BURMA (FAILURE OF CONSTITUTIONAL MACHINERY)

HC Deb 05 April 1946 vol 421 cc1529-83

11.57 a.m.

The Under-Secretary of State for Burma (Mr. Arthur Henderson)

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, I935, by the Governor of Burma on 10th December, 1942, a copy of which Proclamation was presented on 9th February, 1943 As the House is aware, Section 139 of the Government of Burma Act empowers the Governor, if he is satisfied that a situation has arisen in which it is not possible, to carry on the government of Burma, to issue a proclamation, firstly, declaring that all of his functions may be exercised by him in his discretion, and, secondly, assuming to himself all or any of the powers exercisable by or vested in any authority or body in Burma. The Section also provides that any such proclamation is to have a maximum life of only three years. Such a proclamation was, in fact, issued by the Governor in December, 1942, and was therefore due to expire in December, 1945. Subsequently, Parliament passed the Government of Burma (Temporary Provisions) Act, 1945, extending the life of this proclamation for a further three years, that is, until December, 1948. The passing of this Act did not, however, affect the requirement or the stipulation that is contained in Section 139 of the 1935 Act that any such proclamation requires renewal by Parliament, first, after the expiration of six months from the issuing of the proclamation, and thereafter at intervals of a year. The proclamation therefore expires, unless renewed by Resolutions of both Houses, on 9th June.

The second proclamation under consideration is that issued by the Governor on 17th October last, the day after he returned to Rangoon. This proclamation provides for the constitution of an Executive Council of not more than 15 members and a Legislative Counci. of not more than 50 members. Both these councils have, in fact, been established. Under Section 139 of the 1935 Act, to which I have just referred, the second proclamation will expire on 16th April, unless renewed by Resolution of both Houses. If so renewed, it will then continue in force for a further year.

In asking the House to approve the further continuance of both these proclamations, I should like to take the opportunity to survey the general situation in Burma, both political and economic. As the House knows, it is the declared policy of His Majesty's Government to promote full self-government 'n Burma. If I may quote from the White Paper: It is and has consistently been our aim to assist her political development until she can sustain the responsibilities of complete self-government within the British Commonwealth, and consequently attain a status equal to that of the Dominions and of this country. There may, perhaps, be said to be two phases of this development towards the goal set out in the White Paper. The first phase is the holding of a general election as soon as possible and the establishment of a ministerial Government. Unfortunately, it has not been found possible to proceed upon the basis of the prewar franchise, which was established by the provisions of the 1935 Act. The main basis of this franchise was the payment of the Thathameda Household Tax in North Burma, and the payment of what is called the Capitation Tax in Southern Burma. Both of these taxes were abolished in 1941. Assessment to these taxes was, in fact, the criterion for enfranchisement for a great proportion of the then electorate.

Shortly after the Governor returned to Burma, he appointed a franchise committee of three members of his Executive Council and one non-official, to whom he referred the question of the basis of the new franchise. This sub-committee reported in February, but in order to ensure that Burmese public opinion was given the fullest possible opportunity available in the circumstances of expressing itself on this question, the Governor then referred the matter for consideration by the Legislative Council. On 19th March, the Legislative Council adopted a recommendation that the basis should be universal suffrage for both sexes at 21, with the exception of Buddhist monks and nuns who were apparently to be disqualified from voting. These recommendations are now being urgently considered by the Governor and I am expecting to receive his formal proposals at a very early date.

When these proposals have been received and considered by His Majesty's Government, a Bill amending the 1935 Act will be introduced into this House and everything possible will be done to ensure that the Bill becomes law during the present session. The House will, of course, appreciate that none of the preparations of the new electoral rolls can be put in hand until the Bill has, in fact, been passed by Parliament. Moreover, the actual preparation of the rolls may take a good many months, especially in view of the present conditions in Burma and the greatly increased electorate. It is estimated that, whereas the electorate was approximately 3,000,000 before the war, under the new proposals it will amount to something like 7,000,000 persons. It is, however, the firm intention of His Majesty's Government and of the Governor that the preparation of these rolls, as soon as the Bill has been passed, shall be pressed on with all possible speed. If all goes well, it is hoped that a Legislature will have been elected and a Ministry formed before June of next year. I should not like this to be taken as a firm guarantee, but it is certainly our hope and expectation.

