CO885-(11-12) — Page 573

67

493

MEUBLIC

In Is A Tolz In

RECORD OFFICE

لسلسسسل

Reference :-

C.O.882/12

| COPYRIGHT PHOTOGRAPH-NOT TO

RI

PUBLIC RECORD OFFICE, LONDON,

ALLY WITHOUT PERMISSION OF THE

REPRODUCED PHOTOGRAPHIC-|

C. 92300/32 [No. 36].

No. 27.

MEMORANDUM DATED 11TH APRIL, 1932, REGARDING THE DECENTRALIZATION POLICY AND THE POST OF THE CHIEF SECRETARY.

SIR LAURENCE GUILLEMARD'S decentralization policy was laid before the Federal Council on 14th December, 1925, in Paper No. 39 of 1925. The following are relevant extracts from that Paper :-

"I am convinced that the only effective decentralization in the Federated States and the only cure for the dissatisfaction 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 constituted.'

"To the policy of devolution to the Rulers, State Councils, and Residents the Government is already committed, and the logical outcome of that policy, which I now place before you, must be faced. Vague anxieties have been expressed that, unless the post of Chief Secretary as at present. constituted is retained, the High Commissioner will have no one effectively able to champion to him the cause of the Federated States.

"It is not intended to dislocate the administrative machine by sudden and sweeping changes. There is not and never has been any idea of abolishing the office of Chief Secretary on Sir George Maxwell's retirement. A successor

will then be appointed to the Chief Secretaryship with the same powers as at present. It will be his duty to assist in the development of the proposals and perhaps in the initiation of the changes."

Sir George Maxwell, although in favour of some measures of decentralization, considered that Sir L. Guillemard's policy was wholly wrong in so far as it aimed at the eventual abolition of the post of Chief Secretary. In a memorandum written by him on the 3rd March, 1926, which was circulated to the Federal Council, he wrote as follows:-

"I submit that the proposal that the Rulers and the Residents should address the High Commissioner either direct or through his Secretary, and thus short- circuit the Federal Secretariat, and the Federal Government, is absolutely incom patible with any pretence even of the Federal Government. Obviously, there must often be matters which a Ruler or a Resident might consider to be a State matter, and one therefore for direct reference to the High Commissioner, whereas the Federal Government might consider that it was a Federal matter, or at any rate one in which uniformity in the four States was desirable. It is unnecessary for me to enlarge upon the unpleasant complications that might ensue.

It is obvious, too, that, in any Federation, there must be a senior adminis- trative officer who is in a position to decide disputes between the State and the federal authorities, namely, the Residents and the Heads of the great Federal Departments. This officer must be one whose decision carries the respect of all; and it is manifest that the decision of an officer junior to a Resident or to a Federal Head of Department would not carry that respect. If some junior officer is to take the place of the Chief Secretary to Government, it follows inevitably that decisions must be carried to the High Commissioner. Any such system means, not only greater centralization than in the past, but the conversion of a High Com- missioner into a Governor."

Sir George Maxwell's views on this point, received a large measure of support from both officials and unofficials. At a meeting of the Federal Council on 8th March, 1926, the following Resolution was moved by the unofficial members:-

That it is essential to the efficient working of the Federal system that there shall be a resident Executive Head of the Federal Administration, under the High Commissioner, of rank and salaried status not less than has hitherto been assigned to the officer serving as Colonial Secretary, Straits Settlements."

The Motion was defeated by the use of the official majority. But Sir L. Guillemard was practically forced to modify his earlier attitude. In an explanation of his position at the meeting of 8th March, 1926, he spoke as follows:-

"I have purposely refrained from defining my view as to what ought under the proposed new policy to be the exact status of the Chief Officer under the High Commissioner in the Federation, because I did not wish to seem to prejudice in any way the recommendations of the Committees. But it may help to clear the air if I admit that I have always contemplated the necessity of a resident Chief Officer,

under the High Commissioner, of high status. I am not without hope that, when the problem has been thoroughly examined and fully discussed in a judicial spirit, an agreement will be reached.

Again at a Federal Meeting on the 28th September, 1926, he said:

"The attitude adopted by honourable Unofficial Members yesterday morning has left an impression on my mind that those honourable Members who pressed for the report on the administrative aspects of the problem, before voting on the present resolution, were mainly concerned with that aspect of the administration which might involve the powers and status of the Chief Secretary, and that some of them fear that underlying my use, in the early papers referring to the policy, of the phrase abolition of the Chief Secretaryship as at present constituted some scheme for the abolition, possibly even the immediate abolition, of that office altogether.

was

"I have consistently stated that no such idea was in my mind, and I take this opportunity of repeating it. I also stated that Sir George Maxwell's successor would have the same powers and status as Sir George had.

£6

My view has always been that the logical outcome of the policy I propose

will amount to what I have myself described as the ultimate abolition of the Chief Secretaryship as at present constituted.

C

"A meaning quite different from the meaning I intended to be conveyed seems to have been read into my words in certain quarters, principally due, I believe, to the tendency to omit or to undervalue the words and to understand by abolition' an active step of destruction taken by me,

as at present constituted instead of what was in my mind, a gradual process of evolution extending beyond my term, which would ultimately produce as the Executive Head of the Federation under the High Commissioner (such an office there must always be) an officer different from, though not necessarily less powerful than, the present Chief Secretary.

"Such evolution must be slow and gradual, as my early declaration as to the powers and status of Sir George's successor was intended to indicate.

"I do not say that the powers and status of the office will necessarily be diminished, but that they will materially differ from those of the present Chief Secretaryship was my early belief and nothing that has happened since has made me alter that belief.

1

"I hope that what I have said with regard to the powers and status of the Chief Secretaryship will clear the air."

In effect, Sir L. Guillemard decided to direct his decentralizing policy to prac- tical problems and to leave the eventual position of the officer holding the post of Chief Secretary to be settled as the policy evolved. Committee, and a Residents' Committee were appointed to go into practical problems A Financial Committee, a Legal and in his Speech to the Federal Council of 23rd December, 1926, Sir L. Guillemard said:-

"If these proposals dealing with finance and the constitution of the Federal Council are carried into effect, I do not propose to submit to Council any further proposals for the modification of the Constitution.

They represent all that I hope to achieve in this matter during my term of office, and when I have secured their adoption I shall feel satisfied that I have accomplished something which, while not impairing the stability of the Federation -in fact, in my belief, increasing it-will have gone far to meet the aspirations of the States which go to form that Federation."

Sir L. Guillemard left in May, 1927, having signed the new Treaty revising the Constitution before he left. His successor, Sir Hugh Clifford, apparently decided that the decentralization policy had been carried far enough. In any case, he let the matter rest during his term of office, but he took an entirely different view from Sir L. Guillemard as to the position of Chief Secretary. Thus, in a Confidential despatch dated 20th August, 1927, he wrote:-

"I fear that my views on the proper status of this officer differ considerably from those of my predecessor in office, because I regard a strong and efficient Chief Secretary to Government as essential to the success of the scheme of devolution which is the accepted policy of this Government. The four British Residents are in complete accord with me on this subject."

* C. 50270/27 [No. 1]: not printed.

—————བར་

68