TNAG-0477-FCO40-542-Strength-of-garrison-in-Hong-Kong-1974 — Page 65

COVERING SECRET

3.

This said, the paper does not, so far as I can see at a quick reading, make any proposals for a substantial change in the ratio of Gurkha to British troops, although (paragraph 40) it quotes the (1973) annual capitation rate for a British soldier in Hong Kong as £3,500 and for a Gurkha soldier as £800.

4. Annex C is a curious document. It lists possible savings under an option involving a 25% cut in garrison strength - an option which CBF rejects unless he has assurance that a reinforcement battalion can arrive promptly. The curious point is that the sums presented of contributions from the Hong Kong Government and the UK Government omit the cost to the Hong Kong Government (£2.2 million) of "minor works and maintenance". Thus the present, and the hypothetical future Hong Kong contribution, is presented as a smaller sum than is actually borne by the Hong Kong taxpayer. And of course the ratio between HMG and the Hong Kong Government's contributions looks worse than it really is from the UK point of view.

PR. Mac

P JE Male

1 August 1974

This paper strikes special pleading, af

piece of very

would be

very chary about

J

andorsing it

in any way.

suggests

that

troops

reeded - the 1.5. vole alme

Ha wer

available to the governor in 1967 as that if

prolonged

sifuatia resulted

in reinforcements bang

sant in at the level demanded there would be

The Colmy to there

about

2

major

mits

were in by when

there was a

major

treat

Minilo & letter.

the frontier.

Please make

clear that one 'no

but

Comment" does NOT meaom

just that we don't want јогнал

COVERING SECRET

Hat

have no

com Lat

naka