Following the election, and the establishment of a ministerial Government, the second phase in the constitutional development will begin, during which the ground will be prepared for the attainment of full self-government. It is the intention of His Majesty's Government that the representatives of the Burmese people, after reaching a sufficient measure of agreement between the various parties and sections, should themselves draw up a constitution of a type which they themselves consider most suitable for Burma. What the machinery for this would be, will be a matter of discussion and agreement with representative Burmans. A similar process would be necessary for a discussion of the content of the agreements to be made with His Majesty's Government on matters on which the latter would have continuing obligations after the estab- lishment of full self-government in Burma.

There is certainly no difference between the Burmese people and ourselves on the question of full self-government for their country with a status equal to that enjoyed by our own country. I desire to make it plain that His Majesty's Government regard the setting up of a constitution-making body as a matter of the greatest urgency. But, of course, such a body cannot be set up until after the holding of the general election and the formation of the ministerial Government next year. Burma has, however, been twice fought over and suffered great material destruction. During the transition towards complete self-government, she will be passing through a difficult time. No greater disservice could be done to a future Burmese Government, and to the cause of democracy than to permit anything which would hamper the rebuilding of the country His Majesty's Government, therefore, through the Governor, cannot divest themselves of the responsibility which rests upon them of preserving law and order and of resisting any attempt to resolve the constitutional issue by force. The realisation of full self-government must come by the orderly and peaceful transfer of control of the machinery of state to purely Burman authority, and His Majesty's Government will not tolerate any attempt to call the future Constitution of Burma into being by force or threat by force.

As I have just indicated, Burma has been twice fought over and suffered considerable material destruction. Rangoon has been badly damaged as have many other centres of population; some of them have, indeed, been entirely destroyed. Rail and road communications have suffered severely and there is a dearth of sufficient rivercraft, a matter of considerable importance in Southern Burma. Serious problems of accommodation exist, especially in Rangoon. Scarcities exist in many classes of essential goods, for example, clothing, footwear, and cooking ware. There has consequently been a marked rise in prices, but following increased supplies there has been a steep fall in prices recently. During the brief period of military administration, the civil affairs service did much to improve communications and to get the port of Rangoon going again, but the main burden of reconstruction has necessarily to be borne by the civil government, which, it must be remembered, returned only just over five months ago. I should like to take this opportunity of stating that His Majesty's Government are following closely, and with admiration, the way in which the civil servants in Burma, both Burman and European, are meeting the challenge presented by the need to restore the administration of the devastated country, in spite of circumstances of great difficulty and personal discomfort. I should like to pay special tribute to the police force, which is having a very difficult time at present. It is no use trying to underrate the existence of a considerable degree of insecurity, especially outside the towns. There has been considerable dacoity, and the police forces have had to be built up almost from the beginning during a period of just over five months. Although steps are being taken to recruit both Burmans and Europeans to the police force, and also to transfer Army officers temporarily for police duties, there is no doubt that they are strained at the moment and have carried out their duties with great devotion.

The main preoccupation has been to get the vital agricultural industry started again. and, next to that, the timber industry. This has involved measures being put in hand for the improvement of transport. In addition to the transport which is being handed over by the military, large quantities of mechanical transport are being secured from the United Kingdom. Orders have also been placed for railway rolling stock, substantial quantities of which should be shipped from India beginning this month. Substantial progress has, therefore, been made, although much still remains to be done.

Rice cultivation during the Japanese occupation had fallen from 13,000,000 acres to between 6,000,000 and 7,000,000 acres. Rice is the premier industry in Burma and, therefore, of vital importance to her economy. Steps are being taken to concert measures to restore the full production of rice, and although this will obviously take time, it is hoped to increase the acreage this year by a further 2,000,000. Provision is to be made for adequate transport to move stocks and machinery in order to process them. Over £1,000,000 has been provided for repayable loans to cultivators during the present sowing season. An acreage subsidy of close on £2,000,000 has been approved with the object of encouraging the cultivators to cultivate land which is now lying fallow.

One of the great difficulties which confronted the authorities in Burma is the question of consumer goods. It is obvious that the greatest encouragement that can be given to the cultivator to extend his cultivation will be an increasing supply of consumer goods, of which perhaps cotton textiles form the most important element. A considerable amount of consumer goods, including a good many million yards of cloth, have already been got into the country, and now that it has been possible to remove very largely the restrictions on imports, we can look forward to a rapidly increasing flow of such goods, although I am afraid they may not be as plentiful as we would like them to be by the beginning of the next cultivating season in May.

