MDL/21/26-3
R*
(
Please address any reply to:
From:
MINISTRY OF DEFENCE
F1d(Air)
-CONFIDENTIAL
013/1547
MINISTRY OF DEFENCE Main Building, Whitehall, LONDON S.W.I
Telephone: Wittehallx7023, ext.7491
01-930-7022
☹
R&R
)
ANG
29.1.71.
8 January 1971
and quote: A/16/Abd/5712/F1d(Air)
Your reference: HK K 10/17
3.
A W Gaminara Esq
Hong Kong Dept
Foreign and Commonwealth Officeì
LONDON SW1
Dear Saminara
3
1. Thank you for your letter of 15th January giving us the local views, from the Hong Kong Government side, on the dispute about the extra costs of certain works services carried out during the 1967 internal security operations.
2. We too have had recent exchanges with Mr Duke our Command Secretary in Hong Kong, and I think I can do no better than to quote substantially from what he told us in his latest letters. After a brief visit to London in October last he wrote on 13th November:
"I told you also that I had a further meeting planned with representatives of the Hong Kong Government to discuss the claim for work done on border positions (originally £14,163, increased to £20,691 as indicated in my letter dated 29th May, 1970, addressed to the Acting Financial Secretary and copied to you). This meeting took place on 9th November, 1970, and resulted only in an agreement by both sides to report stalemate to London. Hong Kong Government representatives were entirely unwilling to accept my suggestion that it should be settled as though it were governed by the principles formally adopted in 1968, and given expression in "Spring Clean", under which the Hong Kong Government pays the costs of the stores consumed in constructing agreed works in the Border area irrespective of whether the positions are to be occupied by the police or the military or both. This is, of course, a more formal and rational basis for doing work;. the work to be done is discussed and agreed between the Government and the Army, and the Army provides technical advice as required and in some cases supervision and labour. The circumstances of 1967 were obviously unsuitable to such a leisurely approach, and the costs have so far lain where they fell; the Hong Kong Government representatives' view is that in these cases the Army decided, without consultation, on the work to be done and should not now look to be relieved of the cost. They are also sensitive on the question of "defence against external aggression" for which they claim that these early works were designed, and finally they are not prepared to ask the Finance Committee for money specifically for border defences".
Subsequently, following a request from us for further details about the works services, Mr Duke replied on 23rd December as follows:
REGISTRY No.51 29 Jan 19/1
ARKIS/5
ви
bu, 15.2.11.
兆
8.2.1.
1
Bu 7.2. 71. for reply to
ANG
is
pcorn's file pegar considering reply to this letter
CONFIDENTIAL
CONFIDENTIAL
기.