SECRET
that a Colony contributes to its own defence (and to imperial
defence for that matter) according to its capacity to pay and
overlooking the fact that many territories have not paid defence
contributions because they have been defended by essentially local
forces paid for from the local budget (to which HMG has contributed
as necessary). Their other argument, which is also the main theme
of public comment in Hong Kong, is that the Colony should not be
milked to pay for its defence when so much has to be done to provide
better living standards and improved social services. In 1966
unofficials in the two Councils said that, rather than pay what
HMG was asking, the garrison should be reduced to levels the Colony
could afford by way of contribution; they said that the Colony
could dispense with all naval forces and talked in terms of a
reduction of the land forces to a minimum required for internal
security, putting this at three or four battalions.
6. When Cabinet considered in May 1968 the strength of the Hong
Kong garrison after the withdrawal from Singapore in 1971, the Defence Secretary asked that "the costs of that part of the post-19717
garrison not directly attributable to our external defence
responsibilities, with the appropriate support, should be reimbursed
to Defence votes" with the implication that "costs" in this
context meant full budgetary costs (which, without support costs,
were estimated at £14 million of which about £8 million were
"foreign exchange costs"). He did not get a decision to that
effect last year: OPD "agreed that it would be premature at this
time to decide on where the cost of these forces should be borne"
and the Prime Minister in summing up is recorded as saying:
"Consideration