We recovered Burma, not as a going concern, but as a bankrupt country, and although we may confidently hope that there will from now on be a steady growth of revenue, a restoration of the former prosperous financial conditions must inevitably take time. In addition to the necessary recurring expenditure, there is also a very heavy capital expenditure on the reconstruction of communications, buildings, and so on. In order to meet this very heavy capital expenditure which must be incurred on the rehabilitation of the country, and to meet the deficits in the recurring expenditure, which must be anticipated at least in the first two years, His Majesty's Government have agreed to finance programmes approved by the Treasury by way of an interest-free loan for the two years 1945–6 and 1946–7 up to a possible total of about £80 million with no fixed date of repayment, and the sum of £30 million is being provided in the estimates for the present financial year. It is hoped that a considerable part of the money so advanced will be recoverable by the sale of consumer goods to the public and by the transfer at a valuation to the various public utilities and industries of the assets which have been acquired through the loan. I think it can be claimed that considerable progress is being made in the rehabilitation of Burma's economy. But undoubtedly much remains to be done. The people of Burma themselves have a vital part to play in the reconstruction of their country and it is the desire of His Majesty's Government to afford them every possible assistance in this great task.

12.16 p.m.

Mr. R. A. Butler (Saffron Walden)

I am sure that we on this side of the House welcome an opportunity for having a short discussion on Burma. There is no part of the Commonwealth which has been more trampled by a brutal enemy than has Burma, trampled backwards and forwards, and we quite understand the reasons which have promoted the Government in making a request today, which we readily grant, for a little more time before Burma can proceed along that path on which we are all agreed she should eventually progress. I feel confident that the House will be grateful to the hon. and learned Member for his clear exposition of the present position in Burma. I will first follow him in what he has said about conditions in Burma, and then follow him shortly about what he has said regarding political development. We feel confident that the resilience of the Burmese character will enable the Burmans to rise above their present misfortunes. The Burmese character may be described in the one word "gay." I know from experience how much one has enjoyed visits to Burma and participated in the brilliance and gaiety of the life in Burma. It is a sad thing that so green and pleasant a land should have been submitted to such terrible ravages, but we are convinced that the Burmese character, which has shown itself responsible in operating the reforms initiated by the 1935 Act, will rise above the terrible conditions which prevail at the present time.

I would like to support what the hon. and learned Gentleman has said about the services rendered by the various services in Burma. I refer to the services, both European and Burmese, since the services, as described in the White Paper, have to a large extent been Burmanised. I refer particularly to the police who, as the hon. and learned Gentleman has said, have had an exceptionally difficult task. It was the case, I think, that no less than 40,000 modern firearms were left behind after the Japanese occupation. This would have been a difficult problem in any country, but particularly in Burma. I understand that large bands of dacoits were formed, and have been enjoying the use of those weapons which had been left behind. Now, thanks to rigorous administration, some 30,000 arms have been recovered, and most of the dacoit gangs have been dispersed. If the hon. and learned Gentleman can give us more information in the course of this Debate, I hope he will confirm or deny these observations. It is of the utmost importance that the whole of the available firearms should be collected, and law and order, with the aid of the police, restored as soon as possible.

The services themselves have had a gruelling time. I remember meeting a man who is at present Chief Secretary, who had walked over the frontier, at a critical time in Burmese history, with British arms, which were at that time being rolled back. I am glad to think that he and his colleagues, and many others, too, have returned to the land they love. I have always found that those who have once served Burma feel that they must go back. That is the case with many of us who have visited Burma, because it is a land which anyone who has been to it must always love. The conditions in Burma were truly described by the hon. and learned Gentleman. I cannot add very much, nor would it be my place to do so. If he is saying anything further, I should like to hear more about the rice crop. I understand that the rice crop is not now in a position even to meet the needs of the country. It is when we consider the recent Debates on food, and the anxieties we all feel, that we should like to know more about the necessary labour which will be required for the rice crop. Will it be the case in future, for example, that the Burmese themselves will be able to sow the crop, and will depend on outside labour, as they have done for so many years, only for the actual harvesting of the crop. If so, that would mean a reduced demand upon the labour which has, through the years, come from India for the purpose of working in the paddy fields.

