ur reference: UTE 205/81/04 our reference: HWB 9/14
318 Tenter & re-submit w relevant paper
with
MINISTRY OF OVERSEAS DEVELOPMENT
Eland House, Stag Place, LONDON S.W.1
Telegrams: Ministrant, London, Telex
Telephone: 01834:2377%
01-828 4366
16
22nd July, 1968.
.6/E
Dear Carter,
Thank you for your letter of 17th July to Frank Dunnill (who is overseas at the moment) about the proposed Polytechnic in Hong Kong.
I am afraid the meeting with the Hong Kong U.G.C. on 7th August is very awkwardly timed from our point of view. Dunnill will either still be in Mauritius or on leave, and Gordon Watts, our Adviser on Technical Education, will also be on leave.
The other notable absentees include Christopher Cox, who was in Hong Kong earlier this month and will eventually be reporting on his visit. From a few brief remarks he made to me between his return to the U.K. and departure for the U.S.A. and (now) leave, I judge that he is not in sympathy with these Hong Kong proposals. Nor is John Gailer, our Assistant Adviser on Technical Education, who sees the answer to the problem in the development of the Hong Kong Technical College and of the University of Hong Kong. (In case you have not seen it, I enclose a copy of his report on a visit to Hong Kong about 18 months ago). Gailer is at present in South East Asia and will probably not be back in the O.D.M. until 12th August.
As regards C.D. and W. assistance for capital costs, I see little prospect of the Higher Education Allocation being able to help. Our Aid Programme forecasts for the next several years make no provision for Hong Kong, apart from the existing allocations for the two Universities and the Technical College. I think it would be difficult, to say the least, to persuade those concerned here and, ultimately, in the Treasury that we should earmark further funds for "wealthy" Hong Kong. (Your old papers may have on record the difficulties we had in D.T.C. days to squeeze out the £250,000 for the Chinese University and the £50,000 each for the other two institutions). At best we would, I am sure, only be able to make a very modest contribution to the £1.9 million capital cost envisaged.
To sum up, I could come along to the meeting on 7th August if you would wish me to
and Michael Collins of T.E.T.O.C. might be available. If there were any prospect of postponing the meeting for a week or so, it might be possible to produce an Adifvser or two, or at least to have obtained a range of views. But I suspect that the O.D.M. representation (whatever its composition) will not be able to be very helpful towards the project. You may perhaps feel that a C.0./0.D.M. meeting would be a useful preliminary step?
14
୪
W. S. Carter, Esq., Commonwealth Office, London, S.W.1.
23.).
Mr Glar.
MG
•
Your sincerely, жетову,
W Holman
(W. HOBMAN)
518
to
Draft to DDM
issue today B.V. papers 2/8/08
HWD 9/10