Boundary Stone at Magazine Gap Road

Submitted by Anonymous (not verified) on Fri, 06/15/2007 - 18:49

Some net friend had a trip a couple of days ago to check the 'Victoria City boundary stones'. He found that the one at Magazine Gap Road (the latest one found) had been removed. Any idea who did that? Or it was done by the government for conservation purpose?

Hi there,

I have been staring at the two photos for quite a while and suddenly realized the stone wall appeared to be under some sort of maintenance between the two photos were taken:

1. The roots are all gone

2. There are new putty being pasted along the edge of each stone

If only we could fine out who did the maintenance most likely we could find out the culprit.

And they said getting rid of the piers was shame........

T

I just wrote to these four government agencies via e-mail, 

Leisure and Cultural Services Department
Home Affairs Department
Antiquities and Monuments Office, Home Affairs Department
Civil Engineering and Development Department

See who has the answer in the earliest time.

If anyone else wants to write, here are the contact e-mail addresses: 

Antiquities and Monuments Office: no further reply after 18 June.

Civil Engineering and Dept.: one reply on 6 July:
"We refer to your e-mail to CEDD on 18 June 2007 and the subsequent communication
of our Geotechnical Engineering Office with you regarding the captioned subject

We have carried out a check on the matter and would like to advise that :
(a)        Management and maintenance of the subject boundary stone are not under the
           purview of CEDD.
(b)        The subject boundary stone falls within the area maintained by private lot owner of
17 Magazine Gap Road.  Control of structures and works of private lots is under the purview
of Buildings Department."

Leisure and Cultural Services Dept. one reply on 10 July:
"Thank you for writing to the Leisure and Cultural Services Department on 18/06/2007. 
Please note that enquiries and complaints related to that department are now handled
by the 1823 Citizen's Easy Link of the Government.  The Highways Department advised
that your case should be handled by the Buildings Department.   As such, we have
referred your case to the Buildings Department for follow up."

Home Affairs Dept. one reply on 21 July:
"I refer to your earlier email to the Headquarters of Home Affairs
Department on 18 June concerning the captioned matter.  To facilitate
our further investigation of the boundary stone concerned, I should be
grateful if you would furnish me with more information about it, e.g. the
approximate location, when you found it missing, etc. please.  Thank you."

So I wrote to Buildings Dept. & Lands Dept. on 9 July.

I walked along the boundary in the Cuaseway Bay area on last Sunday week, and could
not any find any trace of new stone. Will continue the trace as I suspect that one may be
around Tung Shan Terrance / Stubbs Road.

Hi there,

Ugh..... It's been 10 years and they are still pointing to other departments. I began to wonder what are the officials of the Antiquities and Monuments Office been doing? Why wasn't somebody brave enough to step out and take ownership of this issue?

If it is the case as mentioned in the reply that the maintenance of that particular slope/stone wall falls under the private owner of #17 Magazine Gap Road, there isn't much hope to salvage the stone.

T

Hi there,

I found a link in a Chinese web forum (http://go2nature.net/forum/viewtopic.php?t=2173&) on similar topic. They scope covers all boundary/IL/KWW/Milelage stones in the city, not just the Victoria City ones.

Somebody there had filed an enquiry on this stone in Magazine Gap back in 2005 to the AMO...... The forum luckers also managed to confirm the management of the private lot did hire a contractor to work on the slope/stone wall. However the building management was unable (or reluctant) to give any further information.

Another posting (in English) there on page 9 mentioned the District Survey Office of the Lands Department replied on 26 June saying they are working on the case.

Best Regards,
T

I think the Antiquities and Monuments Office (AMO) should be accountable for that. After she was told that the suspected boundary stone was missing, has she done anything? As she knew that the Building Department (BD) was in charge of overseeing the maintenance work of the concerned slope performed by the lot owner, did she request BD to seek information from the lot owner and/or the maintenance contractor? She just have done nothing!

