No CrossRef data available.
Article contents
New Zealand and the Singapore Base between the Wars*
Published online by Cambridge University Press: 07 April 2011
Extract
New Zealand was one of the first parts of the British Empire to offer Britain help in the building of the Singapore naval base and was the only Dominion to do so. It is true that considerable financial help was given by the Straits Settlements. Hong Kong, the Federated Malay States and the Sultan of Johore. Australia's naval programme was, also, based on the assumption that the base would be built. But the Reform Party Ministry in New Zealand was the only democratically elected government which supported the United Kingdom Government with a vote of funds.
- Type
- Articles
- Information
- Journal of Southeast Asian Studies , Volume 2 , Special Issue 1: Australia, New Zealand and Southeast Asia , March 1971 , pp. 2 - 21
- Copyright
- Copyright © The National University of Singapore 1971
References
1 The U.K. Government first asked Parliament for a vote towards the base in the Navy Estimates presented to the House of Commons on 12 March 1923. The Straits Settlements agreed to donate the land ‘as a free gift’ on 3 May 1923. This cost £146.000 and was announced pubiicK on 12 July. The New Zealand Government had a gift of £100,000 under discussion early in May 1923 The House of Representatives was told on 3 July before the publication of the Straits gift. This first New Zealand gift was not used. Hong Kong offered £250,000 in 1924, the federated Malay States £2 million in 1926. New Zealand £1 million in 1927 and the Sultan of Johore £500.000 in 1935. For a summary of these gifts see McIntyre, W D, ‘The Strategic Significance of Singapore 1917- 1942: The Naval Base and the Commonwealth’.J. S. E. A. H. X. 1 (1969). 90–93Google Scholar.
2 The Australian Government had a substantial contribution under consideration in 1924. but the temporary cancellation of the project caused the Commonwealth to diver its money to warships.
3 New Zealand Patliamentary Debates. CCX1V (21 September 1927). 257
4 Notes for 1926 Imperial Conference by J. Gordon Coates. File PM 87 2 I Part 1, Ministry of Foreign Affairs. Wellington.
5 Chief of Naval Staff Report circulated 22 December 1941, NA 22 4 46. National Archives, Wellington. See also Ross, J. M. S., The Royal New Zealand Air Force. Wellington. 1955. pp. 95–100Google Scholar and Waters, S. D., The Royal New Zealand Navy, Wellington, 1956, p. 253Google Scholar
6 For the clearest exposition of this doctrine, see the address of 4 October 1884 by SirJervois, William, The Defence of New Zealand, N.Z. Institute, Wellington, 1884Google Scholar.
7 NZPD, CXLVI (14 June 1909), 199.
8 NZPD, CXLVIII (8 December 1909), 809, when Ward summarised the history of the subsidy policy.
9 The difference between Australia's and New Zealand's naval policy was a subtle one, largely dictated by the Dominion's smallness. Although in 1909 Ward stood out for the ‘one great Imperial Navy’, he suggested that what he termed the ‘China-Pacific Fleet unit’ (of which the New Zealand dreadnought was to be flagship) should detach seven vessels in New Zealand waters and these should largely be manned by New Zealanders. (Ward to McKenna, 11 August 1909, Confidential Print, Dominions 17, pp. 17–18.) After the Reform Party victory in 1912 the new Defence Minister, Sir James Allen, went to London to negotiate for a separate naval force, and the Naval Defence Act, of 11 December 1913, authorised the creation of New Zealand Naval Forces. However the 1914–18 war prevented the fulfilment of the project. In 1921, after Jellicoe's report, the Dominion Navy Board was constituted by Order in Council of 14 March 1921 and the New Zealand Division constituted by O.-in-C. of 20 June 1921, both giving effect to the 1913 Act. New Zealand Gazette, 1921, I, p. 701, II, p. 1610.
10 A full explanation of the policy was included in a white paper ‘Singapore and Naval Defence’, 23 April 1927. Appendix to the Journals of the House of Representatives (AJHR), 1927, A-7. Although part of the naval subsidy policy, the Singapore contribution had 2 novel features: (i) the money was to be spent on permanent land facilities outside New Zealand, instead of on ships, and (ii) money spent on the defences of the base had obviously to include some non-naval items. The Dominion Treasury was instructed to disperse the annual payments in the proportions: 72% to Admiralty, 23% War Office and 5% Air Ministry. (Secretary of Treasury to Imperial Affairs Officer, 21 March 1929, PM 455/7/1 Part II. Vouchers for payment, 25 March 1929, NA 10/2.)
