CO885-(11-12) — Page 567

487

PECORD OFFICE

Reference

1111C.0.882/12

T T T T T T T T O G

PUBLIC RECORD OFFICE, LONDON |

ALLY WITHOUT PERMISSION OF THE BE ALPRODUCED PHOTOGRAPHIC-

COPYRIGHT PHOTOGRAPH-NOT TO

54

is already committed, and the logical outcome of that policy, which I now place before you, must be faced." He continued:-"I am convinced that the only effective decentralization in the Federated States, and the only cure for the dissatis- faction of their Rulers lie in such gradual devolution of the Chief Secretary's powers to State Councils, Residents and, if necessary, to Federal Heads of Departments as will in effect amount to abolition of the office of Chief Secretary as at present con- stituted." He further said:" It is possible that, as the policy of increasing the powers of State Councils develops, the Rulers may elect to withdraw from the con- tentious arena of the Federal Council into the serener atmosphere of an Upper House or periodical Durbar.

I think it may prove desirable that one of the qualifications for membership of Federal Council should be a seat on one of the State Councils." In conclusion he said: "I propose to appoint several committees to work out the details of the general policy of devolution which I have outlined."

26. Accordingly various committees were constituted. The report of the Com- mittee appointed to make recommendations in regard to financial devolution is printed as Council Paper No. 28 of 1926. Accepting the principle of granting a measure of financial autonomy to the States, the Conimittee proposed that detailed provision for certain services should be removed from the province of the Federal Council, which would only be asked for legislative sanction for the total expenditure concerned, and made into a purely State budget. They divided the various heads of expenditure into three schedules, which could later be altered in the light of experience :-

(a) Federal Services, which were and should be provided for solely in the

Federal Estimates;

11

-

(b) Reserved Services, i.e., State Services reserved entirely for State budgets, including "Rulers and Chiefs,' District and Land Offices,' Sanitary Boards "; and

(c) Unreserved Services, regarded as susceptible of possible future classifica- tion in the Reserved schedule in respect of any provision which might appear in the State Estimates, e.g., Agriculture, Surveys, Police.

The Federal Council, it was proposed, should by resolution appropriate to each of the State Councils a lump sum of money for the services scheduled as reserved in each case. Each State Council would then be in control of, and could allocate, the amount as it liked to the services reserved to it. The State budget, in the form of a State Council Appropriation (Supply) Bill, would be drawn up by the Resident, subject to the formal sanction of the High Commissioner. This Committee's report was approved by the Federal Council on the 13th December, 1926.

27. The Report of the Committee appointed" to make recommendations in regard to the present constitution of the Federal Council" was laid before the Council on the same day, as Federal Council Paper No. 38 of 1926. Feeling that the time had come for strengthening the constitution of the Council, in order better to equip it to fill the position which increasing public interest had given it, while at the same time conscious of the growing uneasiness of the Rulers at their position in the Council, the Committee proposed :-

(i) that the Rulers should withdraw from the Council;

(ii) that five unofficial members should be added, including four Heads of

Departments ex officio;

(iii) that three unofficial Malay members should be added making four in all,

one for each State.

These proposals were later unanimously approved by the Federal Council, and on the 24th April, 1927, with the approval of the Secretary of State, a new Agreement was signed by Sir Laurence Guillemard and the Rulers for the reconstitution of the Federal Council.

28. A month later, Sir Laurence Guillemard's term of office came to an end. The development of his decentralization policy had been embittered by unsatisfactory personal relations with Sir George Maxwell, the Chief Secretary to Government, and there had been much opposition from the non-Malay members of the Federal Council, who were little interested in the prestige of the Malay Rulers and felt that any exten- sive decentralization of administrative machinery, and especially any weakening of the Chief Secretary's position might lead to a serious decline in efficiency. As regards the Chief Secretary's powers, Sir Laurence was apparently forced by opposition to leave things much as they were, though he obtained the Secretary of State's support in refusing to restore the original title of "Resident-General, a proposal which had behind it the idea of enhancing the Chief Secretary's status and securing for him a position of semi-independence.

