4
I am afraid I cannot be of assi stance in this matter as I am so out of sympathy with the line of action that has been followed both here and in Hong Kong since 1940.
The Hong Kong Government may know
what they propose to do, but I confess I am unable to follow the details from the papers. I invite attention to two points.
1.
2.
Paragraph 7 of the despatch
statis
an I understand 14 refers, 'when it is desired to induce further rehabilitat- ion and development....where the land is properly developed.', and
Paragraph 4 of enclosure 1 which gives the dual basis for the
reassessed rent, which basis may be inconsistent with each other.
In this instance it is obvious from Paragraph 6 of the despatch, that the less onerous basis is the one Government proposes to follow.
As I see it, this represents a complete and final victory for the vested interests; as I understand it,rent is not to be revised during the first 75 years at all, and thereafter only to the prevailing rate, whilst the premium is to ignore the value of the building and is likewise to be based on prevailing land value only.
I doubt if any leaseholders ever got
a better bargain.
Were it not for the general talk on the retrocession of Hong Kong, I would venture to point out the dangers of establish- ing this precedent against the time when the 99 year leases and the 75 year renewable leases will also fall in.
18th March 1948