This is the letter:
Dear Gus,
Ohel Leah Synagogue
As a result of an informal meeting held 21 October 1987 we strongly feel that the Authority should not lift the dec- laration on Ohel Leah Synagogue until such time as when some doubts on the legal opinion related to us by the Municipal Services Branch regarding the Synagogue have been cleared to our satisfaction. We would notify the Authority once the doubts are cleared.
Yours sincerely
(Dr K.C. Fok) (Carlos Cheung) (Chung Wah Nan) (William Meacham)
(Sally Rodwell) (Dr D.R. Workman)
(Rev. Carl Smith) (Janet Lee Scott)
The legal opinion referred to in this letter of demand was related to the AAB in a letter from the Secretary of the AAB on September 10, 1987 and said:
Dear Members (of the AAB),
Antiquities Advisory Board 55th Meeting
Ohel Leah Synagogue
As requested by the Chairman, the attached letter is
circulated for members' information before the meeting on 12 September 1987.
With regard to paragraphs 2 and 3 of the Chairman's letter, advice has been sought from the Attorney General's Chambers and the Crown Counsel's advice is as follows:
I am not well placed to advise or speculate on the level of compensation that might be awarded by the District Court, particularly in specific hypothetical situations such as you have mentioned. The level of compensation, if any, in such situations will be dependent on the applicable circumstances some of which would require the assistance of expert opinion.
Perhaps the most that I could -- or should -- say is that as a matter of law the District Court, whatever the situation, may award such compensation as is reasonable in the circumstances (section 9 (2)) in respect of financial loss suffered or likely to be suffered by the owner or lawful occupier (section 8 (1)).
On the other hand, whilst resumption is not contemplated at this stage, members would be aware from a previous AAB meeting held on 22 November 1986 that in the event of the site having to be resumed, the estimated cost of resumption has been estimated by the Buildings and Lands Department to be in the region of $HK500 million. This note and the attached letter from the Chairman are circulated for members' information.
What doubts could the AAB have about the legal opinion since, to any layman, it is clear that resumption of the Synagogue could cost $HK500 million?
The doubts were cast when it became known that the Secretary of the Municipal Services, Mr Gus Chui, had in his possession a 12-page legal opinion framed by the Legal Department which indicated that little or no compensation would be payable. Therefore, that which the AAB had been presented as being a legal opinion was little more than an attempt to scare the pants off the members of the AAB.
Why did Gusy, old boy, do this? Or did he? Was it some 'Colonel North' in his department that did the dirty? Questions, questions, questions, and more questions.