How do the increases broak down?
A. We shall be paying a smaller cash sum to the United Kingdom, we have paid almost £4 million a year ever the last four years, and we are to pay 2.4 million
year
next five, but we shall contribute more in kind. Altogether at least 2/3 of our contribution will be spent on the maintenance and construction of the Services' buildings; we believe this is a sensible arrangement, for we have a continuing interest in these buildings, they'll revert to us if the Services no longer need them. For these reasons we think the whole package is a fair deal. Q. Why has it been necessary to increase the cost of maintaining the garrison other than keeping the buildings?
•
A. Because costs generally have risen over the past four years both here and elsewhere, and you must remember that the United Kingdom originally wanted a lot more
The financial secretary told Legislative Council that they hoped for 12 million a year.
We have offered a five year package of 2.4 million a year in cash and an average of 5.6 million a year in kind. I don't mean we shouldn't have liked to pay less but you must remember, as I said, that the United Kingdom originally wanted a lot more. What we're going to pay wasn't based on any specific rules or formulae, but some comparisons may be worth making. For instance, we expect to be paying a slightly smaller proportion of our annual revenue than before, we also expect to pay a slightly smaller proportion of the total cost of the garrison. We expect to pay no more and probably less than the economic benefit to Hong Kong of the Services spending here and we surely shouldn't expect to make, as it were, a profit on having a garrison.
Q. Isn't Britain responsible for keeping the defence of Her Colonies herself? A. The garrison here is now just for Hong Kong, not for any other purposes and most Colonies have always contributed towards the cost of their own defence, often by having their own armed Services. Here we've had British Troops instead and for a century or more we've paid something towards their cost.
Q. Why do we need a garrison at all?
A.
There can be no question but that the presence of British Troops does make a valuable contribution to the stability and internal security of the Colony. Those are not just my words, I'm quoting the Hon. P C 700. It's what he said in Legislative Council earlier today, and he gave it as the reason why Unofficial Members accept that we should pay a share of the garrison's costs. I'm sure the garrison's presence builds up confidence in Hong Kong. The confidence of the local business man, the confidence of the overseas investor, the confidence upon which our prosperity itself depends. So I think there's no doubt we really do need it. Q. Couldn't the same confidence be established by either a local defence force or a bigger police force?
A. No, I don't think so, experience generally, not just here, has shown that a police force and armed Services are complimentary to one another. You can't do with the one alone. And in any case, it's very doubtful whether we should be able to save any money if we try to build up our own forces and it's doubtful too, whether we'd be able to recruit and train the numbers of people necessary if we ever tried to replace the garrison.
Page 30Page 31