- - -
}
514
20
The amendment was put to the vote, with the following result:—
Aye.
Mr. Hüttenbach.
Mr. Seah Liang Seah.
Dr. Brown.
Mr. Donaldson.
Mr. Bogaardt.
Mr. Shelford.
Mr. Vermont.
No.
The Colonial Engineer. The Auditor-General.
The Acting Colonial Treasurer.
The Attorney-General.
The Acting Resident Councillor of
Malacca.
The Resident Councillor of Penang. The Colonial Secretary.
The numbers being equal, the Governor gave his vote with the Noes, and the amendment was lost.
The Colonial Secretary's motion was then agreed to.
Mr. Donaldson moved that the vote of 200,000 dollars for new barracks at Pulau Brani and Blakang Mati be struck out. He did not dispute that the works might be necessary, but on account of the heavy Military Contribution the Colony could not bear the expenditure.
Mr. Shelford-I second the motion. I must say I am surprised that the vote should appear in the Bill at all. At as recent a date as last June the Colonial Secretary said the work might be very well dealt with by loan, and in his despatch of 1889 the Secretary of State stated that the cost might be spread over several years, the amount being advaneed from the accumulated balances of former years. These accumulated balances have already been appropriated by the Secretary of State for the purposes of the garrison. It does not appear to alter the principle that the cost of these votes should be met by a loan. I do not dispute that I brought to the notice of the Council last year that we should face a deficit, I did not contemplate that this deficit should be brought about by such a work, but rather by our own requirements. No doubt there is a danger in raising a loan. There is danger of the War Office launching out into the extravagant expenditure which was proposed by the late General Officer Commanding. On the other hand, if introduced in the Estimates year by year, this Council (if, indeed, it is allowed to have any voice in the matter) will be able to see the votes year by year, and endeavour at least to exercise some control over them. However, I need not proceed further in this direction, because I agree with my hon. friend that the vote should be expunged altogether. What is the position? The resolution to which I have already referred proposed that if Her Majesty's Government would accept a contribution of not exceeding half the cost of the garrison, the Colony would undertake to build the barracks. But Her Majesty's Government refused this proposal, and consequently we are free from any obligation. I am quite aware that it is represented we are bound to provide barracks under the original agreement, but this has been so fully dealt with in the volume of correspondence on the subject that it would serve no good purpose to detain the Council on the subject now, It is contended that by a departmental letter of 21st April, 1866, we are liable to provide barrack accommodation for any number of troops which may be demanded for the defence of the place." That statement was answered by a letter from the Colonial Office, of 25th May, 1866, to which the Treasury replied "As regards that portion of your letter which refers to barrack accommodation for any troops stationed in the Settlements for Imperial purposes, my Lords agree that no charge on this account ought to fall upon the Settlements." And I may point out that the Secretary of State for the Colonies in correspondence with the War Office again in 1888, argued that an agree- ment relating to the defence of a local port of trade cannot possibly be read as a promise to provide for a coaling station which subsequent and unforeseen events, independent of the local trade, have called into existence for supplying the wants of the Empire." Such was the ground taken up at that time by the Secretary of State on behalf of the Colony. It was a ground, however, which was disputed by the War Office and abandoned by the Secretary of State for the Colonies. He has gone the length, in a subsequent despatch, of stating that as the whole of the garrison is required for the defence of Singapore, it must be regarded as for local and not Imperial purposes, and that, therefore, we must provide the whole accommodation.
There is throughout the whole of this dispute, constant reference made to the position of this Settlement under the Indian Government, and it is said that if we were still under the Indian Government we should receive worse treatment at their hands than at the hands of the Crown. That may be so as regards the garrison, but I need hardly remind hon, members that the Indian Government undertook the whole cost of barrack accommodation, and that the Settlement did not bear any part of it whatever, When the Colony was transferred from the Indian to the Colonial Government, there had been an expenditure of 40,000% for the cost of barracks for troops. total sum provided was 70,000l. for barracks for the Artillery and the Infantry regiment, and in consequence of the refusal of the War Office to make good these claims, the European barracks at Tanglin were at once stopped. I mention this to emphasize the fact that, under the Indian Governinont, these Settlements were not called upon to pay anything whatever for barrack accommodation.
