THE SINGAPORE BASE
[To the Editor of the SPECTATOR.]
SIR,—Your article on Singapore Base and subsequent letters of comment have but recently reached me in this distant spot. In any case Singapore Base seems of perennial interest.
Your contention that the construction and protection of Singapore Naval Base should be treated as an Imperial matter, and not as one of concern only to Britain or some one of the Dominions, seems very sound. But should not the Imperial aspect of the matter be carried further ? For instance, does not the provision of a great naval base at Singapore imply also the provision in due course of a sufficient naval force of " capital " ships in Far Eastern waters, both to use and protect the Base in the event of war ? And so, if an Imperial understanding or agreement is needed in respect of the con- struction of the Base, is not a similar understanding needed for the definite provision of the necessary " capital " ships, &c., of the Empire to be based upon it when the Base is ready to function, as well as the necessary land and air forces required to perfect its defence ?
If such naval forces, &c., are forthcoming, one need not
have any difficulty in subscribing to the views of your corres- pondents, Admiral Ballard and Admiral Sir Lewis Bayly, that only quite moderate land and air forces will suffice for the pro- tection of Singapore Base in addition to its naval guardians. If, however, such a naval force is not, at all material times, based on Singapore, but is held, as at present, thousands of miles away in the Mediterranean, then it is difficult to see how the Base can be defended for the necessary length of time against hostile attack unless its land and air defence forces are upon a much larger scale than would be enough to deal with small raids.
Your suggestion that the Far Eastern Naval Base could be made secure more easily if sited in S.E. Australia—e.g., near Sydney—does not really solve the problem, for a fleet based on Singapore covers certain vital Imperial communications, which would not be covered effectively, if at all, by a fleet based on Sydney. Moreover, Sydney, to the knowledge of the writer, has never been favoured with such defences and defence forces as to justify your term " impregnable " being
applied to it as a naval base.—I am, Sir, &c., G. R. C. Moss Vale, N.S.W., Australia.
Previous page
