13
The above minute of the 14th October by Mr. Bourdillon explains the reason for the passage which has been inserted at the end of the draft despatch.
As regards the main issue raised in the preceding minutes, I cannot think that anyone would take the view that we would be justified in holding back on development in the new territories owing to the fact that they will have to be handed back to China in 1998 and that there is always a possibility of their being handed back earlier. In my view, such an attitude would not be politically possible.
On the other hand, the issue raised by the despatch at (1) is, as I understand it, rather different. The question which arises here is not whether or not we should give the new territories their fair share of development, but rather whether we should build in the new territories reservoirs, etc. for the suply cater to Hong Kong Island, Colony of
The deny 1 and thus increase Heng
s dependence on the Mew territories. It may be, of course, that there is no practicable alternative, but the last two sentences of paragraph 4 suggest that there is a possible alternative; and that being so, I agree with Mr. Bourdillon that we ought to make sure that the obstacles to adopting it, including the increased expenditure involved, are not so great as to render
it impracticable.
Woxes.
14th October, 1948.
9
apree
with
the draft
Despatch
So far
Concerns
as
it
добальн
Gosario about
finance.
But
there
Seems
lo
me
Considerable
face
A/ y
M
Gush Barnes
minute
I should
have
thought
Twat
;
we
ought
draw
Ime
Com
alicution
16
This
point
and
apk
fo
fuker
details
Thi
J.
Blan
which
ha
dis miñas at
the
end
bejua
WE
16
Lus
"New Tenituiss
promise
to
do
li
ficially commit
4 of 0
ourselves
as Scheme,
para 2 of
mal is
10
the draft.
Jagree with in Poynton. I think
Јари
of
para
"
We
No comments yet.
Private notes are available after approval.