CONFIDENTIAL
2
the options open to us and Sze's report will now be considered by the Working Party. It is true that we had earlier put the brakes on, when the Civil Aviation Department no doubt to assuage their guilty
conscience wanted summarily to evict large numbers of long-term occupants just before the Crosland visit to Peking and before indeed they had even decided what the height limits should properly be. But I am fairly confident that a solution can be worked out in due course, provided as with all clearances (and in problems involving human beings and human greed) that we get the compensation right. I am sure you do not want another round of P Qs from Mr Parry on that subject just now!.
5.
As I said above, I agree with Richard Samuel's comment on the Chinese angle. Indeed, the N C NA proved very cooperative when we reduced the heights of the unoccupied new buildings in 1975. But for them, like us, it is a question of handling a tough bunch of people in a traditionally ill-defined area where questions of "face" cannot be ignored. (You may care to see a copy of a note which Charles Drace-Francis prepared earlier on the history of Chinese involvement in the Walled City.) The quickest way to cause a confrontation is to rush in without proper preparation, as you will note from what happened in 1947/8. For the time being, I do not think there is any need to involve Teddy Youde; indeed the aim of our policy is to make sure that the Kowloon Walled City does not surface as a problem in Peking. That is why we must get our homework right here.
6.
I look forward to continuing the discussion with you this month in Hong Kong.
Your ever,
Alan.
(A E Donald)
CONFIDENTIAL
Page 90Page 91