SINGAPORE BASE

Southland Times, Issue 19188, 6 March 1924, Page 5

SINGAPORE BASE

ADMIRALTY v GOVERNMENT CLASH OF DIVERGENT VIEWS NAVAL PROPAGANDA RESENTED. (By Telegraph—Press Assn.—Copyright). (Australian and N.Z. Cable Association.) LONDON, March 5. (Received March 5, 8.5 p.m.) The Daily Herald, writing editorially, while emphasising the appointment of a Cabinet Committee to consider the Singapore question says: “The Director erf the Trade Department of the Admiralty gave a lecture to newspaper men on Monday seeking to impress on them the necessity for British warships in the Pacific as a protection for British trade.” The Herald continues: “Thus is given an indication of the changed line of advocacy Admiral Beatty is now adopting. He wants to make British flesh creep by talking about the danger to trade and hints darkly at an interruption in our food supply and draws attention to the cheapness of insuring £800,000,000 worth of commence with a few cruisers, only £2,000,000 each. Tins was the illustration used in the lecture and forces us to suggest that Admiral Beatty should stop this kind of propaganda on a question on which the Government has •■ne view and the Naval Lords another. The latter have no right to use a Government Department for the purpose of pe mailing the Press that they are right. Attention should be called to the matter in the House of Commons. Further, every opportunity must be taken to explain the Singapore scheme and show that it is, as the Prime Minister called it ‘a colossal folly.’ ” The Times vigorously champions the case of the Singapore base, which, it says, is vital to the safety of the Empire. As matters stand, it is a melancholy fact that the British fleet cannot effectively operate in the Pacific, where, without doubt, the great world issues of the future will be decided, with no base nearer than Malta for docking and repairs. The slightest damage to any ship would mean a return

journey of several weeks before she would be able to operate at the scene of action. The fleet cannot operate without a base, any more than a motor car can run indefinitely without a visit to a garage. Considering the whole safety of the Empire depends on the navy, it is doubtful whether in the present circumstances the Government would be justified in sending a fleet to Eastern waters in a time of crisis. Britain would, therefore, be paralysed there. She might not be directly involved in a quarrel, but she would have to rely on the indulgence of other countries for immunity "or her trade, the safety of Australia, and .he defence of her Far Eastern possessions. That is quite an intolerable position for i great country.