represented to the UK and at the same time to reflect the UK
point of view in Hong Kong as far as he can without losing his
credibility with the local people as the colony's chief repre-
sentative. We must rely to a very considerable extent on him
to judge where the balance is best struck. Particularly where
important problems are at issue between Hong Kong and London we
must avoid our own information effort giving the impression that
we are in public dispute with our own Government in Hong Kong.
This does not mean that we are debarred from efforts to
project Britain and its successes. The Prime Minister's visit
in January may provide an opportunity for the British role to be
stated with authority and for the image of a "defeatist" Britain
to be dispelled. We shall also be looking into the suggestions
on our information effort there which you mentioned in your
letter. Where a satisfactory outcome of the problems at issue
is reached or Hong Kong's direct interests are not involved, we
also look to the Government Information Services in Hong Kong
to present the solution and United Kingdom interests in the best
light.
On a point of detail, you said that you thought that a two-
year stint in Hong Kong without home leave was a very long tour.
The length of tour in any particular post is regularly reviewed
in consultation with the Civil Service Department and two years
is about standard for many posts like Hong Kong. But if there
is ever good reason for a duty visit to this country you can be
sure that such a visit would normally be approved.
You?
ever,
Jon
Thomas Brimelow