Last updated 10th July 2024: Online ordering is currently unavailable due to technical issues. We apologise for any delays responding to customers while we resolve this. For further updates please visit our website https://www.cambridge.org/news-and-insights/technical-incident
We use cookies to distinguish you from other users and to provide you with a better experience on our websites. Close this message to accept cookies or find out how to manage your cookie settings.
Published online by Cambridge University Press: 24 August 2009
The shipping conference system in Singapore was under severe and sustained criticism three times in the last 60 odd years. In 1910 the colonial Straits Settlements legislative council in Singapore passed the Freight and Steamship Bill whose lengthy preamble contained the indictment that the conference system was ‘injurious to the trade of the colony and inconsistent with the public welfare’. In 1930, during the annual general meeting of the Singapore Branch of the Straits Settlements Association, a leading lawyer, Roland Braddell, launched a bitter attack on the conference. Subsequently a public meeting was held which called on the colonial government to see ‘if we cannot rid ourselves of this octopus which is strangling this Colony’.
1. Straits Settlements Government Gazette, 26 08 1910, p. 1671.Google Scholar
2. The meeting was supported by the Penang Chamber of Commerce, the Penang and Singapore Chinese Chambers of Commerce as well as the Penang and Malacca branches of the Straits Settlements Association, the parent body of which had been founded in London in 1868 by former Straits residents to look after the interests of the then newly established colony; the only dissentient body was the Singapore Chamber of Commerce.
The government then agreed to look into the subject and appointed a commission which enquired into the trade of the colony as well. It sat for two years and four months, and its findings and proceedings are contained in five volumes (Report of the Commission appointed by His Excellency the Governor of the Straits Settlements to enquire into and report on the trade of the Colony, 1933/134)
However, this controversy deserves to be treated as an article in its own right.
3. Straits Times (ST), 14.1.69.
I am grateful to Messrs. Tan Eng Joo and Tan Keong Choon, two leading rubber shippers and members of the All-Races Shipping Freight Working Committee for an interview on 24 February 1969. The subject also merits an article in its own right. The views expressed are my own.
4. The figure 25% is more frequently used, see ST 26.3.68, also from interview.
5. ST, 16.3.67.
6. ST, 21.5.67.
7. ST, 8.11.67. Article bv William Campbell.
8. ST, 30.3.68.
9. ST, 10.3.68.
10. ST, 13.3.68.
11. ST, 15.3.68.
12. ST, 12.7.68.
13. Eastern Sun (ES) 9.12.68.
14. See Appendix A.
15. ST, 9.11.67. Article by William Campbell
16. From an interview.
17. MM 14.1.69. It was 47 in May 1967 and 43½ in February 1968. It has risen to over 70 at time of writing (February 1969).
18. ST 16.6.67 and from interview.
19. ST 24.11.67.
20. From interview.
21. ST 7.9.66.
22. ST 23 10.67.
23. Ibid.
24. ST 30.12.67.
25. ST 13.3.68
26. Royal Commission on Shippings Rings, Report, Minutes of Evidence and Appendices, 5 volumes 1909Google Scholar, Report, vol. i, pp. 100–11.Google Scholar
27. RC on Shipping Rings, Evidence, vol. iv, p. 178Google Scholar Evidence of R.D. Holt. See also Hyde, F., Blue Funnel, A History of Alfred Holt and Company of Liverpool, from 1865 to 1914, Liverpool 1957; pp. 53–7Google Scholar. The tonnage of British steamships alone rose from 454,000 in 1869 to 1,112,000 in 1870 to 2,723,000 in 1880 (RC on Shipping Rings, Report, vol. i p. 11Google Scholar). The freights from Calcutta to Europe fell from £10–£12 per ton in 1869 to 20s–30s in 1887. See Cable, Boyd, A Hundred Year History of the P & O., 1837–1937, London 1937, p. 183.Google Scholar
28. RC on Shipping Rings, Report, vol. i, p. 12.Google Scholar
29. Marx, Daniel Jr., International Shipping Cartels: A Study of Industrial Self-Regulation by Shipping Conferences, Princeton, N.J. 1953, p. 47.Google Scholar
30. For the conferences prior to 1897, see RC on Shipping Rings, Evidence vol. iv, pp. 178–185Google Scholar, Evidence of R. D. Holt; also Hyde p. 88.
