The Hong Kong Government submitted thes claim to the
Government of Burma who in reply stated that the
matter was being referred to "the paying authority"
but apparently no payment has in fact been received,
# Joo not know and
not clear whether in accordance with any
financial settlement between H.M.G. and the Government
of Burma,responsibility for meeting this claim should
now rest upon H.M.G. In this connection f
framangrept 4(a) j
bserve from Article 6 of the Treaty between the
Government of the United Kingdom and the provisional
Government of Burma (Cmd.7240) that under peza (a)
Arteite
of
Seation, H.M,G. agrees to reimburse the
provisional Government for expenditure in respect
of claims for supplies and services rendered to
the Burma Army in the Burma campaign of 1942. It
is stated on the relevant paper that this Treaty
Fatihed has not been re
by H.M.G. nevertheless the saymably
paper sets out what was the intention of H.M.G.
চ
in this matter and it would seen to be a very have of the clam
on
ourng
16
Jothey had
British firms in Hong Kong to suffer
Exclured ratify the Treaty
tification 4 in fact the
of Ahmed, and Burma
-
intention were at the time that such claims should
be met by HMG.
3 I should be grateful therefore, if you will
consider whether,in all the circumstances, this
Now
should wat be met by M.3, I need hardly
stress how essential
(Category A) category/should be met, especially if it is
ultimately decided that claims falling under
categories B and C cannot be met. As you are
it is that claims in this
aware the firms feel very strongly on the question of all these claims and our position is by no means
can be held
coming Коре
with in
the
Kat para
an/