COVERING SECRET
3.
This said, the paper does not, so far as I can see at a quick reading, make any proposals for a substantial change in the ratio of Gurkha to British troops, although (paragraph 40) it quotes the (1973) annual capitation rate for a British soldier in Hong Kong as £3,500 and for a Gurkha soldier as £800.
4. Annex C is a curious document. It lists possible savings under an option involving a 25% cut in garrison strength - an option which CBF rejects unless he has assurance that a reinforcement battalion can arrive promptly. The curious point is that the sums presented of contributions from the Hong Kong Government and the UK Government omit the cost to the Hong Kong Government (£2.2 million) of "minor works and maintenance". Thus the present, and the hypothetical future Hong Kong contribution, is presented as a smaller sum than is actually borne by the Hong Kong taxpayer. And of course the ratio between HMG and the Hong Kong Government's contributions looks worse than it really is from the UK point of view.
PR. Mac
P JE Male
1 August 1974
This paper strikes special pleading, af
piece of very
would be
very chary about
J
andorsing it
in any way.
suggests
that
troops
reeded - the 1.5. vole alme
Ha wer
available to the governor in 1967 as that if
prolonged
sifuatia resulted
in reinforcements bang
sant in at the level demanded there would be
The Colmy to there
about
2
major
mits
were in by when
there was a
major
treat
Minilo & letter.
the frontier.
Please make
clear that one 'no
but
Comment" does NOT meaom
just that we don't want јогнал
COVERING SECRET
Hat
have no
com Lat
naka