Did AMO know about the existence of the stone on that slope before the maintenance work carried out? If "yes", she was negligent in taking reasonable steps to protect the stone which might have historical value. At least she should notify BD about the matter and require the lot owner and/or the maintenance contractor, via BD, to be aware of damaging the stone. If someone here can confirm that AMO had been well notified of the existence of that stone when the stone was still there, one can lodge a complaint about her maladministration to the Ombudsman.

Thanks for keeping us updated of the news on the Chinese-language forums.

From the various messages and copies of emails posted, it seems the AMO was aware of the seventh stone. I'll be interested to hear their description of what's happened here, given their stated role.

MrB 

AMO know the 7th stone more than a year and did nothing to further study and put it in their record!

Boundary stone is public assets and noone allow to damange or remove it according to law Cap473 s32:
 It seen all government departments just forget this point! Please keep push our government to locate the missing stone. The should put a replica there if unable to find the real one!

Historical file about No. 7 stone.
1924 / Administrative Reports / Public Works
http://sunzi1.lib.hku.hk/hkgro/view/a1924/544.pdf
32/192 page No. 22
The City Boundary, which for a considerable distance on the southern side follows the 700 ft contour has been defined from a point on the sea-shore at Kennedy Town as far east as Magazine Gap Road and boundary stones fixed at suitable points.

1929 / Administrative Reports / Public Works
http://sunzi1.lib.hku.hk/hkgro/view/a1929/714.pdf
14/141 page No. 23
The City Boundary east of Magazine Gap Road along the 700 ft contour was defined and boundary stones fixed or refixed.

Permalink
Submitted by
SF (not verified)
on
Thu, 07/19/2007 - 11:42

All these governments just shirked their responsibility! AMO still claims that it was a 'suspected' one. My friend had sent a letter to them in Dec 2005, this is what I've heard of the earliest correspondence with AMO to informing the discovery of '007 BS'.

10 July 2007

Thank you for your fax of 28 June 2007 regarding the suspected Boundary Stone of the City of Victoria (the "Stone").

You may wish to note that the subject Stone has been recorded by our Office for further research on its history and background last year. As half of the Stone was found embedded in a retaining wall under private lot, we have yet ot ascertain whether it is one of the Boundary Stones of the City of Victoria erected by the Government in 1903. Since then, we have advised relevant Government departments to consult our Office on any works that may affect the Stone.

We understand that the Stone might have been removed. We, therefore, referred the case to relevant Government departments for investigation and necessary follow up. We would also attempt to approach the owner of the lot for the whereabouts of the Stone.

Thank you once again for your interest in Hong Kong's cultural heritage.

Yours sincerely

(Ms. Cissy Ho)
for Executive Secretary
AMO

CC:
CBS/HK W, BD
CBS/SS, BD
CGE/I, GEO
DLO/HKW & S
DO (C&W)

If AMO really did inform other government departments about '007 BS', the landlord of Magazine Heights should have been informed about this BS. I've also sent the letter to the Landlord but no reply yet.

Complaints should be raised continuously until the Government will give us a good answer.

Even now the 001-006 BS are not protected by Laws.

Yesterday, 19th of July, I received the following reply to the message I sent on 16th June:

Thank you for your email regarding the suspected  Boundary Stone of the City of Victoria.

You may wish to note that as half of the Stone was found embedded in a retaining wall under private lot, we have yet to ascertain whether it is one of the Boundary Stones of the City of Victoria.  The Stone was located on a private land.  We have advised relevant Government departments to consult our Office on any works that may affect the Stone since last year.

The stone was not removed by our office and we referred the case to relevant Government departments for investigation and necessary follow up.  We would also attempt to approach the owner of the lot for the whereabouts of the Stone.

[name withheld]
ACII(MR)1
AMO/LCSD

So, it is disappointing that it has taken them a month to send me what looks to be their standard reply on the subject. But at least it is a start. I have just sent back the following reply:

Thank you for your reply. Please could you help me answer two further questions?
 
Q1. Have the AMO been able to contact the owner of the lot yet?
 
The priority is to recover the stone before it is lost or damaged for ever. As you point out, the stone was located on private land, so the owner of that land should know what happened to it. At worst they can provide contact details for the contractor that performed the work.
 