The
The estimates for these barracks, we are told, have been considerably reduced, very much reduced, from the original enormous estimate placed before us in the year 1892,
31
which for the time being has been laughed out of court. We do not know, sir, how far this reduction will continue. The Secretary of State in his despatch of December, 1889, spoke of 60,000% as an outside amount. 60,000%. represented 398,900 dollars, we are asked now to supply this vote of 200,000 dollars, which undoubtedly will not meet the equivalent of what was contemplated at that time. The vote as placed before us is almost a farcical one, for we are not in possession of the estimates, nor any scheme of finality, nor anything to show where the expenditure is to end, or whether in fact the War Office will not call upon us to provide the several offices and quarters in the original exorbitant scheme. And, finally, I will point out that in 1892 Sir Cecil Smith argued that, as the Colony has to pay for a garrison, it should have some voice as to the number of that garrison. If the Imperial Government requires a number of troops with a staff to be kept here for its own purposes, let the Imperial Government provide for its accommodation.
On the motion being put, members voted—
Aye.
Mr. Hüttenbach.
Mr. Seah Liang Seah.
Dr. Brown.
Mr. Donaldson.
Mr. Bogaardt.
Mr. Shelford.
Mr. Vermont.
No.
The Colonial Engineer.
The Auditor-General.
The Acting Colonial Treasurer.
The Attorney-General.
The Acting Resident Councillor of
Malacca.
The Resident Councillor of Penang. The Colonial Secretary.
The numbers being equal, the Governor gave his vote with the Noes.
The motion was therefore lost, and the vote passed.
On the vote of 1,800 dollars for Raising Butt, Tanglin Rifle Range, The Governor explained that this was a work of necessity as a matter of safety, in consequence of the introduction of a new arm--the Lee-Metford-which had a great range. It appeared to him that this vote did not involve any question of principle.
Mr. Shelford-I desire, air, to give every possible weight to what has fallen from your Excellency, and I should not have moved at all in the matter if I did not object to the entire principle upon which the vote is charged. I understood when the question was settled in 1889, and the contribution fixed at 100,000, that the War Office would take charge of and maintain all existing works and buildings. If that be so, it appears to me that this is one of the works, and it is upon that ground that we must divide against the vote. I may also point out that this small vote serves as an object lesson in showing the danger in which the Colony is placed by the demands of the War Office. I understand that the original vote demanded was 18,000 dollars, and even more; it has been reduced to 1,300 dollars. If the efforts of the local Government were always as successful, we should not be so heavily burdened with the military rotes. But it is on the principle I have stated that I object to the vote, and move its omission.
Mr. Bogaardt seconded.
On the motion being put, members voted-
Aye.
Mr. Hüttenbach.
Mr. Seah Liang Seah.
Dr. Brown.
Mr. Donaldson.
Mr. Bogaardt.
Mr. Shelford.
Mr. Vermont.
No.
The Colonial Engineer.
The Auditor-General.
The Acting Colonial Treasurer.
The Attorney-General.
The Acting Resident Councillor of
Malacca.
The Resident Councillor of Penang. The Colonial Secretary.
The numbers being equal, the Governor gave his vote with the Noes.
The motion was lost, and the vote passed.
On the vote for Lodging and Rent Allowance,
Mr. Shelford said:-I do not rise to move any reduction, but merely to ask whether this Lodging and Rent Allowance, paid by the Colony, is in accordance with the Colonial Regulations--whether the regulations for lodging and rout for Officers of the Colony apply to these.
The Governor :--You can hardly expect that. You might just as well expect that the pay of the Officers and men should be on the same scale as ours. It appears to me that there are rules that apply to the military in these matters that must be conformed to.
On the motion of the Colonial Secretary, progress was reported.
(237)
F
No comments yet.
Private notes are available after approval.