RESTRICTED
hand, an inadequate and grudging response, or worse still no response at all, would be very badly received in Hong Kong and would seriously damage our credibility there. It could also have potentially disastrous and political consequences should LegCo refuse the necessary funds. In that event, we might have to pay up anyway, but under circumstances in which we would get no credit at
all.
Presentational aspects
9.
Whilst the political and humanitarian case for a contribution
by HMG is clear, there could be significant presentational
difficulties involved:
(a) people in this country might question why it should be
necessary to give assistance to Hong Kong, which has a GDP per
capita not much less than our own, and which could well afford to meet the full financial burden of the boat people. This argument can be countered by pointing out that the boat people problem is a matter of international humanitarian concern; and that in any case Britain has a particular responsibility for Hong Kong and should not leave it to cope with the crisis alone. It would
however help to overcome this presentational problem if the aid
could be channelled through UNHCR. We are exploring urgently with
UNHCR whether they would be prepared to launch an international
appeal for funds to cope with the emergency, to which we might
contribute.
(b) we might also be open to criticism over the allocation of
aid funds for the construction of facilities which are in effect
detention centres. In order to overcome this problem, it would be
necessary to emphasise the emergency aspect of the aid and the need for tolerable accommodation for all arrivals, irrespective of whatever status (refugee or non refugee) is eventually accorded to
them. It would also be necessary to explain that our constribution had been specifically earmarked for the emergency temporary accommodation (option (a) in paragraph 5 above) rather than for the further construction of the Whitehead project, which is more
obviously a long term detention centre.
RESTRICTED