HWB 9/14
10
13 August, 1968
As agreed at our meeting on 6 August about the proposed Polytechnic in Hong Kong, I attended the meeting of the Hong Kong University Grants Committee on the following day.
2. I explained how it was that the O.D.M. could not usefully be represented, because of the incidence of leave and overseas visits. This was accepted with understanding and Dr. Gavin was quick to confirm the position as I stated it from his personal knowledge of the movements of the officers concerned.
3. At the outset I made it clear that there was nothing I could usefully say at that time or in that place about the possibility of financial assistance from H.M.G. for the project. I mentioned in broad terms some of the difficulties we have in earmarking aid for a territory s prosperous as Hong Kong; and emphasised that these difficulties have increased now that, in our present straitened circumstances, strict ceilings have been placed on overseas aid. This brought an understanding response from Mr. R.C. Griffiths (under Secretary on the staff of the United Kingdom University Grants Committee and a member of the Hong Kong U.G.C.) who said that he hoped nevertheless that we would not close our minds to a token measure of assistance.
4. Two points came up in this phase of the discussion which will, I think, be of some interest to you, Smith and Martin since they help to dispel certain unworthy suspicions that we felt disposed to harbour on the facts at our disposal when we met. Firstly, the project was conceived by the U.G.C. as long ago as March, 1967 i.e. before last year's troubles started. It does not therefore owe its origins in any way to the search for a suitable vehicle for a political gesture of assistance by H.M.G., even though it does now figure in that context. It appears that the Hong Kong Government asked the U.G.C. to consider the needs of higher technical education- and this project is the result. The second point is that the project has been considered by the Advisory Committee on Higher Education on which the Vice-Chancellors of the two Universities sit and has its full support.
5.
#
In discussion on the merits of the project, it was apparent that some members were aware of certain p reliminary doubts expressed by your advisera. Dr. Gavin had evidently seen Gailer's report (although it was far from clear whether anyone else had). It seemed to come as no surprise to them that I should advance Martin's
qualitative" argument - namely, what need would this institution fill which was not already covered by the facilities available in the Universities and the Technical College. The following points were made in discussion :-
W. Hobman, Esq.,
Ministry of Overseas Development.
/ (1).