CONFIDENTIAL
NOTHING TO BE WRITTEN IN THIS MARGIN
Registry No. HKK 10/5
DRAFT
LETTER
SECURITY CLASSIFICATION
Top Secret.
Secret.
Confidential
Restricted.
Unclassified.
PRIVACY MARKING
..In Confidence
Para 6 20
Fait please. UNG
1.474.
Recive to the
ANG
1/
(6)
To:-
1.
2.
D G Jeaffres on Esq
Deputy Financial
Secretary
Colonial Secretariat HONG KONG
Type 1 +
From
Faird
W. Gaminara Telephone No. & Ext.
Department
Hong Kong
Laird
Will you please refer to Yeung's letter to me
of 26 March about the item of £118 paid as additional
allowances for Hong Kong Other Ranks on standby duty.
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 allowange
expense should have been paid but not at the acceptance 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 authoritie
in connection with the disturbances?
1 CONFIDENTIAL
14.
(134392) Dd. 737115 750M 4/70 Hw.
No comments yet.
Private notes are available after approval.