CO129-593-4 Rehabilitation of Hong Kong University. For extracted photographs see CN 3-45 27-10-1946 - 30-1-1947 — Page 2

C.

90. Tel. 1345 from Mong King

Sean. 90% R.31*

91. From Foreign Office

92

D.D.J.

Slors

2

27/10/48

28/10/46

29/10/100

1

90. In reply to our proposals regarding the sources from which the capital and recurrent expenditure involved in the Committee's keport should be met, the Governor accepts the proposals for capital expenditure, but suggests that the recurrent contribution from Imperial funds should be increased gradually over six years from the £30,000, we proposed, to £45,000. The object of this suggestion is to effect a proportionate diminution of the recurrent expenditure required from Hong Kong funds.

2.

It

The Governor justifies his suggestion by reference to the expected proportion or Dominion and foreign students. The Vice-Chancellor estimates these proportions as being 290 foreign and Dominion students against 390 Colonial students in 1950. would be reasonable that the Imperial contribution should be increased on a sliding scale equally with the Hong Kong contribution if it were not for the fact that it is proposed to seek all the capital expenditure from outside Hong Kong. (The small sum or £16,000 out of the total or £716,000 put down I'or Hong Kong has already been met - see 82(a)).

the

Moreover a gradual increase will be reflected in the capital sum asked for, in the fact that £700,000 still required will be spread over the next 7, or 10, years.

3. I think therefore we should explain to the Governor that in taking capital and recurrent expendi- ture together, the proportion of Dominion and foreign students has been taken into consiueration.

4. It has been suggested to the Foreign Office

(in paragraph 8 of the Memorandum behind 85) that a joint approach should be made by the F.0. and C.0. to the Treasury for financial assistance from U.K. funds. We have told the F.0. that the assistance we have in mind is £500,000 towards capital expenditure anu 230,000 per annum towards recurrent expenditure.

5. The letter at 1 acknowledges 85 and reports that the .0. are considering our proposals urgently.

6. I suggest therefore th t we should send a telegram in reply to 90 on the lines or drart opposite so as to have the position clear with the Governor when the F.0. reply to 85.

7. 92 is a letter from mr, sloss referring to mine at 89 on his suggestion (in 87) by which the estimated capical sum of £600,000 for new buildings might be reduced. These suggestions can be considered if the Treasury do not agree to our proposal that they should make a grant of 500,000 to the University. Meanwhile no action Leea be taken.

18.