Q2. What is preventing the AMO from identifying the Magazine Gap Rd. stone as one of the boundary stones?
 
There is strong evidence to support that the stone is one of the Victoria City boundary stones:

a. The stone was located where the boundary (ie the 700ft contour) crosses Magazine Gap Road
 
b. Paragraph 22 of the Director of Works' Annual Report for 1924 states: "The City Boundary, which for a considerable distance on the southern side follows the 700 ft contour has been defined from a point on the sea-shore at Kennedy Town as far east as Magazine Gap Road and boundary stones fixed at suitable points." One of those stones would surely have marked the end of the defined boundary (ie Magazine Gap Rd), in the same way that one marks the start of the defined boundary (ie Sai Ning St. in Kennedy Town).
 
c. The stone has the same shape and appearance as the other boundary stones.
 
d. Although most of the inscription on the stone was covered by the wall, it was possible to see part of the word "boundary", which also appears on the other stones.

Given this evidence, I am interested to learn what is preventing the AMO from identifying the stone as one of the boundary stones. Is there some other, conflicting evidence?
 
I look forward to hearing from you. Thank you for your support to preserve this part of Hong kong's heritage.

I'll let you know if I get any reply.

MrB

AMO is big.  I aslo received the following reply from them on 19 July:

Thank you for your email regarding the suspected  Boundary Stone of the City of Victoria.

You may wish to note that as half of the Stone was found embedded in a retaining wall under private lot, we have yet to ascertain whether it is one of the Boundary Stones of the City of Victoria.  The Stone was located on a private land.  We have advised relevant Government departments to consult our Office on any works that may affect the Stone since last year.

The stone was not removed by our office and we referred the case to relevant Government departments for investigation and necessary follow up.  We would also attempt to approach the owner of the lot for the whereabouts of the Stone.

*********
ACII(MR)1
AMO/LCSD

Besides this particular officer, I also received two more reply, from different officers as my case has been re-directed by Home Affairs Dept. & 1823 Citizen's Easy Link.

I also wrote to Lands Dept, Information Services Dept & Land Registry, expecting their reply.  Buildings Dept made the reply, denying any responsibility.

I received this reply today (though it doesn't answer either of the questions I asked):

Thank you very much for your email.  Our Office is taking follow up action for the situation of the boundary stone.  We are checking the whereabout of the stone.  We will inform you once we have the updated information.  In the meantime, please feel free to contact us if you have any other questions.

Thank you once again for your effort in preserving Hong Kong's cultural heritage.

Regards,
[name withheld]
ACII(MR)1
AMO/LCSD

MrB

"Does it matter that this boundary stone's been removed?"

Someone asked me that over the weekend. After all, it is just one little bit of stone sticking out of a wall that few people ever walk past. How many people even knew it existed?

It's true that this boundary stone isn't one of Hong Kong's greatest historic relics. But on the other hand we don't have that many relics at all, so why lose this one when it could so easily have been kept?

So yes it matters, in that it highlights some of the problems that put other relics at risk. These problems include:

Poor internal communication between government departments.

Eg On 16th Dec 2006, the Chief Curator of the Museum of History says 'You are perfectly right, there is another boundary stone at Magazine Gap Road and my colleague has already located it and taken phots of it.' (See comment #2 here)

Then on 24th January 2007 we find that the Lands department now consider there are seven boundary stones, including the stone at Magazine Gap Rd 'Please be informed that cleansing work to the seven stones has been carried out on 16 January 2007.' (See comment #4 here)

But on 19th July 2007 the reply from the AMO (Antiquities & Monuments office) is still saying 'we have yet to ascertain whether it is one of the Boundary Stones of the City of Victoria.'.

Poor communication between government departments and public.

This works both ways. On the one hand there are different, unconnected groups of the public that are keen to learn what has happened to the missing stone. But that means many messages sent to different government departments, so some departments receive messages that are not relevant to them, and I guess the AMO has to deal with many duplicate messages. Not very efficient.

Of course the reply wasn't that impressive either, with the AMO taking one month to send out a form letter.

Responsiveness.

