LOSS OF SINGAPORE

Wairarapa Times-Age, 25 February 1942, Page 2

LOSS OF SINGAPORE

DEBATE IN THE HOUSE OF COMMONS MR CHURCHILL’S WARNING. NEED OF FACING BRUTAL FACTS. LONDON, February 24. The British Prime Minister, Mr Churchill, warned the country, when speaking in the House of Commons today, that although they had the right to look forward to final victory they had to face blunt, brutal facts and that further adverse experiences must be expected. Taking a broad view, he said our position had enormously improved in the last few months, but the recent increase in shipping losses was most grave. Our anti-U-boat and light naval forces were being strained to their utmost limits. As late as Octoberpind November’ they were not only fully extended but overstrained. He could not say what the position would have been if the Government had yielded to pressure and opened up a new front. The movement of reinforcements to Singapore had been limited only by shipping considerations, and reinforcements of 40,000 men, with equipment had been sent to the island. The sending of nine convoys with these men and supplies would have justified special commendation had the results been successful. The enormous improvement in Britain’s position in the last few months was due to the wonderful strength and power of Russia and to the accession of the United States with her measureless resources to the common cause. The Japanese claimed, the British Prime Minister observed, that they had taken 73,000 prisoners in Singapore, certainly a larger number than were in the fortress at the time of the attack. During the debate the House was critical, particularly of the country’s war effort. Mr J. Griffiths (Lab.) said the country felt that it was not going all out, and that new men and new qualities were needed. Major A. M. Lyons (Con.) said peo-ple-wanted to see more drive in making the most of the Empire’s vast resources. Other speakers said more sweeping Cabinet changes were needed and asked if there was complete co-operation between the services. Mr J. H. Martin (Lab.) asked why no provision had been made for the evacuation of the garrison if the position at Singapore was as precarious as the Prime Minister had shown it to be. In the House of Lords, Lord Cranbourne said it had been the opinion of the British Government and also of the Australian and New Zealand Governments that Singapore could be held for a considerable time.