5
This prompted ten editorials in the Chinese press during the week under review. All the papers felt that although Hong Kong would inevitably have to make a larger contribution to the defence costs,a threefold increase as hinted at by some sources was too steep and quite unfair, especially in view of the 15 per cent slash in the garrison.
Kung Sheung Evening News (20.3.75) and New Life Evening Post (21.3.75) said that in view of the present economic recession, an increase of this magnitude would add to Hong Kong's burden.
"The remaining question now is that Hong Kong's share of the defence costs is too heavy, and there should be a more acceptable agreement between Britain and Hong Kong to ease the economic pressure here," reported New Life Evening Post.
Sing Tao Wan Pao (20.3.75) said that under the circumstances, an increase was unavoidable but the question was how large the increase would be. It felt confident that "the Government would discuss Hong Kong's difficulties with Britain."
Sing Tao Jih Pao (23.3.75) said that a large increase in defence costs would lead to an increase in taxation, and that the Hong Kong Government should hold further talks with Britain on this.
:་
Wah Kiu Yat Pao (24.3.75) said: "No matter what agreement is reached between the Hong Kong Government and the Ministry of Defence, and no matter whether the sun involved is large or small, details of the agreement should be made known to the public before it is signed. It would be out of steps with democratic principles if the people here are forced to accept the agreement without being consulted first,
Nam Wah Man Pao (21.3.75) pointed out that the local garrison served no practical purpose in the external defence of Hong Kong. As for internel security, it was not maintained by the presence of troops. In the light of this, the paper went on to say "instead of doubling the defence con- tributions, why do we not cut back the garrison to one-third of its present strength?"
Sharing this view, Hong Kong Daily News (21.3. 75) said: "we would rather increase the strength of the local police force than maintain a garrison."
The paper noted that Hong Kong's defence contributions could very woll be used to increase the strength of the Auxiliary Police by at least 2,500.
"Of course, the presence of a British garrison would mean that Britain is responsible for the defence of Hong Kong, and in general it can give the people à sense of security," it conceded.
Hong Kong Evening News (Communist) (24.3.75) estimated the annual expenditure on the British garrison here amounted to £50 million. As the strength of the garrison was just under 5,000, "on an average, one British soldier was costing us £10,000 a year," it said.
The paper added that the public had no liking for the British soldiers, because the troops were not "symbols of security "for Hong Kong. "Rather they are here solely to protect British lives and property, " it said.
Page 45Page 46