5. Accordingly CBF and the OAG agreed on the erection of a new barrier well back from the border not under direct observation, out of range for stone-throwing and where any incursion could be held in a position where Chinese armed forces on the border could not help with- out violating Hong Kong territory, or resorting to fire arms. the origins of the Snake fence the line of which I personally
Thus reconnoitred with the Army. It is therefore a misrepresentation to say that the purpose of the fence was simply to stop illegal immi- grants and moreover ong Kong have disputed this (see Jeafireson's letter of 20 october, 1970).
6
Because of this misconceived description of the purpose of the fence the argument has been adduced that the Hong Kong Government should pay for it. In my submission the purose of the fence was the security of the Colony from an external threat. case it seems to me that the cost of it should nave been found from
If this is the one of two sources:
(a)
or (b)
from Hong Kong's contribution to HG for 1967 for defence (£5m, annually at that time);
from British funds for defence of the colony against external threat.
I find the suggestion contained in a letter of 4 October, 1967 from HP Hall, then of the Commonwealth Office, to Caes in your Department tust he accepted that the cost should not fall on Defence funds at varience with the facts as I have explained them.
7. On the assumption that the funds mentioned at 6(a) have long since been exhausted there seems to he no alternative but to consider
paragraph 6(b). It does ot seem that the Hong Kong Government shold be held reponsible (they have incidentally already paid HK % 1 million towards the cost of the construction of the fence, work-labour etc) and if the Ministry of Defence do not bear the cost I surpose the only alternative wo ld be for the FCO to do so. cannot believe that anyone will seriously suggest that the cost of frontier defences wherever they are should fall on the vote of a civil department.
I
Kilford
CONFIDENTIAL