11 For the background see Roskill, Stephen, Naval Policy between the Wars, I. The period of Anglo-American Antagonism 1919–1929, London, 1968, pp. 271–292Google Scholar; McIntyre, ‘Strategic Significance of Singapore’, 70–73; and Parkinson, C. N.. Britain in the Far East. The Singapore Base, Singapore, 1955Google Scholar.
12 Jellicoe to Admiralty, 24 October 1919, quoted in Roskill, p. 284.
13 For the ‘Eastern Fleet’ project see British Parliamentary Papers: Accounts and Papers, 1909, LIX, Cd. 4948, and the minute of proceedings in Confidential Prints, Dominions 15, 16 and 17; Preston, R. A., Canada and ‘Imperial Defense’ 1867–1919, Durham, 1967, p. 399Google Scholar; Gordon, D. C., The Dominion Partnership in Imperial Defense 1870–1914, Baltimore, 1965, pp. 278–279Google Scholar, 290–291; Marder, A. J., From Dreadnought to Scapa Flow, 1904–1919, I, London, 1961, 40–42Google Scholar, 85, 238.
14 Jellicoe's report, ‘Naval Mission to the Dominion of New Zealand’. 30 October 1919, National Archives, Wellington, A. D. Series 17/2. Vol. I only was published in AJHR, 1919, A–4.
15 Memorandum, ‘Imperial Naval Defence and the Naval Situation in the Far East’, 25 September 1919, quoted in Roskill, Naval Policy, pp. 282–283.
16 ibid., p. 279, quoting minute by Admiral Wemyss, 31 October 1919, suggesting Jellicoe had ‘entered into a sphere never contemplated by the Admiralty and far beyond his terms of reference’.
17 See Nish, I. H., The Anglo-Japanese Alliance. The Diplomacy of Two Island Empires 1894–1907, London, 1966.Google Scholar
18 See Lowe, P., Great Britain and Japan 1911–19. A Study of British Far Eastern Policy, London, 1969CrossRefGoogle Scholar; Dignan, D. K., ‘Australia and British Relations with Japan 1914–1921’, Australian Outlook, XXI, 2 (1967), 135–150CrossRefGoogle Scholar; and Louis, W. R., Great Britain and Germany's Lost Colonies 1914–1919, Oxford, 1967, pp. 37–50Google Scholar.
19 Admiralty to F. O., 12 February 1920, quoted in Roskill, Naval Policy, p. 293.
20 ibid., p. 290.
21 The ‘War Memorandum’ was sent to the C. in C. China on 20 January 1920, and is discussed in Report of Penang Naval Conference, 13 March 1921, Commonwealth Archives Office, Canberra (CAO), A 981/350 Part I (3).
22 Roskill, Naval Policy, pp. 290–292.
23 ibid., 348–349, quoting Beatty's statement to Standing Defence Sub-committee of C.I.D., 13 November 1922.
24 CID 168th Meeting, p. 3, CAB 2/3/294, Public Record Office, London.
25 Hansard, 5th series CLXI (1923), cols. 1098–1099.
26 Copy of Smuts' minutes, 18 May 1923, PM 455/7/1 Part I.
27 Imperial Conference, 1923, C ID Papers General 194-C, Australia 195-C, New Zealand 196-C, Canada 204-C, India 132-D.
28 Imperial Conference, 1923, 9th Meeting, p. 14–15.
29 Imperial Economic Conference, 1924, Cmd 2009, p. 39. For his farming and political background, see Gardner, W. J., William Massey, Wellington, 1969Google Scholar, and The Farmer Politician in New Zealand, Palmerston North, 1970.
30 This phrase was really Mackenzie King's.
31 Massey to Allen, Paris, 13 February 1919 and 26 April 1919, Sir James Allen Papers, Box 9, National Archives, Wellington.
32 Imperial Meetings 1921, Memoranda, vol. III, pp. 3–7. ‘Effect of the Anglo-Japanese Alliance on Foreign Relationship', F. O. 28 February 1920.
33 Imperial Meetings 1921, 8th meeting, 28 June 1921, Vol. I, pp. 11–12.
34 ibid., 10th meeting, 29 June 1921, Vol. I, pp. 13–14.
35 ibid., p. 14–15.
36 Speech in House of Representatives on his return from the Conference, NZPD CXCI, (31 October 1921), 497.
37 Report of the New Zealand representative on the British Empire's delegation, Sir John Salmond, 24 July 1922, AJHR 1922, A-5, p. 11.
