File No. DEF 75/51/02
Page 100
Mr.Fairclough.
4/12 Campbell 7/12
Mr..
see minute
Permt. U.S. of S.
Parly. U.S. of S.
Mr. Wallah su
Mr...
Sir
Minister of State
Secretary of State
Your Reference. COS/1597/9/9/58
For Mr. Campbell's signature.
See
Issue
utes
unute
Date.
4/12/58
DRAFT
Air/Cdore D. J.P. Lee, C. B., C. B.E.,
C. O. S. Secretariat,
Ministry of Defence.
(200)
PEC 34/56 pips
TOP SECRET
Will you please refer to Clutterbuck's letter of the
(280) 9th September, 1958, to Fairclough about the directive of the
Commander, British Forces Hong Kong.
tent
I am afraid that we are not content with the reasons which
Clutterbuck advances as to why the directive should not be
Fairclough stated our main reasons for taking the
revised.
view that the directive should be revised in his letter to
(271) Clutterbuck of the 20th August, 1958, and nothing in
FURTHER ACTION
(37) on Part A
(57)
ditto
Page 100
Clutterbuck's reply appears to us to affect the force of those
They are indeed the main reasons why we should like
reasons.
to see the directive revised.
However there are others. The present directive is fast
K
becoming an antique in other ways
~~(para 7 of Appendix A to the
↳ BCC(FE)(56)1)
e.g. it refers to "Commonwealth AirForces" based in Hong Kong -to
(P9100) 13771/7656 2MP 6/58 AT&S. 768
quote only one example of the ways in which it is out of date.
Surely on all grounds it must be desirable to replace this
Cbefore
document, which is a hangover from the days on the garrison of
had been firicelly settled of when the foren there were appreciably
vesanidzasady larger than at present, by a
Hong Kong
more realistic document.
In this connection I would mention that Fairclough's
letter of 20th August is not the first time that we have taken
matter
his up. Hughes wrote to the Secretary of the Chiefs of Staff
Committee on 1st April 1957 on the same matter and Wykeham in
his reply of 3rd April, 1957, mentioned that the matter had
Page 100
No comments yet.
Private notes are available after approval.