On the question of transport, I am informed that there were nearly 250 main line locomotives before the war and that these have been reduced to something like 5o. That must have a devastating effect on the transport system. I understand that only one-third of the wagon stock and practically all the carriage stock which formerly existed on the railways, has been destroyed. The hon. and learned Gentleman referred to the inland steamers. Many of these were sunk in a patriotic manner by their owners when the Japanese menace became a reality. As Burma depends so much on inland methods of water transport, I trust that steps are being taken to try to repair the ravages created, partly by the patriotism of those who owned the vessels and partly by the results of the war. It appears to us who have studied this matter that those who have been responsible for the administration have set about the measures of reconstruction with great ability. Some 800 miles of line were open by last December, and the remaining 1,200 miles may be opened we understand, quite shortly. I understand that a road transport agency has been set up, and that the Government have done their best to get transport going again.

The hon. and learned Gentleman very rightly referred to the great shortage of consumer goods. Burma is probably as short of commodities as any country in the world at the present time. He also referred to the generous offer made by His Majesty's Government of an interest-free loan which is to be repaid in due course, but without a date being given. In the face of this condition, the generalisation with which I can sum up my observations is that anything the Government say about the date for political development must be accepted, in view of the serious conditions which prevail in the country. Those concerned, whether Bur-mans or Europeans, must above all not be academic but practical. The second lesson I would draw from this sombre picture is that we are "all in" together.

" All-in "insurance is a popular phrase at the present time, and in Burma British companies, the British Government, the administrators there and the Burmans themselves, are certainly all in together.

There is a disposition in Burma, where the arts of democracy appear to flourish almost as much as the green verdure of their land, to hurry ahead before the practical task of reconstruction has been fully carried out. There is also a desire among responsible Burmans to take a greater part in the economic life of their country than they have done hitherto. The White Paper uses very definite language on the subject of the part the Burmans have hitherto played in the economic life of their country, and paragraph10 says: A striking feature of Burma's economic life was the small part taken by the Burmese themselves in industries other than agriculture. Indians had a great financial stake in the country, followed by the British; and Indians provided the bulk of the manual labour in industry. Then it goes on to describe the various predominating operations of capital; for example, that provided for industry and the extraction of timber by British capital and British firms, while the Chinese only amounted to small traders. The White Paper, very rightly, goes on to remind us that the fact that Burmans participated to only a very limited extent in these matters was a source of dissatisfaction to politically-minded Burmans. They were also worried about the problems of Indian and Chinese immigration.

I would certainly echo the sentiments of the White Paper. It has been a remarkable fact how little, so far, the Bur-mans have taken part in the economic development of their own country, and I feel sure that they will agree that an all-in policy is essential at the present time and that it should give them the experience necessary to enable them to help, and that they should, at the same time, if Great Britain is really to be of assistance to them, recognise that British capital and British endeavour have still a part to play in restoring their country. If both sides realise these facts, I would anticipate that it should be possible for the hitherto latent talent of the Burmans in economic matters to be developed and for it to take a proper part in the industry and commerce of their own country. If that were to happen, their development would have an important bearing not only upon the Burmans, but on the whole country as well.

I have not many questions to ask the hon. and learned Gentleman about the present situation in regard to British companies. I understand that there is a great deal of control in Burma, which is no doubt agreeable to right hon. and hon. Gentlemen on the other side of the House and is understandable on this side. Without the control of imports and the carrying of them into the hinterland, it would be impossible, with the breakdown of the present economic position, to restore the country, but we hope that, in due course, these controls will be relaxed and opportunities given to these companies to play their part, and that those other institutions which have helped Burma in the past will have the opportunity to help her again. I also hope that an opportunity will be given to associate Burmans themselves in the economic development of their country.

Before I come to the question of political development, I want to say a word on education. I understand that a plan has been worked out, which must depend, of course, for its strength and validity upon the ultimate responsible Government of Burma, for the development of the education services. I think there is nothing more important than the adult franchise, which operates well in this country and in any country where the education services are good, and I feel that when the full effects of the new Education Act are felt in this country, a very different result will occur in our political life. I hope the hon. and learned Gentleman will give every encouragement to any initiative which might be taken in regard to education in Burma. I should also like to ask, as members of my family have been associated with it, about the future of the university. I hope it has been started again, despite all the difficulties. Rangoon has been very proud of its university, just as she has always been proud of her harbour and port, and the Burmans no doubt wish to see their university again playing a useful part in the development of the country.

