563453-1929-Minutes--No-9 — Page 5

458

THE HONG KONG GOVERNMENT GAZETTE, SEPTEMBER 6, 1929.

and a Director of the Hong Kong Excavation Pile Driving and Con- struction Co., Ltd., with which the Contract for the carrying out of the scheme has been entered into by the Kowloon Tong Company?

6. Between the period when the last Managing Director left the Colony early in 1928 and the appointment of the present incumbent to the office on 22nd May, 1929, is it not true that no Managing Director existed, and this being the case to whom did the Government look for the fulfilment of the Agreement of 1922 during that period?

7. Was the Government cognisant of the fact that for the carrying out of a scheme involving in the end a sum of nearly $3,000,000 (irrespective of the Government share) there was registered a Company with a capital limited to a liability of only $20,000 of which not more than $2,000 was actually paid up?

8. Was it considered prudent to vest in a Company the right and power of absolute control of a scheme involving a few million dollars in its exccu- tion when its only visible capital was a sum of $2,000 with shares paid up to the extent only of 10 cents each?

9. Was any and what Government supervision exercised over the Company in the carrying out of the Company's obligations towards the Govern- ment in terms of the Agreement with the Government?

10. Is it not a fact that up to the 31st December, 1924, the following aggre-

gate payments had been made by individual purchasers:--

(a) In respect of Land (b) Buildings-1st Call

2nd Call

3rd Call

$556,925

636,000

127.800

76,400

$1,397,125

representing 18.62%, 21.27%, 4.27% and 2.55%, respectively, of the total cost of $2,990,258 up to date?

11. If the reply to Question 10 be in the affirmative, what reason is there for a sum of over three hundred thousand dollars for land premium remain- ing unpaid to the Government, when the Government had already been informed that $556,925 had been collected from the subscribers?

12. What steps is the Government taking to recover the debt from the C'om-

pany?

13. Is the Government aware of the fact that, in respect of land for which the Company contracted to pay the Government about $100,000, the Company is already and had been for several years in receipt from the subscribers of over $500,000 ?

44

14. Is the Government aware that in the Circular letter referred to in Ques-.

tion 4 the Kowloon Tong Company has given notice to all subscribers calling for the payment of a further Call to the extent of 9 per cent. of the amount covenanted to be paid by each and every subscriber in respect of each and every House on the Estate" which will make a total of 109% of what the Subscribers covenanted to pay?

15. Has the demand for payment been made with the knowledge and consent of the Government? Did not the Company write in to the Government subsequent to 1924 sending a List of Subscribers who have fully paid up all monies in respect of their property under the scheme and calling upon the Government to issue Crown Leases for same in terms of Clause 7, sub-section (a) of the Agreement?

16. In a letter to the subscriber of House No. 111 of the Kowloon Tong

Estate dated 26th January, 1926, the General Manager stated:-

"I can now produce the documentary evidence to the Crown Land Agent (sic) and ask that your Crown Lease be made at once. The fees therein will be $30. If you desire the Company to

Page 5Page 6