It seems the stone disappeared some time between late May when this photo was taken and mid-June when we learned that it had disappeared. A speedy response was needed to have the best chance to recover the stone. The AMO were notified of the stone's disappearance on 16th June, if not earlier. On 19th July, their position was still 'We would also attempt to approach the owner of the lot for the whereabouts of the Stone.'

So what can we do to help prevent this type of problem in future?

Improve internal communication

Is there an way for departments to share information about these relics? eg A simple shared website where interested people can look up a relic on an online map of Hong Kong, view its status, and add comments about it?

Improve external communication

If that type of website exists, could the public be given access to it? Some information may be confidential and need to be hidden, but if we could see what work is underway, we wouldn't need to keep bothering the departments with emails.

Also when there are questions, eg about the history of a suspected relic, why not let the public add their comments too? As we can see from the interest in this issue, there are many knowledgeable amateur historians in Hong Kong that can contribute useful knowledge and research.

Respond faster

Well, the door is locked on the inside for that one. Hopefully the better communication mentioned above could free up resources to respond faster to the main problem?

Better protect the remaining stones

Inform land-owners if stones are on their land. It doesn't have to be a heavy-handed approach, more a "Congratulations, you're in charge of a piece of Hong kong's history", with a little background and a request to contact the AMO before any work starts that could damage it. It's easy to be cynical and say 'who'd care', but I think if it was posted on the notice board for residents to read, enough people would take notice and respond positively to make a difference.

Recognise them as monuments. From the Lands Departments' message (see comment #11 here), the remaining stones have no official protection. Give it to them.

Put a simple warning on the stones. Recognising them as monuments is great, making the contracting companies take more care to look after the stones and so avoid breaking the law. But... what's most important is to stop some over-enthusiastic workman from swinging a sledgehammer at the stone. I'm sure that in the Magazine Gap Rd case, at the end of the job the workment looked at the slope with pride, congratulating themselves on how they'd taken away that ugly pointy bit and left it all smooth and lovely!! So, have a warning in plain language fixed on or near to the remaining stones.

What do you think? Is it worth causing a fuss about this? Why? And what other simple steps can we take to help stop it from happening again in future?

MrB

The communication within department also matters. 

According forum.hh1977, they received a reply from Lands Dept. on 6 July saying that:“protection measures HAVE been put in place for the Wong Nai Chung Road stone. Highways Department IS WORKING with Transport Department on how to protect the Bowen Road stone” 

But, I received the following message on 10 July “The Highways Department advised that your case should be handled by the Buildings Department” 

Furthermore, a visit on last Sunday (22 July) at Wong Nai Chung Road stone couldn’t see any “protection measures”

Hi there,

I used to work in a Semi-Government Organization, which shall remain nameless. One of my Department Heads back in the Mid-80's used to mumble the subject line in a complete sentence quite a few times a week.

It's an issue dated back God knows when and it is still a big issue in all Corporations. Not to mention the biggest employer in town. It might improve a little bit if there had been a disaster and while the officials tries to have a remedy.

The major issue here, if the stones and other relics are concerned, is whether it is profitable (literally, and in terms of $$$).

It really sucks.

T

A reporter from the HKET newspaper has been in touch with a few questions about this topic, and says there will be an article about it in today's newspaper. If you see it, please could you let us know what are the main points they cover, as I can't read the chinese :-(

Many thanks, MrB

Reader 'isdl' emailed us:

Page C5 of today’s (26 July) HKET:
 
HKET quoted information from various forums, including “Batgung”, “go2nature” & “www.xanga.com/kk1688”, interviewed Mr B & Mr Ting, ex-curator of Hong Kong Museum of History.
 
At the end of the story, it says something like: “the six remaining stones are not declared monument nor protected by any ordinance.  Will the remaining six stones follow the tragic footstep of number seven?  They are not eye catching but it is a part of Hong Kong’s history.  We lost so many and can’t afford losing any more.”

Thanks for your help with the translation,

MrB

Translation of Appledaily's article with web translator. Hope you can read it.

