CO885-11 — Page 389

386

PUBLIC RECORD OFFICE

Reference :-

TELEC.O. 882/11

PUBLIC RECORD OFFICE, LONDON

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

C. 92052/32 [No. 1].

(Confidential.)

32

No. 21.

STRAITS SETTLEMENTS.

THE GOVERNOR

to

THE SECRETARY OF STATE.

(Received 18th January, 1932.)

Government House, Singapore, 24th December, 1931. SIR,

In confirmation of my telegram, dated 7th December*, I have the honour to report that at a meeting of the Legislative Council held on that day the Unofficial Members unanimously opposed the second reading of the Defence Contribution Bill, and that I accordingly withdrew the Bill from the Orders of the Day. I propose now to give a brief resumé of the facts regarding the introduction of this Bill into Legislative Council and its subsequent withdrawal.

2. I need not retrace the steps which led up to the drafting of the Bill. It will be sufficient to remind you that I discussed this matter fully in London with the Departments concerned, when I was on leave at the beginning of the year, and that the draft Bill was sent to me under cover of a private letter from Lord Passfield, dated 19th May, 1931†, in which he stated:-

" I write to confirm that, if a final settlement of the Straits Settlements Defence Contribution question is offered by the Legislative Council in the terms which you have proposed and which are embodied in the enclosed draft Ordinance, His Majesty's Government will accept it without further discussion."

Objects and Reasons," which were

I enclose a copy of the Billt, together with the subsequently prepared by me.

3. I returned to Singapore from leave on the 13th June, and the first meeting of Legislative Council after my return occurred on the 6th July. I took this opportunity of putting the Bill before the Unofficial Members at a private and informal conference held in the Colonial Secretary's Office. A copy of a shorthand note taken at this discussion is enclosed. A few days later I received from Mr. Bagnall, the senior Unofficial Member, a letter on the subject, dated 16th July, 1931, a copy of which is enclosed. I enclose also a copy of my reply dated 14th August, 1931.

4. I again discussed this matter informally with the Unofficial Members after the meeting of the Legislative Council held on the 31st August, 1931, with a view to answering as far as possible the objections which were being put forward to the Bill and to clearing up misunderstandings. At the same time I instructed the Treasurer to prepare a memo- randum setting out briefly the position with regard to the Defence Contribution over the past few years. I enclose a copy of this memorandum§, which was laid on the table as Council Paper No. 82.

5. The first reading of the Bill was moved by the Acting Colonial Secretary on the 28th September, 1931, and I enclose a copy of the Proceedings of the Legislative Council of that day. The normal course would have been for the second reading to be taken at the next meeting of the Council, viz., on the 12th October, but at the special request of the Unofficial Members, who required further time to consider the Bill, the second reading was postponed to a subsequent meeting of Council held on the 7th December. During the interval several comments, mostly unfavourable to the Bill, appeared in the local press, and on the 13th November a public meeting, arranged by the Straits Settlements (Singapore) Association, was held in the Victoria Memorial Hall, Singapore, when the following resolution was carried by a large majority :-

TE

"That this meeting is of the opinion that the Bill now before the Legislative An Ordinance to Provide for a Con- Council of the Straits Settlements intituled tribution for the purposes of Imperial Defence" is contrary to the interests of the Colony and ought not to be passed."'

A cutting from the Straits Times of 14th November, containing a report of the public meeting, is enclosed. It was obvious, therefore, that the Bill would meet with the most strenuous opposition at its second reading.

6. As I considered that insufficient emphasis had hitherto been laid on the advantages of a fixed contribution over a fluctuating contribution, I caused a further memorandum

* C. 82093/31 [No. 50]: not printed.

↑ No. 20.

[Not reprinted.

↑ Not reprinted.

Not reprinted.

§ Not printed here.

33

on this point to be prepared by the Treasurer. I enclose a copy of this memorandum*, which was laid on the table as Council Paper No. 105, and had been in the hands of all members of the Council a few days before the second reading of the Bill was moved.

7. In the enclosed copy of the proceedings of the Legislative Council on the 7th December, at which the second reading of the Bill was moved, it will be seen from the speeches of the Unofficial Members that strong opposition to the Bill was still maintained. I summed up the debate and then adjourned the Council for lunch, in order that all members might have an interval for reflection. After lunch, when a division was taken on the motion that the Bill be read a second time, the votes of the Unofficials were given first in accordance with the usual practice. As their votes were unanimously against the motion, and as I had undertaken that I would not make use of the official majority to pass the second reading, I did not have the votes of the Official Members taken and,

as I have already stated, I withdrew the Bill from the Orders of the Day.

8. I do not propose to proceed with the Bill in the near future and the Defence Contribution will accordingly continue to be paid in accordance with the provisions of Ordinance No. 64.

9. It will be observed that the opponents of the Bill were less concerned with the amount of the contribution than with the principle at stake. This principle appears to be that any voluntary contribution which the Colony is prepared to make towards the cost of Imperial Defence should not be changed into a compulsory contribution by being included in the provisions of an Ordinance. I have no reason to believe that the Unofficial Members wish to withdraw from the position which they took up in 1929, when they expressed their willingness to make voluntary a substantial annual contribution towards the naval defence of the Empire, as reported in Sir Hugh Clifford's private letter of the 9th June, 1929, to Lord Passfield (then Mr. Webb). I shall be glad, therefore, to have your instructions as to whether I should now approach the Unofficial Members with the suggestion that they should make a voluntary contribution towards Imperial defence. This contribution might be the difference between $4,204,354 (£490,508), which was the actual cost of the garrison for April, 1929--March, 1930, the last financial year for which final accounts have been received, and $5,000,000, viz., $795,646.

10. Finally, in view of the fact that the Defence contribution will continue to be paid under Ordinance No. 64, I would ask that the War Office may be requested to make an adjustment at an early date in respect of the amount over-advanced by the Colony in 1927, and the arrears payable by the Colony in respect of anti-aircraft equipment ⚫in 1928 and the under-estimate of the cost of garrison in 1929. Reference to these items is made in Mr. J. B. Crosland's letter of the 12th May, 1931§. addressed to Sir Gilbert Grindle.

Enclosure 2 in No. 21.

I have, &c.,

C. CLEMENTI,

Governor.

CONFERENCE OF HIS EXCELLENCY THE GOVERNOR WITH THE UNOFFICIAL MEMBERS OF THE LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL IN THE COLONIAL SECRETARY'S OFFICE, MONDAY, 6TH JULY, 1981.

THE GOVERNOR: I have asked you all to meet me in private, because there are quite a number of subjects which I want to discuss informally before they come under the full light of publicity, which is necessary in the case of every one of them later on.

Military Contribution.

The first matter I want to take up is the military contribution. You will remember that Unofficial Members came to speak to me privately on the subject before the last Budget meeting and I said I would do the best I could to persuade the Secretary of State, when I got home. At home I had many conferences with the Colonial Office, the Treasury, and the War Office, and at last we arrived at agreement on the lines of a personal letter. that was circulated to you before I went away, written by Sir Hugh Clifford to Mr. Webb (now Lord Passfield) urging that the settlement ought to be by contribution of a lump sum instead of these percentages which are difficult to assess and inconvenient in their C. 62093/29 [No. 15]: not printed. * Not printed here.

+ Not reprinted.

§ C. 82093/31 [No. 30]: not. printed.