671.
CONFIDENTIAL.
Sir,
CULONIAL
158/400/423-31
Page 82,0f85
3.
April, 1957.
1 2 APR 1957
MERISTRY SECTION
Now that the picture is clearer regarding the size of the reduced garrison it is proposed to maintain in Hong Kong, I should in the ordinary course be reviewing the finan- cial contribution made by Hong Kong towards the cost of the garrison reinforcement and suggesting a revised figure for the current and future years proportionately related to the reduction in the size of the garrison.
2.
It has however occurred to me that this payment could with advantage both to H.M.G. and Hong Kong be con- sidered in a different context. In my budget address this year, speaking of the refugee problem, I said "It is also remarkable how little help we have received from outside." This is a point on which the residents of Hong Kong have always felt strongly, particularly when they see the inter- national assistance afforded in generous measure to countries whose refugee problems have in some cases been of considerably smaller extent. It would probably be true to say that many people attribute Hong Kong's inability to obtain the same international recognition of its needs to its dependent status; 1.e. that it is the metropolitan country concerned which not only conducts its international relations but also bears the primary responsibility for ensuring the good govern- ment and well being of the dependent territory and for giving it whatever assistance it requires. Apart, however, from a gift of £200,000 for the Shek Kip Mei fire and certain C.D. & W. assistance for which we are grateful, we have not received any assistance from H.M.G. towards the cost of absorbing the refugees, while such assistance as has been received is considerably less than the contribution Hong Kong has made to H.M.G. towards defence expenditure.
3.
Now that the Hong Kong refugee problem is to come before the United Nations it may well be that one of the foreign delegates will ask what help the United Kingdom has given towards the cost of the refugee problem in one of her own colonies. That might be an embarrassing question even though, as I fully realise, H.M.G.'s resources have been very strained in other directions. I therefore suggest that instead of revising the defence contribution which I would otherwise propose, H.M.G. should take the initiative by publicly forgoing the contribution which would otherwise be paid as a measure of assistance towards the cost of the housing and welfare needs of the refugees in Hong Kong. would advocate leaving a token sum of say $1 million still to be paid on defence account in order to maintain the principle of such contribution.
I
THE RIGHT HONOURABLE
ALAN LENNOX-BOYD, M.P.
Page 82
/40
Page 82