The Daily News TUESDAY, JULY 16, 1929. SINGAPORE BASE.

Taranaki Daily News, 16 July 1929, Page 8

The Daily News TUESDAY, JULY 16, 1929. SINGAPORE BASE.

The news that the British Labour Ministry contemplates a drastic modification or the abandonment of the Singapore naval base will cause some anxiety in New Zealand. It will be only fair, however, to suspend judgment until the views of the MacDonald Cabinet are definitely stated and full information given of the means it is proposed to substitute for the base as a protection for the long trade routes to Great Britain. It cannot be said that in regard to Singapore the Ministry has received any direct mandate from the people. During the elections it was a matter that was more or less accepted by all political parties as a definitely settled policy that the base should be established. It is difficult to see how it could have been treated otherwise, when, as the London Daily Telegraph points out, gifts from the Dominions in furtherance of the scheme have been accepted by the Imperial Government, and the funds so received in part expended or hypothecated. As in any naval defence scheme, there have been conflicting opinions in regard to the establishment ,of the base, and, assuming it were established, what equipment should accompany the provision of a floating dock. The late government, after full consultation with, and in some eases with the actual cooperation of the Dominions principally affected, decided to establish the dock, and with it an establishment capable of defending the base and where any but very extensive repairs to ships of war could be carried out. In its brief term of office in 1924 a Labour Ministry suspended the work at Singapore. It had the courage of its opinions, and the works were then so entirely in the preliminary stages that their arrest did not signify anything like the waste of public money which their abandonment to-day will mean. As is well known, the later decision of the electorate was overwhelmingly antagonistic to the party that dropped the Singapore scheme, and the Conservatives, who had made no secret of their intention to proceed with the naval base, received a record majority. The endorsement of the electors of the United Kingdom was followed by that of the self-governing Dominions' at the last Imperial Conference, and the development of the works has since proceeded according to a definite schedule. It would seem wise for the British Government to remember that, as in 1924, it is not in possession of a majority in Parliament, and that the Party responsible for the establishment of the Singapore works received more votes at the recent election than did the Party now in office. Much will depend, presumably, upon the attitude adopted by the Liberal party, and for the moment there seems little indication of what this is likely to be. It is presumed that before any decision is arrived at the Home Government will consult those of the Dominions, and that their views will have some weight in Downing Street. While such discussions must necessarily be confidential in their early stages, it is to be hoped that the Ministry here will take Parliament into its confidence at the earliest possible moment. Like the Labour Government in Great Britain, it is dependent upon the goodwill of the elective House as to how long it remains in office. It cannot dictate its policy with the power of a majority to see that it is accepted. In such circumstances it is necessary either to convince the House that a certain policy is right, or to leave it to Parliament to settle what the country’s attitude will be. With the exception of Labour extremists, public men in this country have almost unanimously endorsed the establishment of the Singapore base. If a reversal of this policy is proposed they will require to be convinced of the soundness of the reasons for doing so. The chief justification of the scheme is the additional security it affords to the trade routes from the East and from Australia and New Zealand to Great Britain. The first duty of any government desiring to suspend or abandon the works is to show in the clearest possible

manner how that security can be otherwise provided, and whether the new method is better and more economical than the one that has been discarded. When that infoi’mation has been made available a juster estimate can be given of the policy that at present seems to involve serious misgivings.