Probe : pillar missing what the critics say

The recent action in addition to the protection of monuments of concern in the Queen's Pier, the Internet also in a group of enthusiastic people silently trace。 One is easily the pillar.This was regarded as on the 7th of Ciudad Victoria Aberdeen pillar (City Boundary Marker), though not endure great monuments, there are over 100 years of history of Hong Kong, as one of the earliest urban development.Have been in the official records listed only a six-dimensional city pillar, but in 2005 the end someone had found Magazine Gap Road on the 17th followed by a pillar not record! The discovery immediately followed by fever, in addition to groups camera inspection records, and many people wrote to the Antiquities and Monuments Office (Monuments Office) inquiries and requests to determine pillar status.Monuments out to the majority of the pillar buried next to the retaining wall is located on private land and on the ground, the only record of this pillar without further investigation.Recently it was discovered missing pillar suddenly, I was shocked netizens immediately posted the text search, I hope the community to help locate missing pillar. Various government departments in the public questioning under investigation for more than a month, in addition to the removal of pillar certainly know nothing about, did not endure still available.

Monuments Office indifferent attitude

Record not found peacekeeping City pillar of Hong Kong to study the early history important, it has more than a year and a half, monuments do not conduct any research, just as the pillar even suspected. Although some of the pillar buried in the retaining wall, but it can be clearly seen on the stone residue "ITY" and "DARY" lettering (Note : for both the other pillar inscribed with "CITY BOUNDARY" indication), the pillar is located at the Victoria City statutory boundary 700 feet (213 meters) contour line outside fractal dimension with the other six Victoria City the same pillar. As one has dealt with six pillar of the same professional government departments, monuments do not see no reason to distinguish whether Victoria City pillar. If not exhumed pillar test, or by other peacekeeping contrast to the city pillar and check the records to confirm the identity of the pillar. Some Internet users do not have to find a few hours of 1924 and 1929 official report (Report of The Director of Public Works), referring to the Magazine Gap Road establish peacekeeping City pillar.Monuments Office further investigation in the end intend to stay? Whether or not disappear until the pillar on endure do not have to do?

Even Victoria City pillar located on private land is government property, but the City of Victoria still exists in law, Victoria City should pillar and landmarks like to be protected without the approval of any person shall handle privately. Clearance Star, Queen's, the government quickly and decisively, why property has been destroyed departments let you push me, has not yet found out the truth to the people and accountability? Since monuments do know that the pillar is located on private land, why not contact the owners to discuss cooperation in conservation? When necessary, from government departments to help remove another pillar placement, believe the owners will be happy to return the property. The SAR government even if the government were unable to protect the relics, then the current system of protection of monuments whether it is necessary to conduct a review?

The Chief Executive's commitment to conservation trust

What is most puzzling is the pillar removal of the motive, there is no pillar of any development project or obstruct, or affect the slope maintenance. If there are no instructions on top, the workers would not waste the energy to the exhumation of the pillar and repair gaps. June 10 to see who still intact pillar, the pillar on June 14 was found missing, and the gap has been arrested for good. Visibility was removed pillar made plans, if someone stole or destroyed How will gaps repaired? Apart from the intention to eradicate heritage, I can think of other reasons.

Missing pillar of the current whereabouts are still unknown and, I believe, will slash! A 100-year history of peacekeeping pillar City have not been classified as a monument, not even rating, the government also how to ensure the existing six will not suddenly disappeared? In the first chief executive has come to the conservation of heritage, the SAR government even a small piece of property to protect the pillar are not, we still believe that the government will protect the monuments and history?

The Cenotaph is not graded.  It is "a piece of stone" and takes up a valuable plot of land in Central.  It is an exact copy of the Cenotaph in London.  So, it should be demolished in order to "decolonize the HKSAR",   people can do anything with it and the bureaucrats can keep their eyes closed!? 

I agree, that thing is an eyesore and totally irrelevant in Hong Kong. Not only is it a pointless relic of bygone years that should be removed, but a constant reminder of Britain's colonial rule. Its quite odd that it hasn't been replaced with a statue of Chairman Mao or something like that (considering Hong Kong people's avarice for gambling, fortune and materialistic gains I suggest a statue of Baphomet).

