CO885-11 — Page 382

379

PUBLIC RECORD OFFICE

Reference -

C.O.882/11

PUBLIC RECORD OFFICE, LONDON

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

18

of Unofficial Members of this Council, and following an interview with His Excellency in Singapore, the Unofficial Members in their letter to Sir Hugh Clifford of 12th July, 1928, put forward their criticisms of that despatch. They also formulated their views on certain principles connected with the Defence Contribution and stated the amount which they considered equitable as an annual compulsory payment for the years 1929-1933. At various public meetings, and in the Press of the Colony, very substantial support was forthcoming, and the Unofficial Members of Council were convinced that they had correctly interpreted the feeling of the Colony on the subject of the Defence Contribution. Our letter was written just prior to Sir Hugh Clifford's visit to England, whither he proceeded towards the end of July, 1928. Honourable Members on this side of the table are grateful to His Excellency for his efforts on behalf of the Colony during his brief sojourn at home, and they regret that those efforts were not crowned with the wished-for

success.

The Imperial Government, presumably in receipt of our views by the end of August last year, has had over twelve months in which to put forward a reasoned reply dealing with the principles set out in our letter of 12th July, 1928, but we are still without an expression of opinion from that Government. One can only conclude that our arguments have been found difficult to refute, and that the policy which has been adopted by the Imperial Government is one of inaction, in the hope that by effluxion of time the agitation at this end will dwindle away.

The Sir, if this be the policy of the Home Government, it is a mistaken one. Unofficial Members of Council and the public and Press of the Colony have exercised patience in waiting for this long overdue reply. We have not overlooked the change which has occurred this year in the personnel of the Home Government, but consider that, though in power but a short time, the present Home Government has had long enough to express its opinions on our arguments.

This time last year we recorded our vote and protest against the second reading of the Final Supply Bill for 1927. This year a similar opportunity is denied to us in respect of the Final Supply Bill for 1928, because the amount inserted in last year's Estimates was higher than the final debit for that year, and consequently no item for Defence Contribution appears in the Final Supply Bill.

Sir, on behalf of the Unofficial Members of Council, I respectfully ask for a reasoned reply to our letter of 12th July, 1928, to be furnished as soon as possible. (Applause.)

*

*

*

THE ACTING COLONIAL SECRETARY: Sir, I have a few words to say upon some of the points raised by honourable Unofficial Members.

Their protest with regard to the long delay in obtaining a reply from the Secretary of State on the subject of the Defence Contribution will be forwarded to the Secretary of State, and I am authorized to say that His Excellency will press for a reply at the earliest possible date. (Applause.)

C. 62093/29 [No. 18].

No. 13.

STRAITS SETTLEMENTS.

THE SECRETARY OF STATE

to

THE GOVERNOR.

(Sent 9 p.m., 6th February, 1930.) TELEGRAM.

Confidential. With reference to your despatch No. 731 of 26th November*, regret that I am still unable in view of the undecided question as to the future of the Base to reply to the representations of the Unofficial Members as to the contribution. In the meantime I am endeavouring to ascertain whether it is possible to distinguish as they desire between military expenditure for local and for Imperial purposes.--PASSFIELD.

* No. 12.

19

C. 72093/30 [No. 2].

No. 14.

COLONIAL OFFICE

to

(Secret.) SIR.

WAR OFFICE. [Answered by No. 16.]

Downing Street, 7th April, 1930. With reference to previous correspondence regarding the military contribution of the Straits Settlements I am directed by Lord Passfield to transmit, to be laid before the Army Council, a copy of a despatch* recently received from the Colony on this subject. The Secretary of State has replied to this despatch that he is still unable, in view of the undecided question as to the future of the Base, to reply to the representations of the Unofficial Members of the Legislative Council, but that in the meantime he is endeavour- ing to ascertain whether it is possible to distinguish, as they desire, between military expenditure for local and for Imperial purposes.

2. It is unnecessary to remind the Army Council that the present discussion has arisen out of the increase in the cost of the garrison owing to commencement of expenditure on the new Base at Singapore, and that the whole question was carefully considered, in the light of this development, by a Cabinet Committee under the chairmanship of Lord Peel, of which the then Secretary of State for the Colonies was not a member, owing to his absence abroad. The Committee recommended as follows:-

(a) That the following proposals should be adopted in final settlement of all out- standing questions respecting the amount and method of calculation of the future annual military contributions of the Straits Settlements:-

(i) That all military expenditure (land, works, armaments, etc.) on the initial formation of the Singapore Base should be borne finally by Army Vote, i.e., should be excluded from the "cost of the garrison " for the purpose of arriving at the Colonial contribution. (ii) That for all other military expenditure the existing arrangements should stand, i.e., the Colony should pay the full ordinary current cost of the garrison (subject always to the limit of 20 per cent. of the assessable revenue) including any military personnel added to the garrison as the new defences are gradually manned, and including the cost of maintenance of the defences old and new.

(iii) That the statutory maximum percentage of its revenue to be contributed by the Colony should not be reduced, but should remain at the long-established figure of 20 per cent. of the assessable revenue.

(b) That the Secretary of State for the Colonies should be invited to cominunicate these proposals to the Government of the Straits Settlements after further consultation with the War Office respecting details as might be necessary.

(c) That the annual contribution to the Opium Revenue Reserve Fund should be excluded from the revenue of the Colony assessable to military contribution, but that any sums drawn from the Fund, either in the form of interest or of capital drawings, and used as income for revenue purposes, should be included in the assessable revenue of the Colony.

3. The Cabinet, in December, 1927, agreed to approve these recommendations as a basis for negotiation by the Colonial Office.

4. The Unofficial Members of the Colonial Legislative Council have, however, refused to accept the proposals of His Majesty's Government. They consider that the Colony should be called upon to 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. To overcome the objection that it is impracticable to divide the cost of a garrison into one part for local defence and another for Imperial defence they have suggested that the annual contribution should be a definite sum fixed for a period of five years and reviewed at the end of that period for a further quinquennium in the light of the local defence requirements at that time.

5. In view of this opposition and after consultation with the Treasury and War Office, Mr. Amery in March of last year telegraphed to the Governor a proposal that the Straits Settlements should continue to pay a military contribution under the existing

* No. 12.