CO885-11 — Page 611

605

PUBLIC RECORD OFFICE

Reference :--

C.O.882/11

PUBLIC RECORD OFFICE, LONDON

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

46

Earnestly beg that Malaya may be allowed to develop its policy of steady and our own lines. It can only be continuous reduction of opium consumption on carried out at a rate proportionate to the response by the population to Legislative and Executive action by the Government. Attempts to force the pace will result in smug- gling and corruption, and will create desire for alcohol and substitutes for opium such as morphia and cocaine. We wish to profit by America's experience over alco- holic prohibition. Rapid progress impossible with present attitude of China as a result of which smuggling into Malaya cannot be effectively controlled and immigrant Chinese arrive addicted to the opium habit.

33068/24.

9TH JULY.

No. 30.

STRAITS SETTLEMENTS.

THE GOVERNOR to THE SECRETARY OF STATE.

(Received 4.54 p.m., 9th.July, 1924.)

TELEGRAM.

All

Confidential. Your telegram of 7th July, Confidential.* evidence shows that prohibition policy whatever arbitrary date is fixed under present conditions is impracticable in Malaya, see our Report, especially chapter 13, paragraphs 17 and 18, and the section on smuggling on pages 50 and 51, and page 54, paragraph 68. Neither my advisers nor I could honestly recommend it to Legislative or Federal Council or Unfederated Malay States and if we did we should be unable to meet the resulting criticism and opposition. Our own policy is recommended for Malaya as being both sincere and practicable. With reference to your first sentence some doubt must exist as to full success of any policy and neither the Committee nor I could afford to ignore them but I believe that our policy promises a large measure of success and that prohibition promises none whatever.

33562/24.

No. 31.

HONG KONG.

THE GOVERNOR to THE SECRETARY OF STATE. (Received 3.16 p.m., 14th July, 1924.) TELEGRAM.

14TH JULY. Confidential. Your telegram 7th July. So long as China produces opium in vast quantities prohibition would only mean substitution of smuggled for Government opium. Theory of the British Representative is untenable. At present the profits of smuggling are limited by the existence of legitimate supplies. If legiti- mate supplies were stopped temptation to smuggle would be increased, as much larger profits could be made especially as wealthy people who now use the Government opium would be driven to use contraband. Most large seizures are due to information given by persons who have not been paid well enough to keep secret. With increased profits higher bribes would be possible, and we could not compete without greatly increasing our scale of rewards, whereas if deprived of the opiuni revenue, we could not afford to maintain the present scale. Moreover, there would be thousands of small smugglers of Chinese opium. On account of the increased profit they could afford to bribe the Chinese Police and Revenue Officers. Even if these were incorruptible, which is not the case, evasion would be easy owing to the facility of landing from boats in hundreds of places on the coast. Prohibition could only be made effective by giving the Police practically unlimited power to search persons and premises and to do so would cause such popular indignation that not only would every Chinese be in sympathy with the smugglers but the satisfactory relations of the Government with the people would be greatly endangered.

* No. 28.

+ No. 27.

47

May I suggest that the soundest course is to undertake that we will prohibit the use of opium provided that Macao and Indo-China do the same as soon as China has shown to the satisfaction of an International Commission that she has permanently ceased to grow it.

31518/24.

No. 32.

SIR G. GRINDLE (COLONIAL OFFICE) to SIR M. DELEVINGNE (HOME OFFICE). [Answered by No. 33.]

DEAR DELEVINGNE,

Downing Street, 21st July, 1924. Your note of the 1st of July,* enclosing a draft Memorandum for the Cabinet on opium policy.

We have now had replies from the Governor of the Straits Settlements to our telegramt about your suggestion for dissociating opium revenue from general revenue, and also replies from the Straits Settlements and Hong Kong to our telegrams asking for their views on the policy of total prohibition. You have already had copies of our telegrams, and I now enclose copies of the replies.§

These telegrams confirm the view which we had already formed, that it would be quite impossible for us to advise our Secretary of State to subscribe to a joint memo- randum to the Cabinet on the lines of your draft. We therefore assume that your Secretary of State will put in your Memorandum as his own, and I enclose a copy of a

I should be ̃ draft Memorandum which I am proposing to submit to Mr. Thomas. glad if you let me have any observations on points of detail as soon as possible, as Mr. Thomas is leaving for South Africa shortly.

In the circumstances I am only suggesting a few alterations in your draft Memo- randum which seem absolutely necessary. They are as follows:—

..

""

Protectorates.' Page 2, line 6. After Colonies" add

Malaya substitute the Straits Settlements and Page 2, line 7. For

Malay States."

T

*

(The importance of these alterations is clearly shown in my Memorandum.)

Page 2, line 25. Before" involved

insert" to some extent."

(I don't think it can be contended by anybody that the amount of smuggling in British Territories is anything like what goes on else- where in the Far East.)

Page 2, line 44. Omit" and the Malay States."

(I think Paskin has already told you that the 50 per cent. figure applies only to the Straits Settlements. As a matter of fact the Straits Settlements figure for 1922 was 42.9 per cent. In the Federated Malay States it is under 20 per cent., and in 1922 the actual figure was 16.8 per cent. In the Unfederated States the figures vary from 18.6 per cent. in Brunei to 40 per cent. in Johore.)

Page 2, line 49. In the light of the Reports and telegrams I suggest some

modification of the word " possible.'

Page 2. I do not think the last part of your paragraph 4 is at all a fair sum-

mary of the Reports. I suggest that it should read as follows:-

The Hong Kong Government declares that in the circumstances of the Colony, both registration and licensing are impracticable, and that until China ceases to produce the immense quantities of opium which she is doing at present no reasonable measure can be devised to reduce further the consumption of opium in the Colony.

The Straits Settlements and Malay States Committee have expressed the view that eventual elimination of opium smoking in British Malaya can only be achieved by control over smokers individually, but they consider that an immediate attempt at an individual rationing system would be foredoomed to failure. They therefore suggest a scheme working towards registration and rationing, which in the course of some years may make their adoption practicable. North Borneo would agree to the annual imports of raw opium being restricted on the basis of population, provided that a uniform

* No. 26.

+ No. 23.

1 Nos. 28 and 27. Page 42 in this Volume.

§ Nos. 29, 30 and 31.