CO885-11 — Page 380

377

PUBLIC RECORD OFFICE

| || | T

Reference:

PEPTIC.O.882/11

PUBLIC RECORD OFFICE, LONDON

ALLY WITHOUT PERMISSION OF THE BE REPRODUCED PHOTOGRAPHIC- COPYRIGHT PHOTOGRAPH-NOT TO

C. 62093/29 [No. 3].

(Confidential.)

SIR,

14

No. 9.

STRAITS SETTLEMENTS.

THE GOVERNOR

to

THE SECRETARY OF STATE. (Received 11th March, 1929.)

[Answered by No. 10.]

Government House, Singapore, 14th February, 1929. With reference to the late Sir Hayes Marriott's despatch No. 768 of 15th November last* on the subject of the Defence Contribution, I have the honour to inform you that since my return to duty I have become more than ever sensible of the extremely strong feeling which has been aroused among all the thinking sections of the population of the Straits Settlements by the attitude adopted by His Majesty's Government in this matter.

2. The representatives of local public opinion contend:-

(a) that under the law as it stands this Colony is liable to contribute to local defence

only;

(b) that to exact under Ordinance No. 64 a contribution for Imperial purposes, as distinct from purely local defence, is, having regard to assurances given when the Ordinance was passed, a breach of faith; and

(c) that, apart from all other considerations, the compulsory exaction of such a

contribution is per se unjust.

3. When, thirty years ago, Ordinance No. 64 was forced through the Legislative Council by use of the official majority, the Unofficial Members sought to safeguard the Colony from liability for charges such as are to-day being included in the War Office accounts. In the course of the controversy Mr. Joseph Chamberlain, then Secretary of State for the Colonies, wrote:-

"The second section of the proposed Ordinance shows sufficiently that the contribution is for the defence of the Colony and therefore the word ' garrison' in section 5 can only be interpreted as meaning the troops employed for the defence of the Colony."

The representatives of local public opinion maintain that the interpretation placed by Mr. Chamberlain on the word "garrison" is the interpretation which a Court of Law would place upon it, but that, if they are mistaken upon that point, it is, at any rate, the interpretation which the Imperial Government, through Mr. Chamberlain, declared would be placed upon it. They feel, therefore-and feel very strongly-that to require the Colony to contribute, under Ordinance No. 64, to the cost of the defence and maintenance of an admittedly Imperial scheme is probably illegal and certainly a breach of faith.

4. The main contention, of course, is that compulsorily to charge this Colony with any part of the cost of an Imperial scheme, when other of His Majesty's possessions are not similarly charged, is per se unjust. The fact that Singapore has been chosen as the site of the Naval Base is, judged from the point of view of the Colony, purely accidental. The principle raised here is too obvious to require explanation.

5. In paragraph 4 of your despatch of the 30th April, 1928†, the War Office is stated to hold the view that "it is impracticable to divide a garrison (or its maintenance cost) into one part required for local defence and another part required for Imperial defence." That proposition may be true when applied to a garrison of the kind which has been stationed in this Colony hitherto. Such a garrison is required, no doubt, for Imperial as well as for local defence. But the representatives of local public opinion contend that the cost of the works required for the defence of the Naval Base and the cost of their defence (e.g., the garrison required to man them) and the cost of their maintenance could without difficulty be differentiated from the cost from time to time of the garrison which would have been stationed in the Colony if the construction of the Naval Base had never been undertaken.

* C. 52056/28 [No. 45]: not printed.

↑ C. 52056/28 [No. 12]: not printed.

15

6. For the reasons which I have given, the public of this Colony is firmly convinced that it is being illegally and unjustly treated by His Majesty's Government. Its resentment is enhanced by the belief that this treatment has been rendered possible by reason only of the Colony's political impotence. Had this Colony possessed self-government, the present demands of His Majesty's Government would never have been made, or, if made, would have been successfully resisted.

7. It is necessary to point out that the public does genuinely hold the opinions which I have described. This is not the case of a disloyal or unpatriotic community making a public question the excuse for a demonstration. The public meetings which have been held and the other means whereby public opinion upon this subject has been expressed have been inspired by a real and deep sense of injustice.

8. I have good grounds for thinking that, if His Majesty's Government insists upon its demands, all the Unofficial Members of the Legislative Council will resign: that, in fact, public opinion will be so strong that no individual Member will have any choice but to resign. This will be followed by the resignations of numerous Justices of the Peace and of many members of the public who have seats upon various advisory and semi-executive bodies and committees. It will not be possible to induce suitable persons to take their places. Although the Government could be carried on without unofficial assistance, at any rate for a period, it would obviously be extremely difficult to do that in a Colony which is so politically advanced and so articulate as the Straits Settlements. The develop- ment of the Colony and the organization of public opinion would render such a task far heavier to-day than it was in the year 1899 when Ordinance No. 64 was passed.

9. At the present time this Colony is more free from serious agitation for the reform of its constitution than any other British possession equally advanced. The more seriously-minded leaders of the population realise that the circumstances of the Straits Settlements are such that it is desirable that the final control of local affairs should be entrusted to the Colonial Government, provided that proper consideration is given to public opinion. But if local public opinion, when it is as unanimous as it has been shown to be in the present instance, is to be swept aside by the Imperial Government as a thing which may be disregarded, the Colonial Government, having manifested its inability to protect the interests of the Colony, will be completely discredited, and a great impetus will be imparted to any movement which may be started for a radical reform of the constitution.

10. Viewed from a distance, these matters may not, perhaps, assume an aspect of any vital importance. They are, however, of great moment locally. Therefore, before the question is pressed to an issue, which can only result in an open breach between the Colonial Government, acting under instructions, and the local public, I earnestly hope that a compromise will be sought. Unofficial opinion is less concerned with the amount of the contribution than with the principle at stake. I believe that if the proposal of the Unofficial Members to pay annually $3,600,000 during the next five years on account of the defence of the Colony were accepted, it would be possible to persuade them to offer for the same period a considerable additional sum as a contribution towards Imperial defence. I realise, of course, that such a compromise would leave the amount of the contribution dependent upon the patriotism and goodwill of the Colony, but, in view of the generous contributions made by the Colony voluntarily to His Majesty's Government in the past, I think His Majesty's Government may rest assured that such additional sum would be substantial.

11. To adopt a compromise of this kind would not be to concede the demand made in the third and fourth resolutions passed at the public meeting held in Singapore on the 26th October, 1928, to which reference was made in paragraph 2 of the late Sir Hayes Marriott's despatch No. 768 of the 15th November last, "that is to say, that the amount of contributions for local and Imperial defence "should be fixed after consultation and Obviously, agreement with representatives of the unofficial opinion of the community.' the amount would be fixed by the Legislative Council.

12. In conclusion, with the utmost deference and respect I desire strongly to urge upon your consideration the inexpediency and impolicy of pressing the demands of His Majesty's Government to an issue. I venture to suggest that the financial advantage which would accrue to that Government by so doing would be a poor compensation for the discontent and resentment which would be aroused locally and for the serious political consequences which would therefrom ensue.

I would also point out that, if an open rupture between the Colonial Government, acting under instructions, and the local public be forced upon this issue, the quarrel thus initiated is likely to be continuous, and not merely a passing incident. Having regard