CONFIDENTIAL
4.
HAL
"What happened was that, at an early stage during the disturbances in 1967, when the situation was still very confused and explosive, the Army was called upon to stiffen te Hong Kong Police on the Border. In a letter dated 22nd July 1967, Alan Walker recorded that "two Gurkha Battalions were deployed on the frontier and were digging in". Having looked at the positions it was to occupy the Army decided that they needed work done on them to protect the troops and fit their positions for the purposes for which they were intended, and got on with it from the Army's own resources. By October/November 1967 it had become evident that there was need for the contiuing deployment of troops on the frontier and as Alan Walker reported to you in his letter of 16th November 1967 basic accommodation requirements such as latrines, ablutions and cookhouses were being constructed at military expense.
In an official paper dated 8th March 1968, on the implementation of the Border Policy, the Hong Kong Government stated that it remained responsible for the maintenance of all buildings "equired for operational reasons in the Border area whether these be occupied by the Army or the Police. Subsequently, the Hong Kong Government agreed to the reconstruction of six of the positions, and approved expenditure estimated at over $355,000 for the provision of stores, the work to be carried out by the Army. This exercise, known as Operation Spring Clean, related to work at the following positions:-
Man Kan To Lone Tree Hill Point 152
Ring Contour Ta Ku Ling Bunker Hill
The Sappers had, before Spring Clean, done work on these six together with the following six:
Sha Tau Kok Lo Wu
Crest Hill
Sandy Ridge Kong Shan Pak Fu Shan
I am
in addition to repairs to the Primary Fence which marks the Border. I cannot ascribe Sapper expenditure to particular positions; I can however give a breakdown of the £14,163, with the assurance that the £6,528 is of the same kind. Spring Clean flowed from recognition of the need for refurbishment of border positions which had fallen into disrepair. quite unable to reconcile the Hong Kong Government's ready acceptance of responsibility for meeting the costs of the stores under the Spring Clean programme with their refusal to admit the cost of stores consumed for a similar purpose on the same positions, and others, prior to the mounting of Spring Clean when the need was greatest. I can see no convincing argument whatever to justify Government's refusal to meet expenditure after the policy statement of 1968, and it seems to me that no great surrender of principle would have been required (if indeed, it was necessary) for Government to have agreed to enough retrospection of the Spring Clean operation to sweep up the expenditure we had already incurred on stores for the same purpose.
As with any internal security situation there must have been many urgent decisions which the Army had to take in the early stages and, after they had been called upon in 1967 to assist the Hong Kong police on the border, it would not have been feasible for them to have waited on the off chance of a Government announcement accepting financial responsibility for the particular works in question. It is difficult to understand why the Hong Kong Government should single this aspect out as a matter of controversy when they have paid us for other additional costs arising at the same time.
2
CONFIDENTIAL
>