38 Naval Secretary to Cabinet Secretary, 18 May 1923, said he ‘understood’ Massey was going to ask Parliament for £100,000. NA 10/2 in National Archives. Massey's financial statement, NZPD, CC (3 July 1923), 599.
39 NZPD, CC (5 July 1923), 728–729. While he was dealing with the effects of the Washington Conference Massey said: ‘… while I think of it, and in case I should forget later on, let me say a word or two about the proposed naval base at Singapore’.
40 Imperial Conference, 1923, 9th Meeting, 17 October 1923, p. 10.
41 ibid., p. 12.
42 Imperial Conference, 1923, 8th meeting, 15 October 1923, p. 18.
43 Imperial Conference, 1923, 11th meeting, 22 October 1923, p. 8.
44 The appropriation bill, No. 45 of 1923, provided the authority that the £100,000 gift should be in force till 21 March 1935, but when the £1 m. offer was made in 1927 the Dominions Office minute outlining empire gifts referred to Massey's contribution as ‘cancelled’. DO 35/24, p. 471, PRO, London.
45 Secretary of State for Colonies to Governor General NZ, (Cable) 6 March 1924, PM 455/7/1 Part I.
46 Jellicoe to Massey (private), 7 March 1924, ibid.
47 Gov. Gen. to P.M. (telegram), 9 March 1924, ibid.
48 ibid. Gov. Gen. N Z to Secretary of State for Colonies (telegram), 11 March 1924. Published in British Parliamentary Papers, 1924, Cmd. 2083, ‘The Singapore Base’.
49 Discussed in Mclntyre, ‘Strategic Significance of Singapore’, 78–79.
50 Secretary of State for Colonies for Gov. Gen. NZ, 4 December 1924, PM 455/7/1 Part I.
51 Memorandum by Bell, 6 December 1924, ibid.
52 PM to Officer Administering Govt., 8 December 1924, ibid.
53 Memorandum on Policy of the Naval Board, 21 December 1925, PM 87/2/1 Part I.
54 Statement by Coates in House of Representatives, NZPD, CCXI (1 September 1926), 129.
55 Coates's questions for 1926 Conference, PM 87/2/1 Part I.
56 Imperial Conference, 1926, 9th Meeting, 26 October 1926, pp. 9–10.
57 Notes on Conference between Admiral Field, Admiral Hotham and Mr. Thomson, 29 October 1926, PM 87/2/1 Part I.
58 Hotham's submissions to Prime Minister, ibid.
59 Coates's notes, ibid.
60 Imperial Conference, 1926, 12th Meeting, 15 November 1926, p. 17.
61 Coates to Churchill (copy), 15 December 1926, PM 455/7/1 Part I.
62 Churchill to Coates, 13 December 1926, ibid.
6 3 Minutes of Naval Board meeting, 21 April 1927, NA 10/2 National Archives, Wellington.
64 Memorandum for Gov. Gen., 22 April 1927, and Gov. Gen. N.Z. to Secretary of State for Dominions Affairs (cable), 22 April, PM 455/7/1 Part I; A.J.H.R., 1927, A–7.
65 Treasury to Dominions Office, 22 April 1927, DO 35/24 p. 465.
66 The Press, Christchurch, 26 April 1927, p. 13.
67 ibid., p. 12.
68 The Lyttelton Times, 2 June 1927, p. 8.
69 The Evening Post, Wellington, 18 July 1927Google Scholar.
70 N.Z.P.D., CCXIV (1927), 258.
71 ibid., 259–264.
72 ibid., 275.
73 ibid., 284.
74 ibid., 286.
75 Imperial Conference, 1926, 12th meeting, 15 November 1926, pp. 15–16.
76 Parr to Coates (Cable), 25 November 1927; Coates to Parr, 2 December 1927. PM 455 7 I Part II.
77 Parr to Coates, 13 July 1928, Confidential, -ibid.
78 See Mclntyre, ‘Strategic Significance of Singapore', 80–81.
79 Memorandum by Ward for Gov. Gen., 15 July 1929; Parr to P.M., 25 July 1929, PM 455/7/1 Part II.
80 Memorandum by Ward for Gov. Gen., 9 August 1929, ibid.
81 Thomas Wilford (for PM) to Gov. Gen., 13 November 1929, PM 455/7/1 Part III.
82 Wilford (for PM) to Gov. Gen., 14 November 1929, ibid.
83 Parr to Wilford (Cable), 19 November 1929, ibid.
84 UP report from London, 13 November, in The Evening Post, 14 November 1929.
85 The New Zealand Herald, 22 November 1929.
86 New Zealand Worker, 2 July 1930.
87 Memorandum on Effect of the London Naval Treaty on N.Z. Naval Policy, 8 August 1930, PM 455/7/1 Part III.
88 Minutes of the Imp. Conf. Committee on the Singapore Base, 16 October 1930, ibid.
89 Memorandum by Keith Officer, 30 November 1932, summarising COS Annual Review of Defence Policy, 23 February 1932. C ID Papers, 1920s, File S/7, Dept. of External Affairs, Canberra.