31. See Appendix B.
32. Straits Settlements Legislative Council Proceedings (SSLCP) 1902, App. 40, ‘SS Commission on Straits Homeward Conference, Report.… p. C. 292.
33. RC on Shipping Rings Appendices, vol. ii, p. 111Google Scholar App. XXV ‘Preferential Agreement between Shipping Conference and certain merchant firms in Straits Homeward Conference’ (handed in by R. D. Holt). Reprinted in SSLCP 1908, App. 40. This agreement was dated 31 October 1901, and was said to be similar to the 1897 agreement which was never produced.
34. RC on Shipping Rings, Evidence, vol. liv, p. 17Google Scholar. Evidence of W. H. Shelford, managing director of Paterson, Simons & Co., one of the sharing firms. No further details were given.
35. SSLCP 1908, App. 27, ‘Report on Shipping Freight Conferences operating in the Straits Settlements’, by the Registrar of Imports and Exports (A. Stuart), p. C 99.
36. RC on Shipping Rings, Evidence, vol. iv, p. 180Google Scholar. Evidence of R. D. Holt of the Oœan Steam Ship Company, one of the original promoters of this conference.
37. From Singapore and Straits Directory 1902.
38. SSLCP 1902, App. 40, ‘SS Commission on Straits Homeward Conference Report’ p. C 291.
39. RC on Shipping Conference, Evidence, vol. iv, p. 179Google Scholar, Evidence of R. D. Holt.
40. SSLCP 1902, App. 40, ‘SS Commission on Straits Homeward Conference, Report.…’ pp. C416–7Google Scholar, App. 1. ‘Abstract of Minutes of Meeting of Straits Homeward Conference Committee.’
41. Ibid., p. C312 Evidence of John Anderson, corroborated by A. Stuart in his ‘Report on Shipping Freight Conferences operating in the Straits Settlements’ (SSLCP 1908, App. 27, p. C99Google Scholar). It is also mentioned in The Ring and The Book (about 1908) an anti-Conference tract published by the Singapore Free Press and distributed free. It attacked in particular the seven recipients of the secret rebate, and called for government legislation against the Conference.
42. SSLCP 1908, App. 27 ‘Report on Shipping Freight Conference operating in the Straits Settlements’, p. C99.
43. SSLCP 1902, ‘SS Commission on Straits Homeward Conference, Report.…’, pp. C312–4 Evidence of John Anderson.
44. SSLCP 1908, App. 27 ‘Report on Shipping Freight Conference operating in the Straits Settlements’ p. C99Google Scholar and The Ring and The Book, p. 32.Google Scholar
45. SSLCP 1908, App. 27, ‘Report on Shipping Freight Conference operating in the Straits Settlements’, p. C97.
46. Ibid., p. C97, also RC on Shipping Rings, Evidence, vol. iv, p. 4Google Scholar, Evidence of C. McArthur, managing director of the Straits Trading Company
47. Ibid., p. 181, Evidence of R. D. Holt. In 1897 there were only 20 import-export firms in the Straits Settlements, trading homeward; in 1908 there were 60 such firms. The seven firms sharing the secret rebate accounted for a total of 60% of the homeward trade.
48. SSLCP 1902, App. 40, ‘SS Commission on Straits Homeward Conference, Report …’ p. C314, Evidence of John Anderson. Friedrich denied that this took place, p. C34O, but there was no denying that his firm became a recipient of the secret rebate.
49. See Straits Settlements Annual Report (SSAR) 1898, p. 243.Google Scholar
50. See Singapore Chamber of Commerce Annual Report (SCCAR) 1901, p. 10.Google Scholar
51. SSLCP 1902, 28 01, p. B19Google Scholar. Proposing the Enquiry, the Acting Colonial Secretary stated it was requested by the Singapore Chamber of Commerce.
