CURTAILMENT POLICY

Northern Advocate, 15 November 1929, Page 5

CURTAILMENT POLICY

SINGAPORE BASE WORK CONFERENCE ISSUE AWAITED. EARL JELLTCOE DUBIOUS.

(British Official Wireless.) (Received 12.30 p.m.) RUGBY, November 13

In his announcement in the House of Commons concerning the naval (base at Singapore, where work is to be slowed down pending the Five-Power Naval Conference, Mr A. V, Alexander, First Lord of the Admiralty, explained that the Government had given attention to the question of (the continuation of construction w r ork as soon as it had assumed office.

In 1924 the previous Labour administration had decided not to proceed with -the naval base at Singapore. Since that date, however, the action of the late Conservative Government had altered the situation very materially. A floating dock had been provided at heavy expense and in September, 1928, a contract had been signed for the building of a large graving dock at a cost of approximately £4,000,000. Moreover, the bulk of the expense had, 'lip to the present time, been met by contributions from Hongkong, the Federated Malay States and New Zealand. Their total contributions amounted to £2,113,000, together with a free gift of the site /by the Straits Settlement. '

The decisions of the Naval Conference might affect the aise of this base, and under these circumstances the Government had decided that the work aiready contributed for at ’Singapore was to be slowed down as much as possible. All the' work that could would be suspended and no work should be embarked upon, pending the Five-Power Naval Conference.

Earl Jellieoe, presiding at a meeting at Hitchin, referred to the Government’s decision to retard the construction of the Singapore Base. “I don’t know how the Dominions in the South Pacific look upon the decision,” he said, “but they contributed money and they realise the base is essential to their security. I have my doubts about how they wiH take the decision which I learn was made this evening. “With reference to a reduction of naval armaments, I would point out the fact that the Navy has never been the cause of war. Moreover, nothing is heard about a reduction in aerial .strength, though the danger to the civil population is infinitely greater from the air than from anything else.”