SINGAPORE BASE.

Hokitika Guardian, 20 March 1924, Page 2

SINGAPORE BASE.

tUSTKALIAN AND N.Z. CABLE ASSOCIATION. DEBATE IN COMMONS. LONDON, March IS. In the House of Commons the announcement of the Singapore decision was received with Labour cheers. The Opposition uttered cries of “slut mo!” Mr Ammon retorted: I have given up attempting to please everybody. The Liberals find fault with the decision relating to building five new cruisers, while the Conservatives, on the other hand, are disposed to criticise the Singapore decision. The Government has attempted to steer a course maintaining the prepor efficiency of the Navy as the first line of defence, and at the same time giving

in earnest its intention to give the world a lead regarding the reduction of armaments. They would do nothing to occasion provocation to any

foreign power.” Colonel Amery (Conservative) pointing out that the estimates were much below what we would have proposed, emphasising that there was a tremendous reduction in their naval power since pre-war. The present- capital ships amounted to 22, which would shortly be reduced to 20. compared with 62 in 1913. Their cruisers numbered 48, as compared with 115 in 1913. The personnel of the Navy was 100,000, compared with 150,000 in 1923. He said the major matters affecting the security of Britain and the Empire were the cruiser position, and what he termed the regrettable and and wholly unexplained Singaport decision. The latter decision was entirely inconsistent' with the Government’s general naval line. A Singapore base would no more be a menace to Japan than Plymouth would lie a menace to the United States. .1 hey talked of the danger of sounding the susceptibilities of a certain foreign power, hut was not their real danger that of mortally wounding the susceptibilities of fellow citizens in the Dominions ?

Mr Lambert supported absolutely the Government’s Singapore policy. To build two battleship docks at Singapore was one of the costliest lollies ever proposed in the House of Commons. There was a limit to which the British taxpayers could stand. Mr MacDonald said that the Government was publishing a, document setting out its naval views. Ihe various Dominions’ views would also be fully published when the consent thereto had' been received. lie stated Australian representatives had urged that the abandonment of the Singapore scheme would jeopardise any policy of conciliation because a reduction in the mobility of the fleet would reduce the Empire’s influence in the Councils of the Nations. The New Zealand Government had represented that the Empire’s interests in the Pacific would be endangered if capital ships were unable to operate there, and that the time had not arrived to rely solely on the League of Nations’ influence for peace. Mr MacDonald said that he could not accept the Australian suggestion that It would be better to continue extending Singapore for the purpose of scrapping it later if an international agreement were reached, than to hold it up now in the hope that this would help towards an agreement. From the viewpoint of bargaining, lie believed that Britain was in a stronger position to uphold it now ; but he would extend Singapore if we were driven thereto. So far as moral sincerity was concerned, the. latter policy would ho ten million times stronger than the former. Therefore, he thought the Australian Premier’s observations were hot sound.

LA BO U It’S CONCILIA TOR Y AIM. LONDON, March IS. Mr MacDonald repudiated the suggestion that the Governments’ action was in any way putting off co-opera-tion with the Dominions, or making it impossible to carry oil co-operation under different .circumstances, and perhaps different plans. He stated, incidentally that the Singapore scheme would in no way violate the Washington agreement, if they were driven to create a new licet in the Pacific, hutafter careful consideration, the Government had decided that tho scheme would detrimentally affect their ioreign policy, which was aiming at the creation of international confidence, and tho facilities of a comprehensive agreement on the limitation of armaments. He stated that ilie Commonwealth cordially sympathised with tho Government’s international policy, and desired to advance towards the reduction of armaments, hut considered the action of His Majesty's Government would jeopardise, instead of assisting that policy. The Singapore scheme was for defensive, not for olfensi'M purposes. General Smuts laid desen icd the Imperial policy as a bold move towards enduring peace. Tie (MacDonald) whole hcartedly agreed therewith. General Smuts felt the great cause of peace and conciliation would he seriously undermined by the construction of this base.

Mr MacDonald concluded that. Australia had expressed willingness to contribute a substantial sum towards the development of the base, and New Zealand already had offered its first contribution ol £100.0*90.

The debate concluded, alter Mr Bald win stated the Conservative reserved the right to speak folly and demand a decision of the House on the report stage. Mr Hugh Dooly, a Liberal, thereupon moved that there was no necessity for constructing live new cruisers, which motion was deleated hr 30-1 to 111 votes. The House adjourned.

