CO537-3711 — Page 137

COPY.

F 3589/154/10

1948.

Memorandum leit by Chinese Ambassador, London at Foreign Office on 9th March, 1948.

We would like to make it clearly understood that, in accepting the proosal to turn the area into a Memorial Park, and to have two Trustees consisting of one British and one Chinose, some space should be reserved for building a branch office of the Special Commissioner for Foreign Affairs, whose principal office is now in Hong Kong.

The advantage of having a branch office of the Special Commissioner in that area is that it would provide a most effective means of guarding against any possible un- desirable activities.

As the Chinese side is prepared to accept the British proosals, namely:

1. To turn the area into a Memorial Park;

2.

To have only two Trustees; and

3.

To utilise the police, water, electricity, anu other public utilities to be furnished by the Kowloon leased territory; practically the whole problem would be settled on the basis of the British proposals. Therefore, it is only reasonable that the proposal from the Chinese Government that some space ahuld be reserved for buil-ing a branch office of the Special Commissioner for Foreign Affairs should be accepted by the British side. Moreover, apart from the fact that the presence of such an office in the area would help much in the maintenance of order for utual good, there can be no good reason for any objection to it; for, as even in Hong Kong the Chinese Special Commissioner has his principal office, there is no reason why he should not be allowed to have a branch office in the Kowloon City.

The question recently raised that offences committed in that area should, in future, be tried by a Chinese Court is due to the proposal recently put forward by the British side that the law of Hong Kong ah uld apply to that area. It is obvious that this would not be acceptable to the Chinese Government; because it would mean that the whole area would be under the entire jurisdiction of Hong Kong, the proposed exchange of notes serving merely as a seal to the British claim.

The possibility of offences being committed in the area is indeed very remote but is real all the same. Therefore, some provisions should be made for this eventuality;

otherwise, one day disputes may arise again. In view of the respective positions taken up by both sides, and of the fact that the British side suggests, for the sake of an amicable settlement, not to raise any question that might prejudice the position of either party, the best solution, it seems, would be not to decide any questions of principle in the exchange of notes, but merely to provide some practical Jeans of meeting the eventualiti s envisaged: in other words, to provide a formule which would not prejudice in any way the clain of

8833

either/