me
13/2
Sir L Monson
EQUIPMENT FOR TECHNICAL INSTITUTES IN HONG KONG
1.
Paragraph 5 of Annex B to the attached Circular lays down the procedure to be followed in the event of disagreement between the two wings of the Office. In view of this I agreed with Mr Kisch yesterday that he would prepare the first draft of the submission to the Foreign and Commonwealth Secretary. To help him to understand why we feel so strongly on this issue, I sent across to Eland House a copy of the draft letter which was submitted to Mr Royle recently.
2.
I have now received the attached draft which, as you will see, Mr Kisch is proposing to discuss with Mr King. This will certainly not do as far as we are concerned. If you agree, I propose to tell Mr Kisch that we would like the draft amended as follows:-
(a) Paragraph 2. Delete first sentence and substitute
"In the early years after the war we made a grant of £860,000 for higher education in Hong Kong, and we
still have about £400,000 worth of this commitment which we intend to fulfil" (We got this information from the ODA some weeks ago.)
•
(b) Paragraph 5. Amend the lead-in to read as follows÷
also
"Mr Royle is already concerned about the strong feeling in Hong Kong that we in Britain show a lack of concern for the Colony's interests and for her special problems. The Hong Kong complaint is that in the post war years we left the Colony to grapple alone without sufficient financial assistance with, the tremendous problems posed by the influx of refugees from China, that the British Government has been a party to a number of decisions
...
(c) Paragraph 5. The sentence at the top of page 3 beginning
"In 1969 we imposed a tariff is factually incorrect.
(a)
could say -
#
We
"In 1969 we decided to impose a tariff from 1 January 1972 on cotton textile imports from the Commonwealth (including of course Hong Kong) and further damage
"
I would like to see a new paragraph between paras 5 and 6 on the following lines -
"What Mr Royle is seeking is a gesture which would demon- strate to the Unofficial Members of the Executive and Legislative Councils that we had agreed about Hong Kong. He believes that the psychological effect of the proposed grant would be out of all proportion to the comparatively small sum involved. In particular, he feels that if we ignore Mr Tang's suggestion, which was made in the presence of the leaders of Hong Kong business and industry, those leaders are bound to take our refusal to follow up the suggestion as yet a further example of our lack of interest in Hong Kong, even when we would be in their eyes
S
1