A GENERAL’S ESCAPE.

Evening Star, Issue 25684, 7 January 1946, Page 4

A GENERAL’S ESCAPE.

The belated inquiry into the circumstances of the escape from Singapore in February, 1942, by Lieutenant-general Gordon Bennett has ended in a finding by Mr Justice Ligertwood that ho was not justified in relinquishing his command. It is doubtful whether this report will have important effects on the public reputation of the Australian general, who commands considerable prestige among servicemen’s organisations in the Commonwealth, and with the general public. The finding of the judge is a strange one, in that, while holding him blameworthy in leaving his command, it provides very considerable excuse for his action. A fine point of military law is involved, and it is paradoxical that after his Government had praised him for his. escape and had learned much from the information which he brought hack at a critical period, the general should find himself subject to an. inquiry and ultimately condemned. Admittedly, that condemnation is not strong, amounting to little more than guilt of an error of judgment, but such a finding cannot be welcomed in the career of any highranking officer, Some public unrest was caused in Australia when General Sir Thomas Blarney,'on the eve of liis own retirementj ordered a military inquiry into the circumstances of General Bennett’s escape. The reason was obviously that General Blarney had only'just received a report from Lieutenant-general A. E. Percival, commander-in-chief of the forces in the Singapore area at the time of the surrender, who remained a prisoner of war until the surrender of the Japanese last August. Whether the report was sought by General Blarney has not been stated, but if it was it would he a strange action on the part of a commander after his Government had commended General Bennett on his escape. The late Prime Minister, Mr John Curtin, made the following statement early in 1942:—: “ We have expressed to General Bennett our confidence in him. His leadership and conduct were in complete conformity with his duties to the men under his command and to his country. He remained with his men until the end, completed all the formalities in connection with the surrender, and then took the opportunity and the risk of escaping.” At the public inquiry which was ordered after General Bennett and his counsel had dramatically retired from the military inquiry, much of the evidence concerned the steps taken by the general to plan his escape even before the surrender of the British forces in Singapore had been arranged or completed. General Bennett argued that General Percival’s authority ceased when he surrendered his forces to the Japanese commander, at the very latest, 8.30 p.m. on February 15, 1942. His own departure from the Australian Imperial Forces did not take place until shortly after 10 p.m. on the same date. At this distance it seems a fine point of law over which to argue, but it is, no doubt; an important question for the military authorities. Whether justified or not, General Bennett took serious risks in endeavouring to make his way back to Australia, and there can be no question of his personal bravery. At a time when it was dangerously menaced by the enemy, the Commonwealth undoubtedly benefited from the advice he was able to give about Japanese tactics and the preparation of measures for defence. With ail acute memory of those facts, the Australian public is unlikely to be seriously , troubled whether its general had the permission of any competent authority to escape. It is' not suggested that lie deserted his troops or left them unprotected in the hands of the enemy. He is more likely to be the centre of sympathy for the notoriety arising at this date from an action taiken undoubtedly from the highest patriotic motives.