CO129-489 - Governor Sir Stubbs & Sir Clementi - 1925 [8-12] — Page 4

The memorialists in the first place argue that the develop- ment of land for building purposes to meet a house shortage cannot be regarded as an official purpose within the mean ing of the clause of the Convention above quoted, and that resumption for such a purpose is in fact "expropria- tion" or "expulsion". The Governor says that such a contention cannot be upheld, and I agree with him.

He goes on to state, however, that the question as to the correct interpretation of the Convention is a matter to be settled with the Chinese Goverment and not with the memorialists. I do not agree with this at all.

Surely

a man who considers that he is suffering injury through

Life what he considers an incorrect interpretation of this Convention is entitled to submit his complaint to the

If people Goverment and to receive a reasoned reply ? are usually treated in Hongkong in this offhand fashion, it cannot be wondered at that agitation results,

1972.

Secondly, the memorialists allege that, whereas the Hongkong Goverment had pledged itself to safeguard the rights which inhabitants in the New Territories had under Chinese law in respect of teir land tenure, the Hongkong Government had, by its land legislation, seriously diminish-

They complain that in the leases edad curtailed those rights. issued by the Goverment the land is described as

"agricultural", "building" etc. and rent is charged according to the nature of the land, and that holders are not allowed to use land which is described in the lease as agricultural for building purposes when and if they please (as they contend that they could do under Chinese law), but are obliged to apply for a building permit to Govern- ment which may refuse it arbitrarily, and that if granted,

remium and increased rent are exacted.

The

C

In

The Governor agrees that under Chinese law Band-

holders, if not expressly permitted, were not forbidden

to convert agricultural land into building land; but

points out that all land was subject to tax which

varied with the nature of the use to which it was put,

and custom required that permission should be obtained

from Chinese officials to change the nature of a hold-

ing, though this requirement was often evaded.

the case of the New Territories, titles to land have,

for convenience of administration, been defined by

Crown Leases which are coextensive with the lease of

the Territories and do not curtail the rights possessed

by the landowners under Chinese law and custom; and

if and when the Territories are handed back to China,

the landowner will still be possessed of all rights accorded by Chinese law. (Incidentally, the New

Territories must be a perfect paradise even for the

present aggrieved landholder, as compared with the rest of China in these times). The Governor describes

in paragraphs 7-9 of this despatch the procedure adopted when agricultural lots are converted to build-

ing lots, and no exception can reasonably be taken to

it. The memorialists have clearly no case here.

We now come to their main grievance, and that is

the alleged inadequacy of the compensation paid to

holders whose lands are resumed. (See Ordinance 10

of 1900 in Vol. herewith). They complain that the

Arbitration Boards set up under this Ordinance to assess compensation in respect of agricultural land required for building purposes, make their awarda on a scale of values ranging from 5 cents per foot in respect of the best class of agricultural land down- wards, and in no circumstances give more than 5 centa

per