SINGAPORE BASE

Southland Times, Issue 19281, 27 June 1924, Page 5

SINGAPORE BASE

FLOATING OR STATIONARY? NAVAL MEN IN CONFERENCE A DIVERGENCE OF VIEWS. (By Telegraph—Press Assn.—Copyright.) (Australian and N.Z. Cable Association.) LONDON, June 25. (Received June 26, 8.50 p.m.) At a combined meeting of Naval archh tects, engineers and shipbuilders, Captains D M. Munro and S. E. Staples read a paper on advanced Naval bases dealing with Si* gapore. They contended it would be wrong to instal a permanent shore base and excavated docks. It would be better an# cheaper if a floating base was stationed i# a strategic position, so that in war time it could be moved to any position required During the discussion Admiral Niblack, as American, declared there could be nothing of greater advantage to the British Empire than a permanent base at Singapore. He disagreed with the paper as mobile floating bases would need to be heavily fortified and were cumbersome and dangerous to transport.

Sir Eustace D’Eyncourt, the Naval designer, supported floating docks, which, he said, had the added advantage that they could easily be lengthened to keep pace with the increasing size of capital ships. Admiral Zegers Ryser, Secretary to the Netherlands Navy, said that permanent basca attracted fleets when often the best defence was to take to the open sea. Admiral Power urged the immediate construction of a fleating dock at which could be transferred when the pep manent dock was built.