CO885-11 — Page 384

381

PUBLIC RECORD OFFICE

Reference :-

C.O.882/11

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

PUBLIC RECORD OFFICE, LONDON

22

increased cost attributable to the new Base and other expenditure on the garrison and defences, before or after the inception of the Base, is one thing; the attempt to separate the element of Imperial from that of local defence in the military expenditure is quite another. The difference is manifest at once from the consideration that the expenditure before the inception of the new Base necessarily covered both the Imperial and the local aspects of defence. It follows that any figures that might be given to show the increased cost attributable to the new Base could give no clue to the separate cost of local and Imperial defence. The increase in the garrison and defences consequent upon the new Base does not affect this principle; despite the predominant Imperial interest in this increase, the garrison and defences must continue to be regarded as existing as a whole for both local and Imperial purposes of defence.

7. In the circumstances, it is presumed that Lord Passfield will not press for the calculations asked for in paragraph 7 of your letter as to the separate costs of the several arms, buildings, etc., for various past years and for the future if and when the new Base is completed. In any case, such figures for past years are not available, while as regards the future I am to explain that in view of the uncertainty as to the progress with the Base, the increase of the garrison which will be necessary if it is completed has not yet been laid down.

8. The future of the scheme for the Naval Base at Singapore is to be considered by the Cabinct in the light of the recommendations of the London Naval Conference, 1930, and pending that consideration the Council are of opinion that it would be inopportune at the present moment to take in hand a reconsideration of the decision of the late Cabinet as regards the Straits Settlements Military Contribution. Similarly they consider that no further progress can be made in the meantime with the proposal to vary the Cabinet decision, based on the recommendations of the Peel Committee, to the extent of reducing the percentage limit of the military contribution from 20 per cent to 17 per cent.

A copy of this letter has been sent to the Treasury.

C. 72093/30 [No. 10].

(Confidential.)

SIR,

No. 17.

STRAITS SETTLEMENTS.

THE SECRETARY OF STATE

to

THE GOVERNOR.

I am,

&c.,

H. J. CREEDY.

Downing Street, 30th August, 1930. I have the honour to acknowledge the receipt of your despatch No. 298 of the 21st May* on the subject of the Colony's defence contribution.

2. I enclose a copy of a note which has been prepared in reply to the memorandum by the Unofficial Members of the Legislative Council forwarded to Sir Hugh Clifford on the 12th of July, 1928, and transmitted to my predecessor in Sir Hugh Clifford's despatch No. 514 of the 18th Julyt. This note should not be published, but you should give the substance of it in a speech to the Council saying that it is the reply of His Majesty's Government to the memorandum by the Unofficial Members: that the practical aspect of the matter may be altered when a final decision is arrived at regarding the future of the Base, but that in view of the length of time which has elapsed, the Secretary of State was unwilling to delay the reply to the memorandum any longer.

• No. 16.

† No. 2.

I have, &c.,

PASSFIELD.

23

Enclosure in No. 17.

NOTE FOR THE USE OF THE GOVERNOR OF THE STRAITS SETTLEMENTS ON THE MEMORANDUM (ENCLOSED WITH THE GOVERNOR'S LETTER NO. 514 OF 18TH JULY, 1928) OF THE UNOFFICIAL MEMBERS OF The LegislatiVE COUNCIL ON THE SUBJECT OF THE MILITARY CONTRIBUTION PAYABLE BY THE GOVERNMENT OF THE STRAITS SETTLEMENTS.

1. Two main points emerge from the memorandum of the Unofficial Members:- (a) A contention that a distinction should be drawn between troops required for local and Imperial defence respectively and that the Colony should be responsible for the cost of local defence only.

(b) A proposal that the basis of the military contribution should be altered and that it should be standardized at $3,600,000 a year subject to quinquennial review coupled with this is a suggestion that the Straits Settlements might bear a small proportion of the cost of Naval Defence of the Empire, which should, however, be apportioned throughout the Empire.

2. (a) is dealt with in paragraphs 4, 7, 8, 12, and 13 of the Unofficial Members' memorandum.

The argument is brought forward that the Colony is only liable for the cost of its local defence and that the total cost of the garrison of the Straits Settlements should be divided into two portions, one relating to local defence and the other to Imperial defence. In support of this view the reply given by Mr. Chamberlain in a letter dated 28th April 1899, is quoted as follows:-"The word garrison' in Section 5 can only be interpreted The quotation is not as meaning the troops employed for the defence of the Colony." made in full and bears a different interpretation if read with its context, which is as follows:-"The acceptance of such amendments would certainly lead to continual discussion as to the distinction between Colonial and Imperial purposes, a distinction which it is impossible to define exactly. 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 V can only be interpreted as meaning the troops employed for the defence of the Colony and not, for example, any troops that might be temporarily stationed at Singapore for sanitary reasons, in similar circumstances to those referred to in paragraph 12 of Lord Knutford's despatch of the 5th August, 1892." It will be observed that nothing was said to support the contention that the garrison existed only for local defence; the exception quoted implies a purely temporary situation due to abnormal circumstances.

3. The whole basis of the Straits Settlements military contribution, as laid down by the Haliburton Committee, rests upon the primary assumption that every colony should, as far as it can, bear the cost of its defence as it does of other services, that the security of the Straits Settlements from external attack depends mainly upon the Fleet, towards the cost of which the Colony makes no contribution, and that the broad principle adopted in settling Colonial military contributions should be that so long as a Colony makes no contribution towards the cost of its Naval defence it may fairly be asked to bear the full cost of its land forces provided that that charge does not absorb an undue proportion of its revenue. In expressing these views the Committee fully realized that in many Colonies the garrison serves the purposes of Imperial as well as local defence, though the question how much is required for each by itself is impossible to answer; the interests of the two are inseparable.

4. It was recognized, however, that the construction of such extensive defences as those of the Singapore Base constituted an exceptional case and that the capital cost could not but throw a disproportionate burden upon a single Colony; and this led to com- munications between Ministers which culminated in His Majesty's Government's proposals contained in the Colonial Office despatch of 30th April, 1928.

These proposals would be further modified in favour of the Straits Settlements if it were now agreed that the maximum limit of the contributions should be reduced from 20 per cent to 17 per cent of the revenue.

5. This leads up to examination of the second main point (b). This point is dealt with in paragraphs 7, 11, 13, and 16-18 of the Unofficial Members' memorandum.

The Unofficial Members observe that for the past 15 years the cost of the garrison has been considerably below 20 per cent. of the revenue, and that the 20 per cent. has therefore lost its significance; their counter-proposal is to stabilize the contribution on the basis of the cost of the average garrison for the period 1920-24, i.e., $3,600,000, or £420,000, subject to quinquennial revision. In addition they tentatively suggest that the Colony would offer to pay a small proportion of the cost of the Naval defences of the Empire.

(C38051)

D2