HKK 10/5
CONFIDENTIAL
D G Jeaffreson Esq
Deputy Financial Secretary
Colonial Secretariat HONG KONG
9115
1 April 1971
1. Will you please refer to Yeung's letter to Laird of 26 March about the iter of £118 paid as additional allowances for Hong Kong Other Ranks on standby duty.
2. Although the local military authorities in Hong Kong had previously agreed to withdraw their claim to a refund of the sum in question on a "de minimis" basis, the fact is that the Ministry of Defence have now decided to revive the claim. This may be because of the difference of opinion which has arisen over the "Highland Bonnet" issue.
3. Yeung states in his letter that the item of £118 was disallowed by the Finance Committee on the grounds that the expenditure was not considered to be a fair charge to public funds. I assume that by this was meant that they did not consider it to be a fair charge against Hong Kong Government funds as opposed to military funds.
If so, can you say why they took this view? Did they consider that there was no justification for any payment of the allowances in question at all? Or did they accept that the allowances should have been paid but not at the expense of the Hong Kong Government? If the latter was the case, is there any reason why a distinction should be drawn between this particular type of expenditure and other forms of expenditure incurred by the military authorities in connection with the disturbances?
40 You will appreciate that the Ministry of Defence are looking to us to achieve a settlement of outstanding items such as this. We are naturally doing our best on Hong Kong's behalf and we should be grateful for any information which you could let us have with which to reply to the claims put forward by the Ministry of Defence.
A W Gaminara
Hong Kong Department
CONFIDENTIAL
No comments yet.
Private notes are available after approval.