Wom
386586/19/1857
6.
3
42
Any decision that these items still in suspense should finally be charged to Hong Kong funds or that this Colony should refund advances made to meet such payments in London would be received with dismay locally. The case for charging volunteer expenditure to Imperial funds, which I consider is a very strong one, was put forward in my predecessor's savingram No. 464 of the 30th December, 1946, and I will not overburden this despatch by repeating the arguments therein advanced. The question of repatriation passages has been dealt with in
55081/18/46. Sir Mark Young's despatch No. 172 of the 12th November, 1946,
and local feeling is particularly strong in regard to this matter. The undertaking regarding the grant of these passages was given by a Colonial Office representative and the Hong Kong Planning Unit in London was not consulted. It is realised that this lack of liaison was probably unavoidable in view of the speed with which events moved, but the fact remains that, had representatives of this Government been consulted, they would have advised against the grant of passages on such a lavish scale. In general, the scheme favoured the expatriate element in the Colony and, on this ground alone, there would be determined opposition to the cost being met from Hong Kong funds. The opposition would be all the more bitter if the Colony were forced to pay for the return passages of the overscas staff of business firms, which have charged the consumer high prices for their goods and have shown an extremely high margin of profit since they re-opened. it is clearly unnecessary that the cost of such passagos should be met from public funds, in view of the terms of the undertaking given, this may unfortunately prove unavoidable.
Although
Relief and maintenance payments arc a direct consequence of the occupation of the Colony by the Japanese, as they represent payments to refugees in Macao, China and elsewhere. A sum of £705,000 is also included in respect of funds remitted through the Red Cross for the maintenance of internees and prisoners of war. To my mind, it is beyond question that such expenditure should be regarded as part of the general cost of the war, and it seems quite wrong that it should ever have been charged to Hong Kong funds. The figures quoted in respect of this item in paragraphs 4 and 5 include a comparatively small sum in rospect of pension payments, but the exact amount will not be known until the payments are fully analysed. This does not, however, affect the general issue as, if the relief had not been given in the form of abolition ponsions, it would have been necessary to give it in more direct form. The final total may be affected by the decision in regard to payments to non-interncd personnel, a matter on which I have commented later in this despatch. Any payments thus authorised will be reduced by the amount of relief grants already paid to recipients. It would thus bo possible to crcdit the vote from which these relief payments have been met with those refunds but if, as I hope, the whole cost is accepted as part of the general war expenditure, it will probably be simpler, as regards those payments to non-interned personnel, to take into consideration only the not amount due.
8.
If expenditure in connection with the volunteers is finally accepted as a charge against Imperial funds, it is considered that there is a strong case for payments to Civil Defence workers being treated in a similar manner. This liability is a direct result of the occupation of the Colony as the payments in respect of the period during which Civil Defence personnel was actually on duty are trivial, the bulk of the payments being ox gratia grants in respect of their subsequent internment. There will be a further liability if the proposals for payments to Government employees, including temporary Civil Defence personnel, who were not interned, arc approved.