by many of the companies incorporated in Hong Kong which carry on business in Shanghai, Hankow and other parts of China. By the Defence (Finance) Regulation 3B, Government has the right to acquire certain foreign currencies from every British subject (as defined) resident in the Colony, and certain duties are imposed upon such a British subject. By this Regulation "British Subject" includes every company incorporated in the British Empire. During the Sino-Japanese conflict companies of the class I have mentioned have sought protection from the British Authorities, but such protection has always been refused on the ground that such companies, though registered in the Colony, are not entitled to protec- tion. In one case to my knowledge a company incorporated in Hong Kong, which is a "British Subject" as defined by the Regulation, has properties in Canton, Swatow and Toishan, which were either burned or looted, or both.
I have discussed these points-the lightness of Hong Kong taxa- tion and the relative burdens between the British and Hong Kong tax payer-not for the purpose of finding excuses for us to try to "get out cheaply", but of showing that, in my submission, we should approach the question of the Colony's contribution to England as a matter of patriotic duty, freed from any self-reproof that we have been too lightly taxed, and untroubled by any comparisons made between Hong Kong and elsewhere. I therefore approach the question in this spirit.
First, as to the amount of the contribution.
It must be appreciated that a gift to Great Britain of seven or eight million dollars, as suggested by the Hon. Financial Secretary, can be only a gesture of the Colony's patriotism and of her willingness
80
Page 80Page 81
No comments yet.
Private notes are available after approval.