On the subject of political development, we on this side of the House, adhere also to that paragraph in the White Paper which the hon. and learned Gentleman has quoted—the statement of policy on page 9. The sincerity of the intentions of all of us in this country towards Burma is quite patent, and the question, therefore, resolves itself into a question of a timetable. The timetable, in his case. must be governed by the serious economic considerations to which the hon. and learned Gentleman referred, and, therefore, I think it would be legitimate to accept the timetable which the Government have set out. The Government declare that, before June, 1947, they hope that the first steps will have been taken to set up a Legislative Council as a result of the first election, and hope to have completed the election before that date. I accept that, and I realise the difficulties that stand in the way, but I would urge the Government, if that be the case, to hurry on with the small Bill which is necessary to amend the franchise provisions. I know from experience on the Indian Franchise Committee which I had some years ago, that it takes time to prepare the rolls, in India or anywhere else, and not only to prepare the rolls, but, in Burma and many other countries, where tempers are apt to rise at election times, it is necessary to prepare all the necessary security measures and a necessary cadre of officials to make the arrangements work. There are great problems concerning the franchise and the age-level of the franchise, and we want the elections in Burma to be conducted in an orderly manner, and this can be achieved only by creating democratic arrangements and a cadre of officials to see that those arrangements operate in time. Even if we have to introduce a small Bill, I press the hon. and learned Gentleman to go forward with that Bill, and, if necessary, take it on the Floor of the House in order to get it through quickly.

The hon. and learned Gentleman referred to the position of the Legislative Council and the introduction of the franchise for 7,000,000 people. That is an even greater rise than we had, and it includes the "flapper" vote. I think the "flapper" vote is absolutely right in Burma, because women take a very great part, not only in domestic life, but in the trading life of the country. Have we not seen Burmese women taking charge of the shop on which the whole family depends, often smoking those large cheroots which I was given when I was there, and taking part in the public life of the country, and do we not agree that they should have as clear a right to the vote as men? When we come to a decision about adult franchise, there is a difficulty owing to the difference between Northern Burma and the central part of the country, and, from my own knowledge of these matters—and it is a subject on which I know something —I do not think there is any further plane on which to place the level but adult franchise, and, provided educational facilities are increased and every step is taken to make the elections work, I can see that there is a strong case for starting at the adult level.

The only other matters to which I want to refer in the political sphere are the position of Burma in future and the position of the scheduled areas—the hill States or frontier States. With regard to the future, I think we must leave the question of what Burma decides to do in the future to a later date, when we have got through the first election setting up the Council and constituent body. There has been full provision laid down for the time when the Burmans decide what sort of a Constitution they want, and we really cannot prejudge that decision at the present stage. When we come to the question of the frontier States. I think we cannot do better than agree with the last words of the White Paper, which run as follow: '' The administration of the scheduled areas, … inhabited by peoples differing in language, social customs and degree of political development from the Burmans inhabiting the central areas, would for the time being be subject to a special regime under the Governor until such time as their inhabitants signify their desire for some suitable form of amalgamation of their territories with Burma proper. We would support that, and I trust that is the Government's view, too. Many of these people are of a different race from the Burmans, and they deserve every consideration. The resistance movement is particularly strong, and I think we should adhere to the policy laid down in the White Paper for the frontier States. Therefore, I hope that the hon. and learned Gentleman, if he has anything more to say, will confirm that that is the Government's intention.

I think I have covered as many aspects as were covered by the hon, and learned Gentleman, and, perhaps one or two more. I should like to conclude by thanking him for his remarks and to say that we approve, in general, the line the Government are taking and that, while we agree to leave to a later date what he refered to as the Government's obligation and the ultimate Constitution, we would ask the Government to accelerate the procedure whereby the elections can take place. I will sum up by quoting a passage chosen by myself from the Burmese Press, which, I think, should be our attitude: The period before self-government can be as short as we like to make it "— that is, the Burmese people: That is the startling thought which puts onus on the shoulders of the Burmese leaders, both inside and outside the Executive Council. Let us help the Burmese leaders and the Burmese people in their march forward after the very difficult time through which they have passed.

12.38 p.m.