Having said that, there are numerous cenotaph around the world (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cenotaph) and although it is true that it is a reminder of British rule in Hong Kong, that "piece of stone" does serve one purpose that in itself is good enough reason to leave it where it is. That reason being that it is one of very few spots left in Central where there's some open air and you can see the sky without straining your neck. I suggest they plant some trees around it.

An appeal for missing stone

Sep 03, 2007

It appears that the boundary stone for what was known as the City of Victoria, on Magazine Gap Road, was removed, without notice
The boundary stones were erected by the government in 1903 to mark the borders of the area of Hong Kong known as Victoria City.

Six stones were erected on Hong Kong Island at Sai Ning Street, Pokfulam Road, Hatton Road, Old Peak Road, Bowen Road and Wong Nai Chung Road.

However, I understand that a boundary stone at Magazine Gap Road is the seventh stone and some historians have recently been trying to verify its identity.

Apparently this seventh stone was removed after the government finished slope reinforcement works.

However, no relevant department can shed light on the present whereabouts of this stone.

The boundary stones are made of granite, which is a very durable material, but we do need to ensure they are protected and if they need some sort of treatment, such as a protective coating, then this should be carried out. I do not believe that the government's system for conserving our fragile heritage, is reliable. Is there any method by which different government departments can co-ordinate their strategies to save our historic buildings and relics?

Finally, can someone tell me what has happened to this seventh stone?

Felix Lam, Stanley

When I look upon the Cenotaph, I do not regard it as an eyesore nor as a reminder of Hong Kong's colonial past. I look at it as a monument and tribute to the fallen heroes, both Chinese and European who sacrificed their lives defending Hong Kong which every citizen of Hong Kong should be aware of. The Cenotaph and its tribute to the war dead is inscribed in both Chinese and English.

Its presence in Central provides serenity and solitude from the hustle and bustle in the heart of Hong Kong.

South China Morning Post 2007-09-06

We must protect these stones

Increasing awareness of the importance of heritage preservation, has helped to reveal the deficiencies of the existing Antiquities and Monuments Ordinance.

It has also exposed the reluctance of the Antiquities and Monuments Office to initiate measures to protect and preserve our heritage.

In 1903, the Hong Kong Government Gazette recorded that the boundary of the City of Victoria was marked out and six boundary stones had been erected on Victoria Road, Wong Nai Chung Road, Bowen Road, Old Peak Road, Hatton Road and Pokfulam Road respectively.

The seventh boundary stone on Magazine Gap Road was not recognised until recently and has caused a great deal of interest.

It is good to know that there are many heritage enthusiasts in Hong Kong. Apparently the Antiquities and Monuments Office has been asked about this seventh stone, which is missing, but it has still not been traced and I find this disappointing. These boundary stones are of great historic value. This should be recognised by the government and they must be protected.

The Duddell Street Steps and Gas Lamps were declared a monument, so why not give the same status to the boundary stones?

Permalink
Submitted by
Anonymous (not verified)
on
Fri, 09/21/2007 - 20:39

Don't send in group, to make CE office must reply one by one. Hope it will push government to take action. The content can be amended in accordance with your idea ^o*

(quote)

BY FAX 2509 0577
Mr Donald Tsang
Chief Executive of the Hong Kong Special Administrative Region

Dear Mr Tsang,

Victory Boundary 1903 Stone on Magazine Gap Road (“Boundary Stone”)
Outside of Magazine Heights (the “premise”)
17 Magazine Gap Road
Hong Kong

I would like to draw your attention to the disappearance of the ‘Victory Boundary 1903 Stone’ located outside of Magazine Heights. This Stone is one of the 7 Boundary Stones lodged outside the premise which marked the Victoria City boundary in 1903, which have 100 years history.

My friends are veteran hikers. On 14 June 2007, they found out that this Boundary Stone was disappeared. Various queries have been sent out to following government’s departments and District Boards in the past few months:

• Antiquities Advisory Board
• Lands Department
• Civil Engineering and Development Department
• Central & Western District Board
• Wanchai District Board

This big issue is widely reported by the main newspapers in Hong Kong in last three months. However, the replies and actions from the HKSAR government certainly make our citizens very disappointed. I don’t quote the replies from each department since they should have reported to Chief Executive about this.

