Mr Wilford
Sir L Monson
CONFIDENTIAL covering SECRET
1. For three years after the 1967 disturbances the local
military authorities in Hong Kong were engaged in negotiations
with the Hong Kong Government over the reimbursement of the
additional expenditure incurred by the Services in the Colony
during the disturbances. During this period all but three of
the claims of the military authorities were accepted by the
Hong Kong Government;
but of these three one is very large.
2. At the end of 1970, the MOD took up the running on the
three outstanding items. However, we were by then well into
the negotiations over the defence contribution, and at our
suggestion it was agreed all round to put this problem on one
side until we had settled the question of the contribution.
3. The above is by way of background information to the attached
draft letter which is otherwise self-explanatory.
Since this
matter goes back several years I am attaching the relevant files;
but I do not think it necessary for you to read all of the
flagged references.
Fit was 10/16 (8)
Dispute
At no stage have we told Hong Kong of our acknowledgment to the
Ministry of Defence that the cost of the fence, or any part of
it, was not a proper charge to defence votes.
I would, however, draw your attention to
the papers flagged E, J and K. The paper flagged E sets out
the circumstances in which the fence came to be built and the
paper flagged K makes it clear that we are in no position to
argue the toss with the Ministry of Defence over this item.
14.
CONFIDENTIAL covering SECRET
CONFIDENTIAL covering SECRET
4.
A summary of the MOD's case is set out in Mr Gammon's letter
Flag L to Mr Gaminara of 28 January 1971. You will see that the
"Highland Bonnet" operation was much the same as the "Spring
Clean" operation. In both cases it was a question of refurbishing
defensive positions for use along the frontier. The Hong Kong
Government have accepted the commitment under "Spring Clean"
but not the commitment incurred a few months earlier under
"Highland Bonnet".
5. The substance of the attached draft has been cleared with
Finance Department and Defence Department but in view of the
history of this matter I thought that you would wish to see
what we in the Department propose to do before anything is
sent to Hong Kong.
13 December 1971
2.
Maria
E O Laird
Hong Kong Department
CONFIDENTIAL covering SECRET
(885363) Dd. 896639 1,000м 8/71 St.S.
NOTHING TO BE WRITTEN IN THIS MARGIN
Registry No.
HKK 10/5 DRAFT
SECURITY CLASSIFICATION
Top Secret.
To:-
SECRET
Secret.
Confidential.
Restricted.
Unclassified.
PRIVACY MARKING
..In Confidence
CP Haddon-Cave Esq Financial Secretary HONG KONG
Type 1 +
From
Mr Laird
Telephone No. & Ext.
Department
Hong Kong
O et seq. on HKK 20/17 (1970) 10/17/1970)
44/on
HWB 10/16.
A
1. Now that the issue of the defence contribution
has been dealt with (and we can put textiles on
one side for the time being) I am writing to you
about the problem of payment for the extra services
provided by HM Forces during the 1967 disturbances.
We have exchanged letters with Jeaffreson about
this.
2.
As we understand the position, some 95,000
has now been reimbursed by the Hong Kong Government
to the Services and there remain three outstanding
items, totalling £194,149, on which it has not
been possible to reach agreement. By far the
(SNAKE)
nce/for which the
largest item is the border fence/f
military authorities are claiming reimbursement
This is for the cost of the stores
of £173,340.
supplied for the construction of the fence (including the cost of their transport from
Singapore).
B
3.
We have it on record here that when John
Cowperthwaite called at the Office in September
1968 he told Bunny Carter that, with the exception of minor items, he thought that Hong Kong could accept all the charges raised by the military authorities (including the charge for
/the
SECRET