6
14
箭
25
7f8
48
55093/43 thus no покрие useful light in the
se M. Radfous 35/48
- fr
note above 35
$45,320
$17,500
6. There are also various minor claims against the R.A.F. Singapore in respect of category B and C claims amounting to £2,832 and £1,112 respectively. If, however, the attitude suggested above as regards these claims is agreed to it looks as though we shall have to tell Hong Kong that we see no grounds on which the claims should be met.
929,324
7. Hong Kong also has a claim against the Government of Singapore for £58,086 for a category A claim. This is being dealt with locally.
8.
1948 fill
Dres
No. 35 refers to a claim for £944,18.9d. but it is not possible from the information on these files to get any clear idea exactly what the claim is about Tinde 55093/43 throw any light on the matter, there is nothing in the despatch on which we could support the Hong Kong claim that H.M.G. should bear the expenditure. Subject to
Mr. Wallace's view it seems that this is for Hong Kong to accept as one of the outstanding war claims covered by our £1 million grant.
9. If the Hong Kong Department agree generally with the lines suggested above I will pursue the matter as far as possible with the Ministry of Supply, Treasury, C.R.O., F.O., and the Government of Hong Kong.
John
5th February, 1949.
1. Mr. Palmer has let a lot of light into dark places. I have made a few marginal notes to his minute. Apart from these I have the following comments against each of his action paragraphs:-
2B.
I agree.
C.
I agree. We must stress the points at X
which I think the Governor will
appreciate.
The action portred
is going to be awkward because in paragraph 5 of (16) on the 1947 file we committed ourselves to saying that the se advances were "made largely for purely patriotic reasons at rates below the prevailing practice". Nevertheless I am sure this is the course we must now follow.
3.A,B & C. I agree.
1
I,
4.
I agree.
5.
I agree this looks like Category C, but
that we need further information before deciding.
6.