Sessional_Paper_1932 — Page 47

>

43

programine of constructional work extending over a considerable period of years, as in the case of waterworks, it is probably cheaper to employ a permanent staff. But where there is no such programme, it is very much cheaper to have a small staff sufficient for maintenance work and minor constructional works, e.g., markets, latrines, etc., and when any big work is undertaken, such as a hospital, to let the work out to private enterprise. Otherwise it will be found that as soon as the large work is completed the department will be saddled with the cost of a large staff far in excess of normal requirements. That to a certain extent is the position in the Public Works Department to-day. It must also be re- membered that once an officer has come on to the permanent establishment it is exceedingly difficult to get rid of him, and that even then a continuing liability for pension remains. An alternative method of dealing with large contructional work is for Government to do the work itself but to engage for it special staff, (as has been done by the Singapore Municipal Council with singular success), for which a higher rate of salary than the usual would have to be paid owing to the empolyment being strictly temporary. On the com- pletion of the work the staff would return to England. The danger here is that this strictly temporary staff on its special salary tends to get itself transferred оп to the permanent establishment, carrying with it its special rate of salary. This has happened in the past.

are

14. Alphabetically the first of the sub-departments is the Architectural. The work of this department is the maintenance of all Government buildings and the construction of large new ones. On maintenance work two engineers and seven overseers engaged. The greater part of this work as regards the time it takes is of a finicky and trivial nature, such as repairs to door knobs, etc. To employ qualified European engineers on such work is extravagant. One engineer is required to supervise the maintenance work generally but the other should be dispensed with. It would seem logical that the main- tenance branch of the Architectural office should take over the care of Government furniture, at present done by the Stores branch of the Accounts and Stores sub-depart- ment, but the Commissioners did not go fully into this question. The Government should consider which would be the most economical.

15. On the constructional side of the sub-department there are six engineers (excluding the Executive Engineer), and four overseers. Bearing in mind what has been said above on the employment of staff for major new works, and the fact that there will be very little new work of any sort undertaken in the course of the next few years, this staff is too large. It should be reduced by three engineers and two overseers. If, however, the new Government Civil Hospital and Gaol are proceeded with, it may be found cheaper to have these 'extraordinary' works completed by the Architectural office, which has already done much of the preparatory work. instead of letting them out to private architects. In that case an immediate reduction of one engineer only should be made; the remainder of the reductions being effected on the completion of the buildings.

16. The recommendations made above envisage that the Architectural Office shall take over the construction of smaller buildings at present done by the General Works office. It is proposed that that anomalous sub-department shall be abolished and its work split up amongst the sub-departments to which it properly belongs.

17. A sub-department that is closely akin to the Architectural is the Public Health and Buildings Ordinance Office; for whereas the Architectural Office is concerned with the erection of Government buildings, the Buildings Ordinance Office is concerned with private buildings. No building can be erected or altered in the Colony unless the plan in respect thereof has been passed by the Buildings Ordinance Office. Clearly this is a depart- ment which occupies a most responsible position. The Buildings Ordinance Office also takes action in the case of structures which are in a dangerous condition. Witnesses, both members of the Government and of the public, in giving evidence regarding this depart- ment stressed two things. The first was the large amount of work unnecessarily thrown on to it by faultily drawn up plans sent in by private architects. This results largely from the fact that a number of persons whose names appear on the Hong Kong list of Authorised Architects have no qualifications and are architects only in name. The Commissioners recommend that no person should be permitted to practice as an architect in the Colony unless he has obtained the degree of A.R.I.R. A.,-examinations for which are held in Hong Kong, or a foreign diploma of equal standing. A clause to this effect should be inserted in the Public Health and Buildings Ordinance. The second point stressed by witnesses was the incomprehensible state into which the Buildings Ordinance had got as a