(The lask 2
paras
are still û the
wrong orde()
i Ricketts Ms Willikas
тра
on
7/x"
CONFIDENTIAL
Foreign & Commonwealth
Office
HKD +D
183
7 November 1991
Dear Simon,
HKB 063
小
Future RN Presence in Hong Kong
London SWIA 2AH
I
Officials in our Departments have kept in touch about developments on this subject over past months. write now to confirm that, in the light of discussions during the Governor's recent visit here, we have reached the end of the road on the question of whether Hong Kong Government could secure additional funds to help you meet the cost of retaining the three patrol craft in Hong Kong (correspondence resting with Andrew Turnbull's (No 10) letter of 31 July).
As you know Hong Kong already pay 65% of the cost of the garrison, with the MOD paying the remaining 35%. At our strong urging, Hong Kong looked hard for additional funds. But they were unable to identify any such funds which would not require them to go to the Finance Committee of the Legislative Council. The Governor continues to believe (as do we) that an approach to the Finance Committee would not produce any new funds and would rebound very badly indeed.
This view was reinforced by the success of the United Democrats of Hong Kong (led by Mr Martin Lee) in the first direct elections to LegCo which were held in September. "Liberals" now hold 22 of the 60 seats with a majority of the elected members, and supporters on this issue in other parts of the Council. The platform of the United Democrats includes a commitment to "reduce the proportion of funds that Hong Kong provides for the stationing of United Kingdom troops in the territory". There is no question of their supporting an increase in the proportion which Hong Kong pays: for us to propose this would play into their hands, greatly complicate the relationship between HKG and LegCo and give them the opportunity to press for a reduction in the overall amount paid by Hong Kong towards the garrison would be a popular position locally.
which
CONFIDENTIAL
/In the