SYDNEY OR SINGAPORE?

Manawatu Times, Volume XLVI, Issue 2646, 15 May 1923, Page 5

SYDNEY OR SINGAPORE?

PROPOSAL FOR NEW NAVAL BASE DISCUSSED. SHOULD BE NEAR POINTS OF VULNERABILITY. MEAT AND WOOL ESSENTIALS. IBy Electric Cable—Copyright.] [Aust. and N.Z. Cable Association.] (Received Monday, 9.15 p.m.) LONDON, May 14.

The claims of Sydney as a rendezvous for the Grand Fleet in the event of it being called upon to defend Empire interests in the Pacific are advanced by Colonel Repihgton in a criticism of the proposal to establish a new naval base at Singapore. The question will l>e considered by the Imperial Conference. Colonel Repington, in the " Daily Telegraph" contributes an article on Anzac interests in the Pacific basis. He says:— Lt.-Col. Amery, having secured a vote for a naval base at Singapore, will not hurry to sign the contracts nntil the Imperial Conference re-con-siders and adjudicates upon this important matter. We are usually very willing to accept Admiralty opinion, but the new naval base opens up a number of questions. Singapore has not the importance of the Panama or the Suez canals, or of Gibraltar or the English Channel. There are numerous other routes from the Indian Ocean to the Pacific. If we were at war with Japan, and our Grand Fleet was preparing to go to Singapores it is not conceivable that the Japanese would not snap up the base before our fleet arrived. Even if the Grand Fleet were on the spot, it is doubtful if Singapore offers the resources of coal, oil, food, and other necessaries for a big offensive mission and the ports of Australia and New Zealand are a long way off What we seek in the Pacific is the defence of the Dominions and the preservation of their maritime communications. It would be as sensible to go to Iceland for the defence of the English Channel as to Singapore to defend Anzac trade. Tin, silk and other articles from China and Japan we can do with out. What concerns us is Anzac meat and wool, which would probably aome via the Cape if hostile submarines were lurking in the Archipelago between Singapore and Australia. Above all, our object would be to protect Australia and New Zealand from attack. I can name no better place than Sydney Harbour 'for the assembly of the Grand Fleet for such an object. The fleet "would be among our own people, with all their resources at its back. There, and at Melbourne troops could be rapidly assembled and the fleet would be within easy distance or New Zealand if it were threatened.

""We need at Singapore and Port Darwin bases for light craft, such as cruisers, ocean-going - submarines and ■aircraft, with restricted systems of defence. " In this connection, Mr. Asquith's criticism is important, as he attended the' Defence Committee meetings for many years. If Mr. Asquith is right, then we shall waste, time and money upon the Admiralty scheme. I do not think the plan takes into account .the war atmosphere and the legitimate anxieties of the Anzacs when threatened by a great Power. Their long coastline and the many points open to attack wiil call the Grand Fleet toward them on the first threat of war. They can only be asked to< equip a harbour in their own territory for a preliminary war station of the fleet. By going to Singapore, we seem to have more regard for our China trade than for the ■ defence of the Dominions, and we cannot expect to find the latter's interest sufficiently aroused to make sacrifices to further the plan. A great naval base for the Pacific; should bo near the centre of the power of Australia."