52 Heys Road, Prestwich,
Manchester M25 5JY June 1993
Dear Mr. Sumberg,
I refer to your letter of the 29th November 1991 with which you enclosed an original letter from the Foreign & Commonwealth Office signed by the Earl of Caithness regarding the reversion of sovereignty of Hong Kong to the Chinese government in 1997.
Whilst the Commonwealth Office letter was informative it did not entirely cover the queries which I raised in my letter of the 24th October 1991. If I could have specific answers to the following points perhaps this would clarify the situation and wind up the matter.
(a)
(b)
In 1860 Kowloon was ceded to the British in perpetuity. Has this cession ever been rescinded and if so by which Chinese government. Was the British government in agreement?
It would seem from the Commonwealth Office letter that only 92% of the land area of Hong Kong must revert to China when the lease expires in 1997 but this statement does not clarify the position with regard to the remaining 8%. I appreciate the Commonwealth Office comments stating that this 8% depends on the New Territories for raw materials, food and fresh water, but this is immaterial compared to the land regarding which I am inquiring. What is the position therefore with regard
to this 8%?
As you will recall from my letter of the 24th October 1991 I indicated that I had a group of friends who were interested in this particular aspects of the Hong Kong handover, and we should all be interested to have the Commonwealth Office comments on these points.
In my letter of 14th January 1992 I did ask you if I could correspond direct with the Commonwealth Office on this matter, but as I have not received a direct reply I have as a matter of protocol referred the matter back to you. I look forward to your reply
with interest.
Yours sincerely,
Aufutan.
A.M. GUNTON
N