own Affidavit filed in the High Court on April 26, 1988 and from minutes of the AAB meeting held on December 28,
1987.
The exact extract of the minutes of the meeting of the AAB held on December 28, 1987 goes like this:
*... the final majority view that seven Members were in favour of preserving the Synagogue in situ while six others were in support of the reconstruction proposal...'.
And then, in Gus's Affidavit of April 26, 1988, in the case of Miscellaneous Proceedings Number 638 of 1988;
'12. At a meeting of the Board on the 28 November 1987 representations were made by leaders of the Jewish Community, the Trustees and their profes- sional consultants who explained the case in sup- port of their application for withdrawing the decla- ration. It was agreed at the meeting that, in the light of the latest information and the considerable num- ber of late papers that had to be digested, the mem- bers should submit their written views and argu- ments to the Chairman by noon on 5 December 1987. The result was a majority of 7 to 6 against withdrawing the declaration.....
No way out, Gus. Gotcha!
Falsehood Number Two
Gus states that the general public has no access to the Synagogue (his exact words were '... a building to which the general public will have no access').
If Gus meant by this that the general public will have no right of access, then he is correct; however, it does not follow that after receiving approval from the Rabbi -- who has the duty of fidelity to 'guard' the 'House of God' wherein 'dwelleth the tabernacle of the Lord' members of the
general public maybe ‘un-invited' to enter the House of God.
In fact, the Synagogue is never locked, and even if it is, the key is always held the Club -- in fact, it used to hang on a nail --and there is normally a member of the Jewish Community readily available every day, except Friday night and Saturday mornings (the holy days in the Jewish calendar) and other special days known as the high holy days, to take non-Jews on a tour of the edifice.
Hongkong University students have often been to view the building because the University of Hongkong maintains that this is already a monument, at least that is the view of the School of Architecture.
And, last but not least, Gus, pedestrians walking down the road are not proscribed from glancing at the building, or even
19
reading the foundation stone, set in 1901.
No way out, Gus. Gotcha again.
Falsehood Number Two and a Half
Gus states that in the UK buildings in ecclesiastical use are specially excluded from the scope of scheduled buildings under the Ancient Monuments legislation.
This is a deceptive statement rather than an outright falsehood because ecclesiastical buildings in use are subject to statutory controls if they are of historical interest.
In the UK there are 2 pieces of legislation. One covers Truins and archaeological sites and one covers buildings in use. Archaeological sites are covered under Ancient Monu- ments legislation while buildings in use are covered under the Town and Country Planning Act.
This matter was pointed out to Gus by the Crown Solicitor, Mr Jeremy Mathews, on December 2, 1987.
Mr Mathews drew a parallel between the Trustees' application to demolish the Synagogue and a case which was decided in the House of Lords in 1975 (re: AG v. Trustees of the Howard United Reform Church, Bedford (1975) 2 All ER 337).
The essence of this important case is that "The trustees were... not exempt from the statutory controls over the demolition of buildings of special architectural or historical interest.*
No way out, Gus. Gotcha yet again.
Falsehood Number Three
Gus stated that 'In UK, it is permissible for listed reli- gious buildings to be reconstructed in a similar way as that proposed' for the Synagogue.
Wrong, Gus.
A question in December 1987 put to the Department of the Environment in London by Mr James Moorhouse, Member of the European Parliament, asked whether demo- lition consent would be given for a listed building if a commitment to build a replica was made.
The answer: 'An application to demolish the building altogether would not be agreed to by the authority.'
And so, Gus, TARGET is happy to award you the Utterer of Falsehood Award of the Year.
Keep reading next week for the story of Jason Yuen, Chairman of the Antiquities Advisory Board, and his slight conflict of interest in the whole affair, and his strange reticence to 'declare an interest on any matters whenever it is necessary...'
T