CO537-4999 — Page 265

In discussion the following points were made:-

(a) The Commissioner-General for South-East

Ásia had recently recommended that a detailed announcement about our resources for the defence of Hong Kong should be published. The Commanders-in-Chief, Far East, were in agreement with this proposal' which they considered would do much to raise civil morale in Hong Kong.

(70) It was undesirable that a series of separate

statements should be made as the various reinforcements were authorised. It would be unwise, for example, to refer only to the move of the infantry battalion and the brigade headquarters which had already been approved. The Cabinet were being asked to decide before the Debate whether the balance of the brigade group should be despatched. Any public statement that was made about the reinforcements should either give full details or should be worded in general terms. (c) It was important, on account of the implica- tions on shipping, that a decision on the despatch of the balance of the Army rein- forcements for Hong Kong should be taken as soon as possible and not later than 10th May.

(a)

(e)

(1)

(g)

It was undesirable that the impression should be gained that any of the reinforcements were being provided at the expense of operations in Malaya.

The Secretary of State for War was doubtful whether publicity should be given to the fact that reinforcements were being sent from the United Kingdom, in view of the limited reserves available to deal with other contingencies,

His Majesty's Ambassador in Ranking was understood to be of the opinion that the publication of the decision to reinforce Hong Kong might have undesirable repercussions in China.

The Chiefs of Staff did not consider that there was any need to withhold publication of the details of the reinforcements on security grounds, as the arrangements which were being made were certain to become known.

In discussion it was generally agreed that, broadly, the courses open were either to announce full details of the reinforcements which were being sent, or else to state in general terms that the necessary measures were being taken to reinforce Hong Kong. A possible alternative would be to

(67) Telegram No.385 from Hong Kong dated 30th April.

SEACOS 899

53

Page 265Page 266