CO129-586-6 Administration of the port of Hong Kong 27-1-1940 - 24-7-1940 — Page 113

111

have developed their frontages should be able to look

forward to assured possession and control of their own

activities. The Hong Kong Government has made it clear

that it cannot sacept any suggestion that past expenditure

by existing private enterprises gives the latter any claim

to the perpetuation of their present rights of user.

5. In a Esport recently preparod by kr. Nicol, the

present Fort îngineer, reference is made to the feet that

certain pier owners exploit shipping and that large rentals

are paid for very indifferent berthage. He has also pointed

out that there is an outory from time to time for the

construction of berthage that would give some protection to

shipping during the approach of typhoon storms, but that the

construction of such works, if desirable, would seem to be

beyond the means of private enterprise.

6.

The fundamental issue or the problem may be

summarised in the questions- By which of the following

methods has the future development of the port to be

undertaken?

(a) By Government?

(b) By an independent corporation such as a Fort Trust or

Harbour board (such as

the Colombo Port Trust or the

Singapore Harbour Board)?

(0)

By private enterprise on its own?

(a) By private enterprise under some form of Government

supervision and direction?

7. Until the existing wharf companies know definitely

by which of these methoda the future development of the port

is to be undertaken, they will naturally be reluctant to

spend anything more than is necessary for the maintenance of

their