29.

55

Sir Hugh Clifford, during his brief term of office as Governor, left the decentralization policy in abeyance. But while he was Governor, Mr. Ormsby Gore, as Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for the Colonies, paid Malaya during 1928 the visit to which I refer at the beginning of this despatch, and in his report he wrote:-"I cannot help expressing the view that the spirit and intention of our policy in Malaya has been carried out both more simply and more completely in the Unfederated Malay States. Government have been aimed at decentralization rather than centralization.

Inside the Federation recent efforts of

I will not labour the point-but to me the maintenance of the position, authority and prestige of the Malay Rulers is a cardinal point in our policy."

30. I assumed duty as High Commissioner in February, 1930, and not long afterwards the Rulers in the Federated Malay States, one by one, spoke to me on the subject of decentralization, and they spoke unitedly on that subject at the Klang Durbar on the 11th September, 1930. would consult the Secretary of State; and, as I recognized that decentralization was I promised them on that occasion that I by far the most serious political problem in Malaya, I arranged to go to England as soon as I had made a tour of the whole area in Malaya and Borneo (for which I am responsible), in order to discuss this subject with the Secretary of State in person. I felt this to be the more necessary because of the local opposition to decentralization in Sir Laurence Guillemard's time. discussion with Lord Passfield, then Secretary of State, and I carried away from these While in England I had an opportunity of full conversations a very clear impression that Lord Passfield was satisfied as to the necessity and desirability of decentralization. I should indeed have been most un- willing to pursue the policy without an assurance of sympathetic support from the Secretary of State. This assurance Lord Passfield gave me. could foresee what reception the revival of the policy would have in Malaya, particu- But neither he nor I larly by the European community, and I understood that Lord Passfield did not wish to place the matter before the Cabinet until he knew what measure of local support would be forthcoming for decentralization. He authorized me, however, to act on

the assumption that the policy would probably be approved, and the decision not to extend Mr. Cochrane's term of office as Chief Secretary to Government, but to appoint Mr. Caldecott to act, was taken because Lord Passfield recognized the necessity for the eventual abolition of that post. I understood my instructions to be to carry on circumspectly. I also understood that, if the decentralization policy on its revival had a favourable reception in Malaya, the Secretary of State would submit it for the approval of the Cabinet.

31. Accordingly on my return to Singapore I acted with great caution. I satisfied myself first that the policy was acceptable to my senior officers, and that I should have their support. I found that those officers upon whom I should have principally to rely were convinced and enthusiastic supporters of decentralization, also found at confidential conferences with the Unofficial Members of the Legislative and Federal Councils that their reception of the policy was friendly and appreciative. The four Rulers of the Federated Malay States and the Malay Chiefs were most anxious to see the policy carried into effect. Having thus satisfied myself that the policy would have a friendly reception, I announced it at the Sri Menanti Durbar. reception was favourable, and its progress since then has been reported upon fully in my despatches to your predecessors and yourself, a list of which was set out in my Confidential despatch of the 24th December, 1931.*

Its

32. Such being the history of the efforts at decentralization in the Federated Malay States, I feel that I can in no sense be said to have expressed a personal

opinion only, when I stated publicly that the policy was politically essential and was one which we are bound in honour to adopt. I also feel that the policy of recon- stituting State Councils and devolving wide powers upon them is one to which the Government has been committed for many years past. I trust that, if you see fit to circulate to the Cabinet my printed memorandum of the 22nd December, 1931,† on the subject of decentralization in the Federated Malay States as a preliminary to pan-Malayan federation, you will be good enough to circulate this despatch with it.

33. I am posting the original of this despatch by air mail to-day. A duplicate will follow by ocean mail.

I have, &c..

C. CLEMENTI.

High Commissioner

*No. 12.

† Not reprinted.