TNAG-0182-FCO40-218-Defence-contributions-1969 — Page 65

SECRET

that a Colony contributes to its own defence (and to imperial

defence for that matter) according to its capacity to pay and

overlooking the fact that many territories have not paid defence

contributions because they have been defended by essentially local

forces paid for from the local budget (to which HMG has contributed

as necessary). Their other argument, which is also the main theme

of public comment in Hong Kong, is that the Colony should not be

milked to pay for its defence when so much has to be done to provide

better living standards and improved social services. In 1966

unofficials in the two Councils said that, rather than pay what

HMG was asking, the garrison should be reduced to levels the Colony

could afford by way of contribution; they said that the Colony

could dispense with all naval forces and talked in terms of a

reduction of the land forces to a minimum required for internal

security, putting this at three or four battalions.

6. When Cabinet considered in May 1968 the strength of the Hong

Kong garrison after the withdrawal from Singapore in 1971, the Defence Secretary asked that "the costs of that part of the post-19717

garrison not directly attributable to our external defence

responsibilities, with the appropriate support, should be reimbursed

to Defence votes" with the implication that "costs" in this

context meant full budgetary costs (which, without support costs,

were estimated at £14 million of which about £8 million were

"foreign exchange costs"). He did not get a decision to that

effect last year: OPD "agreed that it would be premature at this

time to decide on where the cost of these forces should be borne"

and the Prime Minister in summing up is recorded as saying:

"Consideration