372
PUBLIC RECORD OFFICE
Reference :--
PELHIC.O.882/11
ALLY WITHOUT PERMISSION OF THE | COPYRIGHT PHOTOGRAPH-NOT TO BE REPRODUCED PHOTOGRAPHIC-
PUBLIC RECORD
OFFICE, LONDONÍ
4
2. We have had the opportunity of perusing despatch No. 185 of 30th April, 1928, from the Right Honourable the Secretary of State for the Colonies to Your Excellency, setting forth the proposals of His Majesty's Government in respect of the amount and method of calculation of the future annual Military Contributions of the Straits Settlements.
3. We have very carefully studied the contents of this despatch but regret to say that we are not in agreement with the views and proposals therein contained.
4. At the outset we may say that we are in full agreement with the Unofficial Members of 1899 who voiced their protest at the time of Ordinance No. 64 being passed. We consider that the Colony should pay the cost of local defence only and not be charged in respect of defences which are of an Imperial nature, such as the Naval Base in Singapore and the land, works and protection appertaining thereto.
5. We think it necessary to comment upon the most unbusinesslike procedure of annually presenting the Colony with a bill without supplying any details by which some check on the amount can be exercised. The Colony, which pays the bill, is entitled to have sufficient detail to enable it to know that the amounts charged are properly payable by the Colony.
6. From the totals stated in paragraph 2 (b) of the despatch it would appear that the Colony has been charged sums in excess of its statutory obligations as per Section 5 of Ordinance No. 64, even supposing that expenses in connexion with the defence of the Naval Base were for account of the Colony. For the despatch shows that the total for 1927 includes £142,000 for capital expenditure on land, works and armaments for the military defences of the new Base whereas Section 5 of Ordinance No. 64 reads ".... the annual cost of the Imperial garrison, including all capital expenditure required for military lands and buildings and the cost of maintenance of all military works and buildings. Maintenance is totally different from capital cost.
7. The Naval Base is not for the defence of the Colony alone whereas Ordinance No. 64 (paragraph 2) specifically refers to the defence of the Colony. Sections 4 and 5 state that the Colony has to pay the cost of the garrison or 20 per cent. of the revenue whichever is less. In practice, during the past fifteen years the cost of the garrison has been considerably below 20 per cent. of the revenue and this percentage has consequently lost its significance. To charge the Colony for anything in connection with the defence of the Naval Base is to go entirely outside the spirit, if not also the letter, of the Ordinance. As appears from the despatch, Mr. Chamberlain replied to the unofficial protests by saying that "the word garrison' in Section 5 can only be interpreted as meaning the troops employed for the defence of the Colony," whereas the Colony is now being asked to pay not only for its own defence but also for the defence of a naval base to support Imperial interests in the East; in short it is certainly not Colonial and is in essence naval, rather than military expenditure, being merely the ancillary land defence to the naval striking force.
8. It is a most inequitable principle that because one Colony is selected for a base by reason of its strategical position it should have to pay more than other Colonies or Dominions which are not so selected but which are equally affected by the institution and If the base is looked upon as a protection for all Eastern maintenance of such base. Colonies or Dominions, and if it is desired that they should contribute to the cost of this Imperial defence, then an equitable contribution should be forthcoming from all and not only from the one which finds itself selected for the new establishment.
9. In paragraph 8 (1) of the despatch it is proposed to exclude expenditure on the initial formation of the base. The presumption is that if it became necessary to double the size of the base a few years hence, then, under the proposed arrangement, the Colony would be expected to meet the additional cost.
10. In connexion with the statement accompanying the despatch we should like to remark in passing that a comparison of percentages of military and other expenditure to total revenue in the United Kingdom with those of the Colony is apt to be misleading. It is necessary to point out that such services as hospitals, police, education, etc., in the United Kingdom wholly or partly form a charge on authorities other than the Home Government, and that if the contributions of the Colony towards these items were excluded as in the United Kingdom, the revenue of the Colony would be considerably smaller and the percentage payable for local defence correspondingly increased.
5
11. A reference to the statement published in the Note of the Association of British Malaya on the Military Contribution shows that, for the five years 1920-24, the average annual cost of the garrison was $3,563,545 as under:-
1920
1921
1922
1923
1924
Total
Average
$
3,642,977
3,819,228
3,210,967
3,598,724
3,545,828
$17,817,724
$3,563,545
These years form a fair quinquennium from which to take an average. The war had been over for more than a year and expenditure on the Naval Base had not then commenced to be included.
12. We are strongly of opinion that the only sum for which this Colony should be responsible to the Home Government should be the cost of a garrison sufficient solely for local defence.
13. To this, the despatch makes various objections, the chief of which (in paragraph 4) is that it is impracticable to divide the cost of a garrison into one part for We are of opinion that, in order to local defence and another for Imperial defence. overcome the objections, and in particular the one specified, the annual contribution of the Colony should be an amount to be fixed from time to time. On the basis of the figure quoted above, we think that $3,600,000 is an equitable figure to take for the cost of local defence only for the present and near future years.
14. It may not be out of place at this juncture to place on record the amount paid annually by the Colony in respect of the local forces (volunteer defence organization) which is additional to the sum payable for local defence to the Home Government. The figures for the past five years are as follows:-
$
1923
319,423
1924
554,380
1925
355,708
1926
335,081
1927
390,803
Total
$1,955,395
Average ...
$391,079
In addition to this the Colony is committed to expenditure on the Royal Naval Volunteer Reserve and to a subsidy to the Singapore Aeroplane Club.
15. It is our considered opinion (a) that the Home Government should refund to the Colony all expenditure in connexion with the Naval Base and its defences which has been charged to the Colony during the four years 1925-1928, (b) that for the five years 1929-1933 (Colony years 1st January to 31st December) the Colony should pay $3,600,000 per annum in monthly instalments as heretofore, and (c) that the existing Ordinance, No. 64 should be replaced by a new Ordinance making provision in accordance with (b).
16. We strongly deprecate the idea that any proposal adopted should be considered as a final settlement of all outstanding questions respecting the amount and method of calculation of the future annual Military Contributions. It is most unsatisfactory to attempt to fix, for a long period ahead, any heavy charge on the Colony such as that for local defence. Conditions change and what is fair at its inception may become grossly unfair soon afterwards. At the same time too short a period also has its drawbacks and therefore five years would seem to be a suitable period for which to agree upon an equitable amount.
17. The fixation of a definite sum (e.g., $3,600,000) would obviate the necessity for a limit based on a percentage of revenue, and towards the end of the first quinquennium the contribution for the second period could be considered in the light of the local defence requirements of the current five years and the prospects of the near future,
(C38051)
C