A PRISONER’S DUTY?

Nelson Evening Mail, Volume 80, 30 November 1945, Page 2

A PRISONER’S DUTY?

ESCAPE FROM ENEMY HANDS BENNETT INQUIRY CONTINUES Melbourne, Nov. 29. At the inquiry into General Bennett’s escape from Singapore, Lieut.-Colonel W. S. Kent Hughes, a staff officer of the Eighth Division, said he advised General Bennett that the question of responsibility to the Australian Government was one which did not appertain to any other officer in Singapore. Hughes also told the inquiry that as he understood Army orders it was the duty of every prisoner to escape. Witness said that on 15th February, 1942 (the surrender date) there was no definite instruction about senior officers standing fast. There was nothing definite about the capitulation except that General Percival had decided to try and get in touch with the Japanese. On the evening of 15th February General Bennett asked him (Hughes) what he thought of the position and should General Bennett, decide it was his responsibility to escape. Hughes added that there was no question of whether they should go on fighting. "I don’t know what the difference is between cease-fire and capitulation,” he said. "At 8.30 p.m. troops were to cease-fire, as an unconditional surrender had been arranged with the Japanese.” Giving details of a conversation with General Bennett about dusk on 15th February, Hughes said: "I told him that as G.O.C. of the A.I.F. he had two main responsibilities on capitulation. One was responsibility to his troops—to see that everything possible was done for them —and the second was as Australian G.O.C. in Malaya he had a direct responsibliity to the Australian Government.” After discussing these points, Hughes said to General Bennett, "I for one will never utter one word of criticism against you if you decide it is your duty to escape.” NO QUESTION OF TERMS Major J. W. C. Wyett, who was on the staff in Singapore at the time of the capitulation, said it was quite clear On the evening of 15th February that the surrender was unconditional. There was no question of terms. General Yamashita would not listen to any terms. General Percival went out with five particular points, but General Yamashita flew into a rage. Wyett added that he did not think General Percival thought any divisional commanders would have the courage to make a break as soon as he got back to his lines. The Commissioner asked: “Assuming General Percival ordered as one of the terms of unconditional surrender that troops remain in their positions and then passed that order to the A.1.F., would you regard yourself as being bound by General Percival’s order?” Wyett: Up until the time of capitulation, yes. The Commissioner: And not afterwards? Wyett: No, surrender is entirely unconditional.

The Commissioner: You looked at it as a Japanese order and not as General Percival’s order?

Wyett: Yes. That was proved later on. We frequently had to implement Japanese orders. Brigadier C. A. McEachern, who was acting-artillery commander of the Eighth Division from 6th or 7th February, 1942, with the aid of a copy of a war diary, quoted an order received from General Bennett at about 8 p.m. on 15th February. The points the order made were to cease-fire from 8.30 p.m., no ammunition or equipment were to be destroyed, as this was part of the terms of the armistice, and the officers to remain with the men and not to attempt to escape. 9 After the order had been received he asked General Bennett if he could endeavour to ? •* away. General Bennett replied: “ You can’t do that just now. I am doing that, but. you will have an opportunity later on/’

They then called on Brigadier Callaghan, who succeeded General Bennett as G.O.C.

The inquiry will adjourn to Sydney at the week-end, when evidence will be taken from Brigac’ier Callaghan and Colonel Thyer. who are patients in a military hospital. The hearing will probably resume in Melbourne next Wednesday.