XN000022-1972-05-10 — Page 5

5

Wednesday, May 10, 1972

At the time of public auction, he said, Government had failed to

inform the potential purchasers fully and clearly that the new Crown rent

would be assessed in a totally different manner as compared to that for

the present one.

There was no indication whatsoever that there are two completely

different types of Crown rent as contained in the printed version of the

Particulars and Conditions of Sales, he said.

"Since Government has failed to do so, the public were then misled

into the belief that the new Crown rent would be evaluated in a similar

manner as the present Crown rent and hence the premiums offered by the

bidders were based on this misunderstanding."

Dr. Chung said he felt, as many people did, that Government owed

these leaseholders a great deal of moral obligation.

On market price or scarcity value of land, Dr. Chung said it is

subject to extreme fluctuations even within a period of a few weeks and is

therefore open to dispute.

"What justification can Government make to demonstrate to the

satisfaction of leaseholders that its assessments on capital value are fair

and realistic?" he asked.

Dr. Chung also challenged the Government on its public announcement

that the five per cent interest rate was in itself a substantial concession

on the part of Government made to those holders of renewable leases.

He said