SINGAPORE NAVAL BASE

Waimate Daily Advertiser, Volume XXIII, 24 July 1923, Page 7

SINGAPORE NAVAL BASE

A CRITICISM. PBB PBBSS ASSOCIATION—COPYRIGHT LONDON, July 22. I Admiral Sir Percy Scott remains I impertinent in his denunciation of the Singapore base, but replying to critics incidentally gives his opinion j regarding Japanese naval activity. He says it is quite true that the British cannot send a battle fleet to the Far East, but it would be truer in future, because Japan, since the Washington Conference, has strengthened her fleet iu vessels to an unlimited extent. She is building up the finest air force in the world and establishing aviation and submarine bases throughout her possessions, and therein Britain, as a friendly nation, is assisting. Sir Percy Scott infers that Singapore should be defended by submarines and aeroplanes.

A special cable message from London appearing in the “Sydney Sun” some days ago said— After long restraint, the pent-ap fires of the English naval ■ Etna, Admiral Sir Percy Scott burst into eruption at the idea that his beloved submarines were inadequate to protect Australia, and that it w*as therefore necessary to base battleships, which the admiral considers antiquated, on Singa-1-n a letter to the London “Daily Mail,” but really addressing Australia, he. recites the battleship losses in the war, and also other naval events, to prove that the First Lord of the Admiralty was egregiously mistaken when he said that the submarines did not hamped the fleets’ free movement. “Australians should be able to form their own opinion as to whether the First Lord spoke truly,” he says. “The facts that ought to convince Australians are that if the coasts are properly protected by submarines, destroyers and aeroplanes the enemy ships cannot come within miles, and their cities are perfectly safe from bombardment. “Australians should understand that the people who want to build battleships are underrating the submarine. If the Admiralty can bamboozle Australians into believing that they require battleships for their protection that is not a patriotic thing, because we get Australian money for ships which are no good to them.” The erruption then begins, and reaches its maximum intensity when the Admiral bursts out — “That is fraud number one; now for fraud number two.”

It is impossible to keep or to send ships to Singapore strong enough to compete with the Japanese, he declares, and adds that battleships cannot assist Australia. She is able to defend herself with her own implements, most of which could be made in Australia, and which would send and battleship to the bottom. Australia and New Zealand, he concludes, ought to spend money on their own- defence, and not waste it on the Singapore docks. Sir Percy’s outburst is not regarded seriously by the Admiralty, officials of which tell the special representative of the “Sun” that as the Government has accepted its views on the questions of capital ships and of Singapore it sees no necessity for entering into a controversy.

It strongly reiterates that there is no question of Australia being “bamboozled” to find money, either for battleships or for the Singapore docks, because no decision has been niade concerning Dominion contributions, and will not until the Imperial Conference, fence will he discussed. Mr L. C. Amery, the First Lord,, os utterly averse from the impression going broadcast that Britain is going to the Conference with a cut-and-dried proposal for asking Australia to contribute to the support of any portion of the existing navy. Britain’s attitude consists in waiting to hear what the Dominions pffer. British policy in regard to Singapore and in other respects is settled, and any Australian offers of expenditure in other directions, as, say, the building of submarine bases or the purchasing of aeroplanes do not affect the Admiralty’s present decisions. Australian contributions wdl be considered supplementary to the British expenditure already sanctioned. Inquiries from authoritative naval men indicate that Sir Percy is misquoting the views of the American

Admiral, F.ullam, on which he bases part of his article condemning battleships. Admiral Fullam, instead of declaring that battleships are obsolete, told the United States Naval journal tbit a modern navy must tight on the surpace, in the air, a'nd under the surface, the three types of forces co-existing and co-ordinating. Therefore, it would be impossible to abolish surface ships and battleships.

Admiral Fullam adds: “It has been necessary to swat the battleship pretty hard in order to prove that we. need something else; but it isn’t a question of battleships or aeroplanes; we must have both in fair proportion, and also submarines.

In opposition to Sir Percy, am ther naval expert explained that the 1 attleship was the backbone of the navy, because it was the first arbiter of sea battles, on which the protection and maintenance of Imperial trade routes ultimately depended. Referring to statements that battleships could not perform their duties owing to fear of submarines, the expert asserted that battleships were not required to bombard enemy tqwns, ports and docks, but existed in order to assist the lamfing of troops. They were the strongest portion of the battleline. A Power possessing no battleships must be overthrown by an enemy equipped with a battle-fleet. The expert hsked: “If Sir Percy Scott's proposal to replace battleships by aeroplanes and submarines is adopted, how are aeroplanes, petrol, and the necessary equipment and personnel to reach Singapore, even if they fly the whole distance? They must use bases on the'way, and these must be maintained and supplied by vessels under protection of the navy." Aeroplanes were unable .'o n eve a yard abroad except by virtue of the navy. Even in the Mediterranean aircraft were dependent on the navy. He added: “Why, damn it, we even have to pick them out o ft he sea.” Discussing Sir Percy’s uggestion that Australians’ money would ce better employed in manufaet'iri ig their own implements of war, prosu.n.ibly aeroplanes, the air expert Id that zbustralia, doubtless, could i-dre aeroplanes, but owing to the lack of raw materials would need to keep a huge reserve of quantities of materials to enable war wastage to be eplie?d. Even then the replenishment of supplies would be dependent on the command of the seas. The expert declared 'hat on?, aeroplane factory was of no use at the present stage, when continuous research was imperative. Britain was now spending large st ms] on research, in which the competition of various companies was the chief necessity, consequently Australian efforts at aircraft building would at present be handicapped.

A DUTCH POINT OF VIEW.

AMSTERDAM, July 22. A message from Sourabnya, published in the “Handelslad,” commenting on the Singapore debate in the House of Commons, says the construction ol this base is a clear hint and the outcome of political entanglements. The Dutch naval force must no longer be a political device or a toy for Ministers. A fit naval force is a first requirement in the Pacific, for the Pacific war which is to be expected. [Sourabaya is the principal city of Java, in the Malay archipelago. It is a fortified seaport and possesses a naval arsenal and large shipbuilding facilities. The population is 146,950.] BRITISH LABOUR VIEW. LONDON, July 23. Mr J. H. Thomas, speaking at Derby, said he believed the naval base at Singapore was in direct contravention of the Washington Treaty. They could find some better means of spending money than in finding work fo r Chinamen.