THE SINGAPORE BASE

Otago Witness, Issue 3619, 24 July 1923, Page 20

THE SINGAPORE BASE

GOVERNMENT'S ACTION ENDORSED. LONDON, July 19. In the House of Commons, in Committee of Supply on the Naval Estimates, Mr G. Lambert moved to reduce the vote as a protest against the construction of the Singapore base. Mr Amery (First Lord of the Admiralty), in' replying, repudiated the charge that the Singapore base would be a violation of the" Washington Treaty. Britain had led the world in the fulfilment of the Treaty. It was perfectly clear that Singapore was outside the zone of non-action. The Japanese, before and since the conference had been engaged on a policy of dockyard and naval base extension‘on which‘they were spending large sums. They had said nothing about it at the conference. In the present year Japan was spending £2,000,000 on naval bases. America, on the east side, was strengthening her fortifications. These operations had no offensive object. As a matter of fact, it was their object to establish zones of neutrality in the Pacific, and to separate the nations by such distances that they could not act offensively against each other. The only reason why the Government had considered this base was because the capi tal ship to-day was very different from that of pre-war davs. It was difficult to protect such craft from the attacks of submarines, and therefore it was necessary to have in Pacific waters graving docks large enough to hold these ships. “If we had had any aggressive designs against the Japanese,” continued Mr Amery, “we should never have proposed a scheme under which we would be deprived of the use of Hongkong where we already have a base. The distance from Yokohama to Singapore is the same as from Gibraltar to New York. If we were to put an additional dock at Gibraltar could it be said that we had menacing designs on America? We cannot expect the dominions to help to defend the Empire unless we are able to help them. There is no reason why the estimated total cost of £10,500,000 should be exceeded.” The motion was rejected bv 217 votes to 150.