NOTHING TO BE WRITTEN IN THIS MARGIN
CONFIDENTIAL
origins of the Snake fence the line of which I
personally reconnoitred with the Army. It is therefore
a misrepresentation to say that the purpose of the
fence was simply to stop illegal immigrants and
Hong Kong have disputed this (see Jeaffreson's letter
of 20 October, 1970).
6.
Because of this misconceived descrit ion of the
purpose of the fence the argument has been adduced that
the Hong Kong Government should pay for it.
In my
submission the purpose of the fence was the security of
the Colony from an external threat. If this is the
case it seems to me that the cost of it should have
been found from one of two sources:
(a)
or
(b)
from Hong Kong's contribution to HMG 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 H P Hall, then of the Commonwealth
Office, to Cass in your Department that he accepted that
the cost should not fall on Defence funds at variance
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 be
but to consider paragraph 6(b).
no alternative, to the Ministry of Defence paying.
It
does not seem that the Hong Kong Government should be
held responsible (they have incidentally already paid
(construction of the fence, s
"the"
HK 8 1 million towards the cost of the/ work-labour etc)
and if the Ministry of Defence do not bear the cost I
(would be for) **/that
to should
suppose the only alternative is that the FCO should do
CONIFENTIAL
so.