52. SSLCP 1902, App. 40. ‘SS Commission on Straits Homeward Conference, Report …’, pp. C294–5, C300.
53. SSAR 1905, p. 272.Google Scholar
54. SSLCP 1908, App. 27, ‘Report on Shipping Freight Conference operating in the Straits Settlements’ by Alexander Stuart, p. C101.
55. RC on Shipping Rings, Appendices, vol. iiGoogle Scholar, App. II, Short History of the Question, prepared by direction of the Board of Trade, pp. 12–14. See also Marx, Chapter IV. ‘Early Investigations of Shipping Conferences’, pp. 46–71Google Scholar. Marx deals with British and American investigations.
56. Ibid., p. 14.
57. SCCAR 1907, App. D, p. 34 CO Circular was dated 29 January 1907.
58. SSLCP 1908, App. 27, ‘Report on Shipping Freight Conferences operating in the Straits Settlements’ dated 30 March 1907, p. C95.
59. SCCAR 1907, p. 17Google Scholar and App. D, pp. 34–42.
60. SCCAR 1908, p. 4.Google Scholar
61. RC on Shipping Conferences, Report, vol. i, pp. 82, 115.Google Scholar
62. Ibid., p. 80.
63. SSLCP 1910, App. 24, p. C116Google Scholar. See also Report of the Commission appointed by HE The Governor of the Straits Settlements to enquire into and report on the Trade of the Colony, 1933–4, vol. 1, p. 74.Google Scholar
64. SSLCP 1910, 11 04, pp. B32–47.Google Scholar
65. Straits Settlements Government Gazette, 26 08 1910, p. 1671Google Scholar. See also SSLCP 1910, 19 August, 9 September, 30 September, 7 October, 14 October for debate on Bill.
66. SFP 23 June 1910.
67. SSLCP 1910, 2 09, p. B94Google Scholar. Writing in 1919, on ‘Commerce and Currency’ in 100 Years of Singapore, (by W. Makepeace, G. E. Brooke and R. St. John Braddell, London 1921), vol. ii, p. 42, Darbishire reiterated this, that as the time drew near for the Ordinance to operate, there was a possibility of conference tonnage being withdrawn, with none to replace it.
68. To be distinguished from the merchant John Anderson of Guthrie & Co., who was also a doughty opponent of the Conference, The merchant John Anderson was knighted in 1912.
69. SSLCP 1910, 2 09, p. B99.Google Scholar
70. SSLCP 1910, 17 12, p. B159Google Scholar. The Ordinance was suspended. G. C. Allen and Audrey G. Donnithorne in Western Enterprise in Indonesia and Malaya, London 1957, pp. 222–3Google Scholar, referred to the resolution of April 1910 calling for legislation against the Conference but went on to say that ‘no effective action was taken’. In so far as that the Ordinance was suspended this is correct.
71. SSLCP 1911, App. 26. ‘Minutes of a meeting held at the Colonial Office on the 25th May 1911. between Sir John Anderson, G.C.M G., Governor of the Straits Settlements, and Representatives of the Homeward Java and Straits Conference and the New York Steamer Conference’, pp. 74–5.
72. SSLCP 1910, 11 04, p. B43.Google Scholar
73. RC on Shipping Rings, Evidence, vol. iv, p. 180Google Scholar, Evidence of R. D. Holt.
74. Until 16 May 1930. See ante, footnote 2.
75. ST 30.12.67.
76. ST 3.3.68, 5.3.68.
77. See footnote 13.
78. MM 3.1.69.
79. ST 14.1.69. Also from interview.
80. MM 1.1.69.
81. ST 20.12.68.
82. ST 14.1.69.
83. From interview.
84. See footnote 14.
85. ST 10.3.68. [This would prove invaluable to the historian in writing an account of the present controversy!]
