138
redevelopment, and spoke to each group in turn on their history and background. The first time around, a small donation had turned away the indignation of an old female resident, who had noisily enquired what we were up to. Also, we were entertained on each occasion by the Kowloon City Kaifong Association in its office inside the City, and given its side of the story.
The opportunity would not recur. At the time of writing (June 1994), all the buildings within the Walled City boundary (less those of historic interest) have been demolished and their residents compensated and rehoused, and a four-week long archaeological investigation has been completed, uncovering the inscribed granite slab over the old South Gate.25
Other Aspects of the Society
Two Letters
The RAS has seldom been politically motivated. On the rare occasions that we have made representations to the authorities, this was done to support some worthy public cause, like the need for a proper Museum of History.26 The only occasion on which the Society has campaigned vigorously on a local issue has been in the past few years, against the government's intended removal of the Public Records of Hong Kong to Tuen Mun New Town, and to press in lieu for a more suitable premises in a convenient location.27
However, on two other occasions, in the exceptional circumstances of the time, special representations were made on behalf of the Society, because in both cases Hong Kong's future was seen to be involved. Following the Tiananmen Square incident in mid-1989, which threw Hong Kong into an emotional turmoil the like of which had never been seen, the RAS Council met to discuss the position. It was decided to send a letter to the Foreign and Commonwealth Office in London, urging it to stand firm in its dealings with Beijing, in the interests of Hong Kong and its people. **Sad to say, there was no response; and despite sending a follow-up copy some weeks after, not even so much as an acknowledgment. In the second instance, again in 1989 and just before the period allowed for public comment on the draft Basic Law had elapsed, in my capacity as President of the Society, I sent a personal letter to the Chairman of the Consultative Committee for the Basic Law, Later reproduced in the RAS
138
redevelopment, and spoke to each group in turn on their history and background The first time around, a small donation had turned away the Indignation of an old female resident, who had noisily enquired what we were up to. Also, we were entertained on each occasion by the Kowloon City Kaifong Association in its office inside the City, and given its side of the story.
The opportunity would not recur At the time of writing (June 1994), all the buildings within the Walled City boundary (less those of historic interest) have been demolished and their residents compensated and rehoused, and a four-week long archaeological investigation has been completed, uncovering the inscribed granite slab over the old South Gate.25
Other Aspects of the Society
Two Letters
The RAS has seldom been politically motivated. On the rare occasions that we have made representations to the authorities, this was done to support some worthy public cause, like the need for a proper Museum of History. 26 The only occasion on which the Society has campaigned vigorously on a local issue has been in the past few years, against the government's intended removal of the Public Records of Hong Kong to Tuen Mun New Town, and to press in lieu for a more suitable premises in a convenient location, 27
However, on two other occasions, in the exceptional circumstances of the time, special representations were made on behalf of the Society. because in both cases Hong Kong's future was seen to be involved. Following the Tienanmen Square incident in mid 1989, which threw Hong Kong into an emotional turmoil the like of which had never been seen, the RAS Council met to discuss the position. It was decided to send a letter to the Foreign and Commonwealth Office in London, urging it to stand firm in its dealings with Beijing, in the interests of Hong Kong and its people. ** Sad to say, there was no response; and despite sending a follow- up copy some weeks after, not even so much as an acknowledgment In the second instance, again in 1989 and just before the period allowed for public comment on the draft Basic Law had elapsed, in my capacity as President of the Society, I sent a personal letter to the Chairman of the Consultative Committee for the Basic Law, Later reproduced in the RAS
No comments yet.
Private notes are available after approval.