NAVY ESTIMATES. LONDON, March 18 In the House of Commons, in introducing tho Naval Estimates, Mr Ammon emphasised that a reduction of £2,200,000 testified to an observance of the Washington agreement, and a desire to reduce armaments. The navy personnel was being increased by luOtl men. There would he 1-100 men recruited to man two battleships and other ships now being constructed, instead of 3.200 normally required. The remain, tier would be obtained from other ships. The progress in building the new battleships, Nelson and Rodney, had been seriously affected by the boilermakers’ lockout last year, it was doubtful: whether the time lost would be regained. It was anticipated that three light cruisers would be completed in the next financial year ending July 4, 1025. Arrangements had been made to maintain an adequate oil reserve to meet the needs of the fleet. The cruisers available for the protection of trade were below requirements. The construction of five new cruisers could no longer be delayed in view of the large numbers of light cruisers, which during a few years, would reach an age whereat they would no longer be efficient. Out of 48 cruisers in the British Empire, ten would be over the efficient age this year. Practically all the remainder were built during war time, for the North Sea. Eighteen of these were unsuitable to operate on long ocean trade routes. By the time the proposed five cruisers were completed, eleven of the sixteen now corn-

missioned would have been scrapped or placed on reserve. The Government, he said, had closely and earnestly considered the question of the Singapore base, as it involved questions of much wider implication than naval strategy. After fully considering all the revelnnt facts, and consulting the Dominions the Government had decided not to proceed with the scheme. (Loud Ministerial cheers). LORDS DEBATE. ' " LONDON, March 18. The House of Lords carried by 56 to 19 votes, Lord Curzon’s motion regretting the Government’s action in abandoning the Singapore scheme, and believing the development of a naval base at Singapore, as approved by tluJ Imperial Conference, was urgently re-V quired for the protection of commerce, security of the Dominions and futuro maintenance of peace. In the House of Lords, Lord said that he was glad that Lor" Chelmsford (First Lord of the Admiralty) had discarded the argument that the decision of the late Baldwin"* Government to proceed with the Singapore project could be regarded as a breach of faith under the Washington naval agreement. To say the base proposed would be a menace to Japan, ho declared, was an argument that could be used only with groat caution, or thev might be told that they could not have their fleet in the Channel, but were shaking their fist in the face of France, or their fleet in the Atlantic because the United States would not like it. He continued: “I wonder what will happen if China breaks out > in chaos or confusion. May it- not become vital for the fleet to have means to repair at Singapore. When this matter was discussed at the Imperial Conference, it was borne strongly on my mind that the Dominion Premiers profoundly thought that they were unsafe.”

Viscount Grey said: “This is not a question of letting the navy down, but a question of giving contracts, which.—... contracts would commit us irrevocality io giving our navy a range of potentiality such as it has not had before. If there was not another powerful fleet in the Pacific, this expenditure would not he advocated.”

Lord Haldane said: “No doubt a now naval base at Singapore would add considerably to the strength of tho navy, but it would be a gesture to the world, a -gesture indicating that we were vastly extending our armamnets, and making a weapon which might bo used for aggression. There was reason to believe,” he said, “that the Dominions shared the view of the present Government in regard to the foreign policy. Therefore, the Government were strongly opposed to Lord Curzon’s amendment, which was carried in the House of Lords disagreeing with the abandonment of the Singapore naval project.

DISCUSSED BY FEDERAL CABINET MELBOURNE, March 19. The Feioral Cabinet at a meeting in the afternoon, discussed the situation arising out of the Imperial Government’s abandoning the Singapore scheme. Mr Bowden (Minister of Defence), in an interview, said he hoped it would not mean the permanent scrapping of the scheme. The Cabinet was awaiting further information on tho matter. From Australia’s point of view, it was absolutely essential that there should bo some naval base in the Pacific. It would be impossible for the Grand Fleet to operate there In war time with no base nearer than Malta. Nationalist Members expressed disappointment at the British Government’s decision. Some quarters declared it would seal the doom of the Labour Government and was contrary to popular British opinion. >*%' . \ Tho Labour members took the con- • trary view. VARIED DOMINION VIEWS. LONDON, March 18. In the House of Commons, Mr MacDonald announced that Ireland and Canada bad refrained from expressing any opinion on the Singapore project. The Governments of Australia and New Zealand were anxious for Lhc es-tablishment-of a defensive base, saving that otherwise the Empire’s interests in the Pacific would bo endangered. Australia was ready to sanction a contribution, and New Zealand had al- _ ready offered £IOO,OOO. South Africa, he said, favoured the abandonment of the proposal. MR MASSEY’S COMMENT. WELLINGTON, March 19 When the announcement of the abandonment of the (Singapore scheme was brought to the notice of the Prime Minister this afternoon, Mr Massoy made the following statement: “I regret exceedingly that the British Government lias seen fit to' drop the proposals with regard to fortifying Singapore. It will ho a great disappointment to all British citizens in the Pacific, particularly because wo know perfectly well that a fleet of hat-'* tleships or battlecruisers cannot operate successfully unless it has got a satisfactory base to work upon. I am optimistic enough to believe that- this matter will be taken up later on, and perhaps in the not far distant future, by a Government which will succeed tlie one now in charge of the Treasury Benches, In the meantime there is nothing to do lint to possess ourselves in patience, and be ready to urge a resumption of the operations as soon as a proper opportunity offers.