BURMA (FAILURE OF CONSTITUTIONAL MACHINERY) (Hansard, 18 April 1944)

§ The Secretary of State for Burma (Mr. Amery)
I beg to move, That this House approves the continuance in force of the Proclamation issued under Section 139 of the Government of Burma Act, 1935, by the Governor of Burma on 10th December, 1942, a copy of which was presented On 9th February, 1943. I think that this Motion cannot possibly arouse any controversy, because it arises from the sheer necessity of the fact that the Government of Burma has to be carried on outside Burma in the main, owing to Japanese occupation, and that, therefore, neither a Parliament nor a Ministry responsible to Parliament is able to function.

§ Mr. G. Nicholson
I am going to ask my right hon. Friend whether he will not postpone this Motion. I understand that the other Motions have to be got by 30th April, but that this Motion need not be got until 9th June. I ask him either to postpone the Motion, or to promise that during the course of this summer there will be an opportunity for a short Debate, at any rate, on Burma. I do so for several reasons. It is a thousand pities that Burma is always hung on to Indian affairs, as a sort of appendix of India. My right hon. Friend has spoken as Secretary of State for Burma: that is an entirely separate function. I think that Burma deserves a Debate to itself. We shall have to show Burma that we take Burmese matters into serious consideration. Burma deserves serious consideration for its own sake, and it also deserves serious consideration as being typical of a wide range of countries in South-East Asia and Indonesia which have been overrun by the Japanese. The problems which will face Burma after the war will be similar to the problems which will face the British Empire in many fields. I will not labour the point, but I think it is abundantly clear that Burma deserves a separate Debate. At the moment, it may be inconvenient to have a separate Debate; but I suggest that this Motion should be put off for some weeks, and that then we might have a Debate, devoted to Burma, for two or three hours at the end of a day, or that, alternatively, we should be promised a short Debate on the subject in June or July.

§ Mr. Sorensen
Certainly I welcome this indication of a change of content between 168 the two Proclamations, but I hope that, if there is to be a short Debate on Burma, it will not be carved out of a Debate on India.

§ Mr. G. Nicholson
That was just my point.

§ Mr. Sorensen
In that case, I will certainly endorse what the hon. Member has said. There does not seem to be the same objection to this Motion as to the others, since there is a difference in the circumstances. Although we are still there in India and the Provincial Ministries are not operating, the position in Burma is that we are not there at all. Therefore, there is a difference between the two sets of circumstances; and, for that reason, I support the request of the hon. Member for Farnham (Mr. Nicholson) that, through the usual channels, a separate Debate on Burma might be arranged at an early date.

§ Mr. Amery
I entirely agree with my hon. Friend that the subject of Burma deserves more attention in this House than it has received, and that, together with the whole of South-East Asia, Burma becomes of ever-increasing importance as the war advances. I think that there would be difficulties about postponing this particular Motion, in view of the tremendous congestion of Business before Whitsuntide. So far as a desire for, at any rate, part of a day for a Debate on Burma is concerned, I am not in a position, of course, to give a promise, but if a sufficient number of Members made representations, my good will would certainly be associated with their request.

§ Mr. G. Nicholson
I would like to thank my right hon. Friend. I shall be quite content if I have staked out a claim for, at any rate, a short Debate on Burma, as a separate matter.