The purposes of writing of this letter are :

1. I want to make a complaint against the AMO. Since the office does not fulfill the responsibility of protecting the boundary stone, which is an important antique of HKSAR. Many historians have confirmed that the Boundary Stone is one of the boundary stones of the Victoria City. AMO avoids to bear the responsibility of the lost of the Boundary Stone. The office have record of the enquiries from citizens and their communications with the historical scholars, and they take no action of it since 2005.

2. The landlord of the premise “Winfoong International limited (0063.HK)” is not cooperative to the government. Even though AMO and Lands Department sent enquiry letters, the landlord never replies. I want to ask Chief Executive to instruct HK Police to investigate immediately, whether the Company conflicts with Land Survey Ordinance Chapter 473 Section 32 “Preservation of boundary marks”.

3. AMO should make official identification of this lost Boundary Stone, to erect a cenotaph at its original location.

4. The other six Boundary Stones of the Victoria City should be protected and cenotaphs should be erected.

5. The antiquities policy and the declaration system should be revised immediately, so that all declared monuments could be protected properly.

6. The grading of all existing Antiquities and Monuments should be re-taken again.

7. The organization of the Antiquities Advisory Board should be expanded; members should be selected from different professions so as to representing our citizens’ suggestions and ideas entirely.

This is an important issue in conservation of Hong Kong Heritage; we will highly appreciate your concern and assistance.

Yours sincerely,

(unquote)

Apparently this monument stone was noticed missing following works done by government workers (or was it by contract workers?) on the retaining wall. Wouldn't there be a log kept by the work supervisor at the site on those particular days? Ask him if he had noticed its presence, if he had relocated it to somewhere else (no thief implied or otherwise), and ask him to ask all his workers (hopefully none has quit). WAS THIS DONE? If all anwsers come back nil, consider it missing and lost.
It could be a nearby resident taking advantage of the confusion during the repair work.

2007-07-16 Headline Daily
半山香港界石遭「連根拔」失蹤

2007-07-17 Headline Daily
「七號仔」界石失蹤惹網民關注

2007-07-26 Economic Times
尋失物：維城界石

2007-08-17 Apple Daily(Letter to the Editor)
探針：界石失蹤政府不聞不問

2007-08-19 Apple Daily
百年古物網上掀拯救行動　專題報道：第七界石神秘消失

2007-08-20 Apple Daily
界石消失管理公司是元兇

2007-08-20 Headline Daily
《頭條》獨家報道引發尋找界石熱

2007-08-21 Apple Daily
界石失蹤古蹟辦卸膊

2007-08-22 Headline Daily
古物古蹟辦拒為界石評級

2007-09-04 Headline Daily
界石失蹤事件急救亡一石激起集體回憶

2007-09-04 Oriental Daily
百年界石旁豎碑介紹歷史

2007-09-05 Apple Daily (Letter to the editor)
從界石消失到古蹟評級荒謬

Hi has anyone heard any more about this stone? The government's inability to keep track of monuments such as this is unbelievable. However, they do have a process (lengthy) in place that will get to the bottom of it. Maybe write to Carrie Lam, Sec for Development, as this will fall under her realm now. I'll do that anyway. The more people that pester them the quicker we might get some answers

I'll let you know the response. the works branch's policy is apparently

:To be responsible for policy on development-related heritage conservation. Plus they do slopes.

To the Secretary for Development Carrie Lam

c/o Works Branch, Development Bureau

I am writing to enquire about the disappearance of one of the seven remaining granite stones marking the old boundary of Victoria City. The stone appears to have been removed in June or July this year from its site on Magazine Gap Road after the wall surrounding it was renovated. The stones are more than 100 years old, and are crucial historical evidence of the development of the city of Hong Kong.

Please can you also let me know what preservation plans there are for the remaining six stones, and what steps have been taken to ensure such monuments are not removed or damaged.

If there are other departments I need to contact about this matter, please let me know.

Thanks for your time. I look forward to your reply.

Yours sincerely,