7
譬
>
CONFIDENTIAL
REF.
ника/р.
4 March, 1971.
ल
You will by now have had our rather bald telegram explaining that we do not wish to vary the offer for the technical institutes. I would like to fill the case out a little bit in this letter and to explain more fully why we have taken the line we have. could not do so in the telegram because it had to be cleared with ODA, who have to some extent been the nigger in this particular wood pile.
2.
As you know, this initiative of H..G's stemmed from the strong feeling which all of us had during Royle's visit to Hong Kong in October that the need for technical training at a lower level than would be provided by the Polytechnic was anong Hong Kong's most urgent needs. This thought was uppermost in the minds of many of those, including UMELCO members, with whom he spoke. The four tech icâl institutos, whose creation has been proposed by the Industrial Training Advisory Committee (ITAC), seemed well to meet this need. At the same time we were rather horrified to hear that one result of Japanese generosity might be that the institutes, or some of them, might be equipped with Japanese machinery.
We felt strongly that in our own domestic interest the Japanese must be pre-ompted and on our return to this country Royle spoke in the strongest terms to the Minister of Oversens Development stressing also the need for political reasons for a gesture of confidence in Hong Kong. We were, of course, met by all the usual arguments that Hong Kong was already so rich that it was not aid-worthy and did not merit money from ODA funds and that trade considerations could not govern the use of aid funds. We stressed, with increasing support from the Dopartrent of Trade and Industry, that in proposing that II.5.G. should provide up to £100,000 for the equipment of each of the institutes we were not only giving some modest help towards the setting up of the institutes but by equipping them with British machinery, teaching the rising generation to know and work with British equipment and thus improving export prospects. It took us nearly four months to achieve a satisfactory outcome and then only when we had had to seek a ruling from the Secretary of State which went against ODA (Only since the last re-organisation of Government had this become possible - so we were "making history") For this reason we simply could not contemplate re-opening the matter in order to meet your request for discretion in the way the money is spent. If we were to do so thers is a real danger that we should lose the money altogether or in part.
Hia Excellency
Sir David Trench, G.C.!^.G.,
Rong Kong.
M.C.,
CONFIDENTIAL
13...
Page 90Page 91