NAVY v AIR

Southland Times, Issue 18962, 8 June 1923, Page 5

NAVY v AIR

SINGAPORE OR AEROPLANES? DEFENCE OF BASE PROPOSALS (By Telegraph—Press Assn.—Copyright.) (Australian and N.Z. Cable Association.) LONDON, June 6. (Received June 7, 7.15 p.m.) The Morning Post’s naval correspondent says: “There is a movement in the House of Lords and the House of Commons to challenge the Government’s decision to de- ! velop a naval base as Singapore, on the : ground that the country should first be ' made secure from air attack. This is : equivalent,” the correspondent comments, “to refusing to pay fire insurance, because the cargo was not covered against loss on the high seas. Fortunately the Government has a truer sense of the proportion of things. The air menace is local, but the menace to the British Empire on the seas is world-wide. With sea power we can cut off the Continental air enemies from their supplies of petrol, but it would be fatal if we were deprived of petrol. The importance of Singapore is apparent to all who think Imperially, instead of parochially. The colonies cannot be defended by aircraft alone. Srategically, Singapore lies on the flank of the main routes from Suez to Australia, New Zealand and the Far East. If the importance of Singapore is not recognised in certain quarters in Britain, it is recognised as a vital matter in Australia and New Zealand, aS Mr Massey’s speech, upholding the British policy shows. A wise merchant will cover his personal risk at home as well as sea-borne goods. To concentrate on the air menace, while neglecting sea insurance, is to jeopardise the safety of the dominions instead of knitting the Empire more closely and thereby promoting increased imperial security.”