92
5 on
parts of the leased territory has been used, without any
protest on the part of the Chinese Government, for the
creation of public parks or other purposes not comprised
amongst those mentioned in paragraph 6 it might be
possible to establish that the Chinese Government had
tacitly accepted the position whereby any public work or
development scheme which was in the general interests of
the area was regarded as being permitted by the terms of
paragraph 6 of the Convention. In any case although,
13832/33
on the strict wording, it is doubtful whether anything
else was intended than such things as public buildings,
fortifications, necessary roads and communications etc.
it would seem to be possible to make out a colourable
argument to the effect that a public park, if undertaken
officially, financed out of public funds and clearly
in the interests of the area as a whole would be permissible
under the terms of paragraph 6.
4.
The Chinese Government have not raised any
contention under paragraph 6 of the Convention probably
because to do so would be to admit by implication that
His Majesty's Government are entitled to exercise
jurisdiction in Kowloon City which would in their view
be inconsistent with the claim which they are making under
The attitude of the Chinese Government, paragraph 3.
revealed in the note, copy of which was communicated to
the Colonial Office in Foreign Office letter
as
No. F 6074/2398/10 of 19th September last, appears to
be that legally they are entitled to exercise jurisdiction
in Kowloon City, that they have not done so for many years
past and would be quite content to leave the matter in
abeyance