CO885-11 — Page 644

633

PUBLIC RECORD OFFICE

Reference :-

TULIC.O. 882/11

ستيناتا

PUBLIC RECORD OFFICE, LONDON

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

in Malaya, I must admit that I cannot see what steps you could have taken to prevent it, which would have not done more harm in other directions) 1 do feel that by various helpful as it might have acts and omissions your Government has not been nearly so been, acts and omissions which not only are likely to put our representatives at Geneva in a very embarrassing position, but which also make it very difficult for me to con- vince my colleagues that Malaya is really doing as much as it can reasonably be expected to do.

+

13. To take the latter point first, you will remember that in the period leading up to the Geneva Conferences the burden of your replies to the various proposals which were put forward was that Malaya should be allowed to tackle the problem on its own lines, that the only plan of procedure appropriate to the circumstances in Malaya was on the lines of Pountney's Report, and that if you were allowed to proceed on those lines you would go ahead as fast as possible. Yet although the modified Observer system was put into operation in the Federated Malay States in 1924. and although it has been stated in successive reports that (by getting the consumers accustomed to a mild form of inquisition into their purchases) it has produced useful results in preparing the way for registration proper, I understand that you have not yet male (or are only just about to make) a start with the system in the Colony-this in spite of the fact that Pountney's Committee recommended that the introduction of the system should procved puri passa with the opening of Government shops.

It. In this connexion may say that there is a feeling that the Monopolies Department in the Colony habitually lags behind the Federated Malay States Départ- ment in introducing such reforms as may be practicable, and generally displays less initiative in tackling problems arising out of the control of the consumption of opium,

15. To turn now to the purchases of Persian opium 1 am afraid that the manner in which your Government went about this business is likely to land us in a pretty bad mess at Geneva. In the first place, surely my telegram of the 20th of July was a sufficient indication that the employment of a member of the Namazi family would not he regarded with favour and should have shown you the desirability of referring to me again before entering into the further contract for 1,000 chests with him in the three weeks' interval that elapsed between your telegram of the 23rd of July† and mine of the 18th of August. Then again, in spite of the suggestion in my telegram of the 18th of August that you should consult His Majesty's Consul-General, Bushire. as to the possibility of buying direct from a reputable dealer in Persia, your Govern- ment-rushed into the further contracts for 1,367 chests to be supplied by “other "Jews and Armenians referred to at the end dealers" who are presumably the of your telegram of the 23rd of July.

"

16. As an example of the sort of thing that is being said, outside, about these arrangements I will quote from a letter which I have had from a Member of Parlia- ment, arising out of a letter which he had received from a Persian member of a thoroughly respectable British firm which would like to he given an opportunity to tender for supplies to your Government :—

"

At present the Singapore authorities ask for tenders and prices from 3 or 4 persons resident in Singapore, and then the contract is given out. This is, how- ever, asserted to be only a blind, and that the real contractor is only one person, viz., Mr. M. A. Namazi, a Persian resident in the city, and the one who pro- cures the Persian opium from Persia, although there are two or three other Jews who are also residents in Singapore, and who are ' in the ring.'

“This 'ring' has made very large profits, and its members have become exceedingly wealthy, and will not allow outside interference. Indeed they have already defeated one attempt by Messrs. David Sassoon and Company to compete with them."

17. However this may be, you will see from a despatch from Bushire dated 1st December, of which I sent you a copy on the 18th of January,§ that it is suggested that Colonial Governments could save money by making direct contracts, through the Consulate there, with Persian shippers.

18. This, however, is a comparatively unimportant aspect of the matter from the international point of view.

19. Your Government must surely have been aware, from the reports of the proceedings at Geneva, year by year, of the interest taken there in the problems

† No. 117. § C. 30046/27 [No. 3]: not printed.

* No. 114.

+ No. 115.

113

arising out of the illicit traffic in the surplus production of Persian opium, and of the prominent part taken by the British Government in the consideration of these problems. It seems inevitable that attention will be drawn to the fact that "at the very time when a League Commission (appointed with the support of the British Government and largely financed by the Americans) was in Persia conducting an inquiry into the possibility of reducing the growth of the poppy there, a boom in Persian opium has been created by the large demands of a British Colony. It ought to have been obvious that the placing of such large orders in such haste would have this effect.

You will appreciate that our Representatives at Geneva are not looking forward with pleasure to the prospect of having to meet criticisms of this kind.

20. It seems to me that the only way of avoiding embarrassments of this kind in the future is by your Government working in the closest possible consultation with His Majesty's representatives in Persia. By this, I mean that you should not only consult them as to suitable firms from which to buy, but should also keep them fully informed as to your requirements and take their advice generally in the placing of contracts, so spreading your orders as to give the minimum occasion for adverse comment. In this connexion 1 hear that some scheme has been mooted for co-opera- tive buying by the chief consumers (i.e., Siam, the Netherlands East Indies, and Malaya). I should be glad to know what you think of it. I also hear that French Indo-China and the Netherlands East Indies are thinking of finding a way out by growing their own opium. If this is true, it means that your dealings with Persia will stand out in even greater prominence, and the need for circumspection in con- ducting the purchases will be greater than ever.

Yours, &c..

C. 30811/27 [No. 8A).

No. 83.

L. S. AMERY.

MEMORANDUM BY THE SECRETARY OF STATE FOR THE COLONIES REGARDING THE OPIUM POLICY.

I PRESUME that my colleagues already have in their possession copies of the Colonial Office memorandum* prepared for the Interdepartmental Committee which met in November last, and of the record of that meeting. By giving references to those documents where appropriate I have endeavoured to reduce the length of this Memorandum.

2. It is common ground that in existing circumstances it is impossible to suppress opium smoking in the Far East.

3. This view was accepted by His Majesty's Government in 1924 and formed the basis of the declaration made by Lord Cecil at Geneva, which was subsequently embodied in the Protocol to the Agreement formulated by the " First " Geneva Opium Conference. By this Protocol the Powers concerned have undertaken to suppress the consumption of prepared opium in their Far Eastern territories within a period of fifteen years from the date (to be determined by a League of Nations Commission) when the smuggling of opium from the producing countries ceases to be a serious obstacle to the enforcement of restrictive measures. It was, however, also made clear that this Protocol did not absolve the Powers from the undertaking in Article 6 of The Hague Convention, 1912; and that such steps towards the suppression of opium smoking as were reasonably practicable would continue to be taken.

4. The Governments of the Straits Settlements and Malay States were authorized to proceed with a series of measures, a summary of which is given in paragraphs 10 to 12 of the Colonial Office memorandum prepared in November. This memorandum also gives an account of the progress made in putting these measures into operation,

as well as a general summary of the opium situation in Malaya.

5. The record given in that memorandum can now he supplemented by the following information which has since come to hand -

(a) Paragraph 16.—At the date of my latest information, the Straits Settlements Govern- ment had not yet introduced the "Observer " system;

(b) Paragraph 15.-Private smoking saloons in the Straits Settlements were finally abolished in September, 1926, since which date the whole of the retail sale of chandu through- out the Straits Settlements and Federated Malay States has been in the hands of Government;

* Enclosure in No. 79.

+ No. 80.