261
712
C. 28070/27 [No. 15].
No. 227.
STRAITS SETTLEMENTS.
THE SECRETARY OF STATE to THE GOVERNOR.
(Sent 7.40 p.m., 30th September, 1927.) TELEGRAM.
[Answered by No. 230.]
CONFIDENTIAL. Your Confidential telegram of the 28th of September.* Apart from the possibility of some unforeseen development which would completely change the situation at some future date, my chief difficulty in giving a pledge in your exact words lies in the nature of the Opium Reserve Fund itself. When the necessity comes for using it to make good the loss of opium revenue, of which necessity the then Governor and Secretary of State must be the judges, it will presumably be paid into general revenue by such instalments as the progressive loss of opium revenue may require. In a sense therefore it will be used to defray any and every item of expendi, ture of the Colony at the time. Subject to this consideration and to the remark about defence contribution in my telegram of 24th September,† although I cannot in theory bind succeeding Secretaries of State, I am willing to authorize a pledge, which I have no doubt His Majesty's future advisers will respect. to the effect that no part of the capital of the Opium Reserve Fund will be diverted from its original object to any Imperial purpose or any local purpose without the consent of a majority of Unofficial Members.-AMERY.
C. 28070/27 [No. 20].
No. 229.
STRAITS SETTLEMENTS.
'THE SECRETARY OF STATE to THE GOVERNOR.
CONFIDENTIAL.
(Sent 5.45 p.m., 29th October, 1927.)
TELEGRAM.
[Answered by No. 233.]
Your telegram 26th October,* I understand that at present only the rejection of Opium Fund contribution for this year is concerned and there is no question of any proposal to abolish the Fund. On this understanding, having regard to your own opinion, I am not prepared to direct use of official vote against unanimous vote of unofficials which I understand represents feeling of whole community. As, however, it may be necessary next year or later to insist on reinsertion of vote and to pass by official majority, I consider that rejection should be action of Unofficials alone and should greatly prefer that Officials should not vote at all. In any case I have no doubt that you and they will refrain from any expression of opinion during debate which would be embarrassing later.
I am not aware of arguments on which Unofficials rely or grounds on which you sympathize, but it seems to me that departure from approved programme could be defended publicly only on ground either (a) that financial position has so changed as to render continuance of contributions unnecessary or an intolerable burden, or (b) that a fresh review of finances has shown that conclusions of 1925 Committee were pessi- mistic and that it is unnecessary to continue contributions on scale advised by Com- mittee. Suggest therefore that following on vote you should announce inquiry to be made forthwith to review recommendations of 1925 Committee and financial prospects of Colony with a view to deciding whether or not contributions to Fund are to be continued on basis recommended by that Committee.-AMERY.
C. 28070/27 [No. 18].
No. 228.
STRAITS SETTLEMENTS.
THE GOVERNOR to THE SECRETARY OF STATE. (Received 9.35 a.m., 26th October, 1927.)
(Paraphrase.)
TELEGRAM.
[Answered by No. 229.]
Confidential and Urgent. 26th October. Referring to my code telegram of 28th September,* I learn on good authority that, in spite of the assurance authorized by your telegram of 30th September, Unofficial Members of the Legislative Council will vote unanimously against contribution (to) Opium Reserve Fund. I am informed that they are taking this action not only under the influence of their own strong views but in compliance with requests addressed to them jointly and individually by almost every unofficial body and association representing local public opinion and feeling. After close study of the question and approaching it with a perfectly open mind, unfettered by personal commitments in the matter, I find myself strongly in sympathy with the views of the public locally. In any event, however, in such a matter as this, which must be recognized as a question of expediency, not of principle, I should deprecate strongly passage of measure by means of official vote, and I propose to make the official vote free, every Official Member voting according to his convictions, unless instructions to the contrary are received with authority for me to state that I am acting upon your instructions.
No. 226.
† No. 225.
‡ No. 227.
C. 28070/27 [No. 23],
SIR,
No. 230.
STRAITS SETTLEMENTS.
THE GOVERNOR to THE SECRETARY OF STATE. (Received 28th November, 1927.) [Answered by No. 232.]
(Confidential.)
Government House, Singapore, 31st October, 1927. WITH reference to your Confidential telegram dated the 30th September,† I have the honour to enclose herewith a copy of my recent Address to the Legislative Council, on pages 2 and 3 of which occur my remarks concerning the Opium Revenue Replacement Fund and my statement of the pledge which you authorized me to make. 2. Your authorization was subject to the condition, mentioned in your telegram of the 24th September, that the pledge "would not preclude payment of the defence contribution by the Colony on any sum received into general revenue from the Fund.' I made no reference in my Address to this condition because I do not agree with the arguments advanced in paragraph 4 of Mr., now Sir Hayes Marriott's Confidential despatch dated the 13th August, 1926, § but consider that revenue paid into the Fund should be liable to assessment for Military contribution in the year of its collection in the same way as any other revenue. The contributions to the Opium Revenue Replacement Fund have not in actual fact been derived from additional taxation
"
to meet abnormal expenditure," and I desire therefore to withdraw from the position taken up by my predecessor in this matter.
3. If the revenue paid into the Fund and the interest earned thereon be taken into consideration for purposes of Military contribution at the time of its collection it will not, of course, be subject to further assessment at the time of its withdrawal
§ No. 219.
* No. 228.
† No. 227.
‡ No. 225.
།༴།། ་། ་
PUBLIC RECORD OFFICE
Reference :-
C.O.882/11
PUBLIC RECORD OFFICE, LONDON
ALLY WITHOUT PERMISSION OF THE BE REPRODUCED PHOTOGRAPHIC- COPYRIGHT PHOTOGRAPH-NOT TO