SINGAPORE BASE.

Hokitika Guardian, 8 June 1923, Page 2

SINGAPORE BASE.

NAVAL CORRESPONDENT’S VIEWS. AUSTRALIAN AND N.Z. CABLE ASSOCIATION. LONDON, June 6. The “Morning Post’s” naval correspondent says: “There is now a movement' in the House of Fords and Die House of Commons to challenge the Government's decision to develop a naval base at Singapore. The movement is based on the ground that tho country should first be made secure from an air attack.” “This,” says the correspondent, “Is equivalent to refusing to pay fire insurance because a cargo is not covered against loss on the high seas. Fortunately, the Government has a true sense of proportion. The air menace is local, but the menace to tho British Empire on the seas is world-ttUie. With sea power, we can cut off our Continental air enemies from their supplies of petrol, but it would be fatal if we were deprived of petrol. The importance of Singapore is apparent to all who think imperially, instead of parochially. The colonies cannot he defended by aircraft alone. Strategically Singapore lies on the flank of the main routes from Suez to Australia and New Zealand, and the Far East. If the importance of Singapore is not recognised in certain quaiters in Britain, it is recognised as a vital matter in Australia and New Zealand, as Mr Massey’s latest speech, upholding the British policy, shows. A wise merchant will cover personal risk at home us well as on seaborne goods. To concentrate on the nir menace while neglecting sea insurance is to jeopardise the safety of the Dominions, instead of knitting the ties of Empire more closely, and thereby promoting increased imperial security.