91
The Chinese
British jurisdiction in Kowloon City. The Chinese
Government having tacitly acquiesced for over thirty years,
cannot now say that we are not rightfully there. The
original assumption of jurisdiction having been clearly
justified we should be on strong ground in arguing that,
pending at any rate a demand for the restoration of
Chinese jurisdiction, we have a right to continue to
exercise jurisdiction and hence to expropriate. We should
however be on less strong ground in resisting a demand
for the restoration of Chinese jurisdiction.
Government have so far made no such demand. They have
based themselves on the contention that de jure their
jurisdiction in Kowloon City has never ceased, thus
inferring that our original assumption of jurisdiction
was not justified. There would be no difficulty in
rebutting this assumption but difficulties would arise
if the Chinese Government were to shift their ground and
say that, although the original assumption of jurisdiction
may have been justified, its continued exercise is not.
There would seem to be a fairly strong case for the
present exercise of British jurisdiction in Kowloon City
but the case for the continued exercise in future of such
jurisdiction would seem to be less strong unless it can be
established that the exercise of Chinese jurisdiction in
Kowloon City is still inconsistent with the military
requirements for the defence of Hong Kong.
3. As regards paragraph 6 of the Convention
Sir John Simon is advised that, although the creation of a
public park would appear not to come under the heading
"the like official purposes", if in fact land in other
parts