One needs to bear in mind in this connection that Hong Kong is a densely populated urban community where experience has shown (eg at the time of the 1907 disturbances) that minor incidents can quickly escalate. Nonetheless, the present loss of freedom of assembly in llong Kong, to which Mr Bradley refers in the earlier part of his letter, is not as restrictive as he suggests. It is true that the Public Order Ordinance provides that any meeting held in a public place requires a licence from the Commissioner of Police; but in fact 6 locations in the urban areas have been designated suitable for public meetings and the Police Commissioner rarely refuses a licence for such meetings there. Nor is trade union activity as restricted as Mr Bradley suggests. For instance, there is no legislation limiting the right to strike and the law permits peaceful picketing in cases of trade disputes.
I should add that defence costs negotiations, which were the occasion of Mr Rodgers' visit, were successfully concluded in December; and we were left in no doubt through- out that the decision to retain a garrison in Hong Kong was overwhelmingly welcomed by the population at large. It is true that there was some disappointment in the Colony at the share of the cost Hong Kong was asked to meet; but it might put things in perspective if I pointed out that defence costs account for only 3% of Hong Kong Government expenditure this year, whereas social expenditure of all kinds accounted for 40.5%.
As Mr Bradley refers to the Fabian Society pamphlet, I should like to conclude by saying that the pamphlet is a useful contribution to thinking on Hong Kong. I think perhaps Ar England concentrated too much on the past without paying sufficient regard either to the great difficulties posed by, for example, the 7-fold increase in the population since the
/war
2