TNAG-0642-FCO40-790-Kowloon-Walled-City-and-aircraft-safety-in-Hong-Kong-1977 — Page 54

CONFIDENTIAL #

機密

(5) Para. 7: Letter from the Hong Kong General Chamber of Commerce

to the Marquess Salisbury, July 1898, in Eastern No. 66 op. cit., 9-10.

(6) Para. 8:

Peter Wesley-Smith, op. cit. 91.

(7) Para. 9:

Quoted in Ibid. 93.

(8)

}

Para. 10: Letter from Tsungli-yamen to Sir Claude MacDonald, 20.12.1899, in Eastern No. 66, op. cit. 290

(9) Para. 11: Lai Chun-wai, op. cit. 100-101.

(10) Para. 12:

Ta Kung Pao, 18.1.1963.

(11) Para. 13: Wen Wei Pao and Ta Kung Pao, 24 June 1970.

(12) Para. 14: The British attitude towards the interpretation of the

1898 Convention was mentioned very briefly in the Hong Kong Annual Report, 1948, p. 2:

"Friendly relations with China were unfortunately temporarily marred early in the year as a result of China's representations in connection with the "Kowloon City Incident," which resulted from the eviction of unauthorized squatters from land which formerly comprised the old walled city of Kowloon. The Chinese Government considered that they had cause to intervene in this matter since according to their interpretation of the Peking Convention of 1898, under which the New Territories were leased to Great Britain, jurisdiction in Kowloon City was reserved to China. His Majesty's Government have been unable to accept this interpretation."

(13) Para. 14: (1959) HILLS 601

(14) Para. 14: Peter Wesley-Smith, Op. cit. 94.

(15) Para. 16: We have besed this generalization on our experience

with Walled City residents.

(16) Para. 18: It appears that the whole City territory has been and

is still regarded officially as Crown land. However, records show that from the day the Kowloon City Order in Council was proclained, there has only been 7 lots leased to private holders. Of these, one has already been surrendered back to the Government while the other 6 are still leased to the Chinese Missionary Trust Association Ltd. which is still paying the annual rent to the Government.

Records reveal that no other lots within the City has been the subj of a grant from the Crown and except for the 6 lots mentioned, no Crown rent has been collected from residents within the City since 1937. All occupants of other land lots within the City are thus illegal occupants and are thus, legalistically speaking, illegal squatters. (RG's memo. (44) in L.0. 16/251/62 dated 11th March 1972).

機密

CONFIDENTIAL #2