TNAG-1812-FCO40-2573-Preservation-of-Ohel-Leah-Synagogue-in-Hong-Kong-1988 — Page 15

The Kadoorie Conundrum

Target July 13

(E)

TRYING TO SLIP A FAST ONE PAST

EXCO, GUS?

When a high-ranking Government official presents a paper to the highest decision-making body of Government, it is assumed that the matters contained within that paper are accurate.

But, Mr Government, if you get a paper from Mr A.K.Chui (Gus), think twice before accepting the data contained within that paper.

Because Gus's office makes horrible mistakes assum- ing that they are mistakes.

Take for instance the matter of Gus's paper tabled in the Executive Council on December 15, 1987; subject matter:

Ohel Leah Synagogue.

XCCI (87) 68 is the official nomenclature -- just in case and it some smart-arse wants to take TARGET to task deals with matters relating to the reasoning behind the Government's intention to allow the Synagogue to be pulled

down.

But the matters related to are based on falsehoods, either perpetrated by accident or design.

Gus states:

'Members will be asked to note the contents of this memorandum [which] explains the background to the declaration of the Ohel Leah Synagogue as a Proposed Monument and... the reasons for the withdrawal of the declaration by the Antiquities Authority...

'12. At the 28 November meeting, AAB heard rep- resentations by leaders of the Jewish Community, the Trustees and their professional consultants who explained the case in support of their applica- tion for uplifting the declaration. After the meet- ing, members were given another week to send in their individual views in the light of the latest infor- mation, since a considerable amount of late pa- pers had to be digested. By 5 December, all the returns had been received by CAAB [Chairman of the AAB]. The result was an even split of six to

- 18 -

six... [first falsehood]

'14 (g). Government's liability to compensation as provided in the Ordinance [Chapter 53, Antiqui- ties and Monuments Ordinance] and in this case, the possibility of public funds having to be commit- ted on a building to which the general public will have no access... [second falsehood]

And then, in the annex to the paper, it is stated at Page 2, Paragraph F:

'Historically, religious customs evolved over time, so do places of worship. Out of respect for religious freedom, the AAB has in the past adopted a "hand- off" (sic) policy towards religious building (sic) in use. In UK, buildings in ecclesiastical use are spe- cially excluded from the scope of scheduled build- ings under the Ancient Monuments legislation (this is a half falsehood]...'.

And then, again in the annex, at Page 5, Paragraph E:

'In UK, it is permissible for listed religious build- ings to be reconstructed in a similar way as that proposed [in the Ohel Leah Synagogue proposal]. [this is the third major falsehood]'

So Gus scores 3 major falsehoods and one half falsehood. This is not thought to be a record because a former Hongkong judge holds this title.

Falsehood Number One

6.

Gus states in his paper that the AAB vote was split 6 to

In fact, the vote was 7 to 6 in favour of keeping the declaration in force, which would have meant keeping the Synagogue.

The proof of this may be obtained from 2 sources: Gus's

Page 15Page 16