380
PUBLIC
RECORD OFFICE
Reference :-
C.O.882/11
PUBLIC RECORD OFFICE, LONDON
ALLY WITHOUT PERMISSION OF THE BE REPRODUCED PHOTOGRAPHIC-
COPYRIGHT PHOTOGRAPH-NOT TO
20
Ordinance subject only to (a) exclusion from the cost of the garrison of initial capital expenditure on the new Naval Başe, and (b) a reduction of the revenue limit from 20 to 17 per cent. if the Unofficial Members of the Legislative Council would agree to make this proposal. The offer was communicated to the Unofficial Members who, however, informed the Governor that, before expressing any opinion on the subject of the com- promise proposed, they would like a reasoned reply from the Imperial Government to a letter in which they had stated their opposition to the previous proposals. They did not consider that their case had been answered by the suggested reduction of the maximum percentage. No formal reply has yet been sent.
6. Lord Passfield understands that it has been contended that it is not possible to distinguish between expenditure on local defence and that entailed by the decision to establish the Base at Singapore. He is, however, unable to accept this contention and he suggests that by comparing expenditure on the garrison before steps in connexion with the creation of the Base were taken and the figures for the years since expenditure on the Base has begun to affect the cost of the garrison it should be possible to estimate the increased cost attributable to the Base.
7. Before considering further the question of proposing the reconsideration by His Majesty's Government of the earlier decision, Lord Passfield desires that the difference in cost should be ascertained between the military expenditure at Singapore as an ordinary defended port and as a defended port with the Naval Base, and for this purpose he would be glad if the Army Council could supply detailed statements of expenditure as follows:- (a) expenditure for each of the years 1920-21 and 1921-22, showing the cost of each arm, of upkeep of barracks and other military buildings, and of coast defences, etc.;
(b) similar estimates for the years 1927-28, 1928-29, 1929-30, and 1930-31; (c) if possible, an approximate estimate showing the cost under the same heads if the coast defences as at present projected are completed and the garrison is increased to the proportions now considered necessary for the completed Base.
8. A copy of this letter is being sent to the Treasury.
C. 72093/30 [No. 4].
(No. 298.) MY LORD,
No. 15.
STRAITS SETTLEMENTS.
THE GOVERNOR to
THE SECRETARY OF STATE.
(Received 16th June, 1930.)
· [Answered by No. 17.]
I am, &c.,
WALTER D. ELLIS.
Government House, Singapore, 21st May, 1930.
I have the honour to invite attention to Mr. Scott's Straits Settlements despatch No. 731 of the 26th November, 1929*, on the subject of the Colony's defence contribution and your telegram of the 6th February, 1930†, on the same subject and to ask whether an early reply can now be given, seeing that the Naval Conference is ended and that the results of the decisions of that Conference on the future of the Naval Base can now be estimated.
2. The Unofficial Members of Council, while still endeavouring to embarrass this Government as little as is consistent with the position which they have taken up on this question, are unwilling to approve of any extra expenditure for military or quasi-military purposes until they are aware of the liability of the Colony in regard to the defence of the Base.
I have, &c.,
C. CLEMENTI,
Governor.
• No. 12.
† No. 13.
C. 72093/30 [No. 6].
SIR,
21
No. 16.
WAR OFFICE
to
COLONIAL OFFICE.
The War Office, London, S.W.1, 5th July, 1930.
I am commanded by the Army Council to refer to your letter of 7th April*, relating to the military contribution of the Straits Settlements, and to say that the Council observe that the Secretary of State for the Colonies has informed the Governor of the Straits Settlements that he is still unable, in view of the undecided position as to the Base, to reply to the representations of the Unofficial Members of the Legislative Council forwarded by the Governor in his despatch No. 514 of 18th July, 1928†, but that in the meantime he is endeavouring to ascertain whether it is possible to distinguish between military expenditure for local and Imperial purposes.
2. The Army Council desire me to recall the fact that in his despatch of 30th April, 1928, No. 185, to the Governor of the Straits Settlements, the then Secretary of State for the Colonies formally notified His Excellency of the definite proposals of His Majesty's Government in the United Kingdom, which had been arrived at after full discussion and which were put forward as a settlement of all outstanding questions as to the amount and the method of calculation of the annual military contribution of the Straits Settlements. In the course of that despatch, the general principles relative to Colonial military contri- butions, and the impracticability of dividing colonial garrisons into the parts required for local and for Imperial defence respectively, were explained.
3. I am further to point out that the subsequent proposal that the percentage limit of the contribution should be fixed at 17 per cent of the revenue, arrived at in semi-official correspondence between the late Secretaries of State for War and for the Colonies in November and December, 1928, was accepted by them and by the Chancellor of the Exchequer on the condition that there would be no further question as to how far the troops in the Straits Settlements are there for Colonial and how far for Imperial purposes. This condition was also rehearsed when the suggested modification of the percentage limit to 17 per cent was communicated formally to the Governor and by him to the Unofficial Members informally (see Colonial Office telegram of 22nd March, 1929§, and telegram from the Governor dated 15th April, 1929||).
4. Before considering these proposals, the Unofficial Members asked for a reasoned reply to their views expressed in their letter of 12th July, 1928, and a note was accordingly drawn up by the War Office for the use of the Governor, in which the impracticability of measuring separately, in terms of the numbers and cost of the garrison, the needs of Imperial and local defence was further explained. Subsequently your Department suggested semi-officially, on 29th June, 1929, that in view of the possible developments of policy relating to the Singapore Base, further action as regards that note should be deferred, and to this the War Office agreed.
5. In view of the correspondence, thus briefly summarized, that has taken place in the past two years, the Council, had they been consulted, could not have concurred in the promise now made by the Secretary of State for the Colonies to the Governor, to attempt once more to distinguish, as the Unofficial Members desire, between military expenditure for local and Imperial purposes. They cannot but feel that such a promise is calculated to weaken the effect of the concerted action previously taken under specific Cabinet authority, and to lead the Colony to entertain false hopes of success in a line of policy essentially at variance with the decision of His Majesty's Government and with the long-established principles which underlie all Colonial military contributions. They can only say that they have nothing to add upon the general question of the separation of the local and the Imperial functions of the garrison to what is contained in the despatch sent to the Colony by the Colonial Office in April, 1928, and in the observations forwarded semi-officially to Sir G. Grindle on 8th June, 1929**.
..
6. In paragraph 6 of your letter it is stated that Lord Passfield is unable to accept the contention that" it is not possible to distinguish between expenditure on local defence This remark, and that entailed by the decision to establish the Base at Singapore." however, reveals a misapprehension of the position taken up by this Department; the contention thus stated would be indeed inherently illogical. A distinction between the
§ No. 10.
|| No. 11. ** C. 62093/29 [No. 10]: not printed.
* No. 14.
† No. 2. C. 62093/29 [No. 12]: not printed.
(C38051)
No. 1.
D