90 Prime Ministers Meetings, 1935, 3rd meeting, 9 May, p. 3, and 4th meeting, 23 May, p. 5.
91 The Singapore Free Press produced a valuable ‘Singapore Naval Base Supplement’, 14 February 1938.
92 Savage to Gov. Gen., 7 January 1938, PM 455/7/1 Part III.
93 Review of Chiefs of Staff Sub-Committee of New Zealand Committee of Imperial Defence, March 1935, PM 81/4/3 Part I.
94 Austen Chamberlain to 193rd meeting of CID, 5 January 1925, CAB 5/4/293, p. 2.
95 Annual Review of Defence Policy, by the COS, 29 April 1935, PM 153/16/1 Part I p. 6.
96 Walter Nash had, in 1919, tried to persuade the party that ‘an unarmed nation would be an impregnable nation’, The Maoriland Worker, 6 August 1919.
97 W. L. H. Sinclair-Burgess to Min. of Defence, 15 December 1936. PM 153/18/1 Part I. See also Wood, F. L. W., The New Zealand People at War, Political and External Affairs, Wellington, 1958, pp. 66–67Google Scholar.
98 Imperial Conference, 1937, Review of Imperial Defence by Chiefs of Staff sub-committee of CID, as amended 25 February 1937. Quotations from paras. 17(i), 14, 79, 80 and 81. See also Kirby, S. W., The War Against Japan, I, The Loss of Singapore, London, 1957, p. 17Google Scholar, and Wigmore, L., The Japanese Thrust, Canberra, 1957, pp. 6–7Google Scholar.
99 Wood, The People at War, pp. 63–68, 72–78, 191–214: Gordon, B. K., New Zealand Becomes a Pacific Power, Chicago, 1960, pp. 77–79Google Scholar, 109–114.
100 Imperial Conference, 1937, 6th meeting of principal delegates, 25 May 1937, p. 4.
101 ibid., 7th meeting of principal delegates, 26 May 1937, p. 9.
102 Gov. Gen's cable, 24 December 1938, PM 86/27/1 Part I.
103 ‘Imperial Defence with Special Reference to New Zealand', 4 April 1939. Comments by COS on UK COS Paper of 1 February 1939, PM 81/4/3 Part I.
104 Notes of Proceedings of first day of meeting of Committee on Strategy, 14 April 1939, PM 86/27/7 Part 1. Verbatim report 86/27/10 Part 1.
105 Report of Pacific Defence Conference, Wellington, 25 April 1939, para. 2, AD 12/22, National Archives, Wellington.
106 Minutes of 355th Meeting of CID, 2 May 1939, CAB 2/8/302, pp. 207–208.
107 DMV (39) 3, Australian Naval Defence, by W. S. Churchill, 17 November 1939, PM 153/17/3 Part I.
108 Prime Ministers Meetings, 1939, 8th meeting, 20 November 1939, PM 153/17/2 Part I.
109 DMV (39) 4, ‘Australian and New Zealand Naval Defence’, 21 November approved by Cabinet 23 November, PM 153/17/3 Part I. See also Butler, J. R. M., History of the Second World War. Grand Strategy, II, London, 1957, pp. 323–326Google Scholar.
110 Secretary of State for Dominions Affairs to UK High Commissioner, Wellington, 13 June 1940, Documents Relating to New Zealand's Participation in the Second World War, 1939–45, III, Wellington, 1963, p. 206.
111 Gov. Gen. NZ to Secretary of State for Dominions Affairs, 15 June 1940, ibid., p. 207. See also Wood, People at War, p. 194.
112 Secretary of State for Dominions Affairs to Gov. Gen. NZ, 28 June 1940, PM 455/7/1 Part III.
113 Documents, III, pp. 18–19. See also Churchill, W. S., Second World War, II, London 1949, p. 386Google Scholar, with slightly different wording, and Butler, Grand Strategy, II, pp. 209–217, 331–334, for the background of this assurance.