Mr. Driberg (Maldon)

It is obviously necessary, for the reasons which have been given, that we should today approve the continuation of the proclamations. I hope, however, that this Debate has shown, and will show, to Burma, as well as to people in this country who are interested in Burma, that the problems, economic and political, of Burma are at last being treated with that sense of imaginative urgency which I feel is absolutely necessary. The hon. Member for Farnham (Mr. Nicholson), who is one of the all too few Members of this House who take an interest in Burma, has recently been to India and, if I may say so with real respect, some of us have watched with interest and admiration the observations he has made since his return. I believe that that is the sort of new vision which we require, on both sides of the House, in looking a little further East than India—to this smaller and most attractive country of Burma.

I agree with much that the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Saffron Walden (Mr. R. A. Butler) said about the situation there and, in particular, I would like to support his plea to my hon. and learned Friend for the speeding up of the necessary legislation in this House for the alteration of the franchise of Burma. This would obviously be a non-controversial matter. All that my hon. and learned Friend could say about it was that he hoped it would be introduced in this House this Session. I do not see why it should take longer than half an hour to get the whole Measure through the House. It will be agreed to readily by both sides. I should like to ask my hon. and learned Friend to think again and see if we can have it before Whitsun, because that might, as the right hon. Gentleman says, make a considerable difference in the preparation of the arrangements for the general election in Burma. It is a great advance on previous statements from the front bench that we have, at last, something like a fixed date for the general election, a terminus ad quem. My tendency would be to ask my hon. and learned Friend to do all he can to speed it up even more. After all, although conditions are extremely difficult in Burma, I do not think they are much more difficult than in Greece, where an election has just been held in conditions more or less satisfactory to the Foreign Secretary. I hope my hon. and learned Friend will do all he can to speed up both the general election and the preliminary legislation in this House.

One point on which I rather disagreed with the right hon. Gentleman was his apparent dismissal of politics as being "academic" and not really related to the present urgent economic difficulties in Burma. Of course, we all agree that the first thing to be tackled is famine, or the threat of famine, and that the economic rehabilitation of the country is absolutely essential. But, in my view, we shall not get the wholehearted cooperation of the Burmese people in that economic rehabilitation unless we also, clearly and simultaneously, march as quickly as we possibly can along the road to political freedom and independence also. The two things must go side by side and occur at the same time. We cannot simply defer political problems for consideration after we have dealt with the economic crisis.

Some proof of what I say is contained in an important and disquieting despatch, which my hon. and learned Friend will no doubt have seen in "The Times" this morning, from their correspondent in Rangoon. The despatch starts by saying: An unauthorised report in a Burmese newspaper that the question of arresting U Aung San, formerly general of the patriotic Burmese forces, was discussed recently between the Governor, Sir Reginald Dorman-Smith, and Sir Paw Tun, Home Member, has enhanced the interest taken here in the expected Debate on Burma in Parliament. Though the political situation is quiet on the surface, it is full of latent danger, owing principally to the increasing unpopularity of the Governor's Executive Council. That, surely, shows how seriously purely political considerations might repercuss on the economic problems and their solution. I hope that this Debate, at any rate, will serve to dispel the report referred to in the opening sentence of that despatch, and that my hon. and learned Friend will be able to tell us authoritatively, from the Front Bench, that there could be no question at all of the arrest of Major-General Aung San, the leader of the P.B.F., whose most cordial meetings with Admiral Mountbatten and General Slim took place in very happy circumstances last autumn at Kandy and, again, in Rangoon. It would be a most disastrous error if anything like that were contemplated at all. I hope my hon. and learned Friend will also be able to tell us something about what is really the crux of the political situation in Burma at present, although it has not been mentioned so far in this Debate—the present relations between the Governor and the Anti-Fascist People's Freedom League of which Aung San is the leader and which may be referred to, for purposes of brevity, as A.F.O. or the Anti-Fascist Organisation. As we all know, there has been in the past few month a deterioration in relations between them. There seems to be an unhappy deadlock. Are any steps being taken, constructively, to break that deadlock? Whether we like it or not, I am sure that the A.F.O. carries with it considerable support among the masses of the Burmese people, not only in Rangoon and the towns, but also upcountry.

The most interesting document that I have had from Burma recently is a letter from a British officer serving there. With the permission of the House, I propose to read two short passages from this letter, because they illustrate very vividly the present situation and atmosphere in Burma. On the particular point of which I am speaking—the political influence and backing of the A.F.O.—this British officer writes to me as follows: The political unity of A.F.O. has grown and not weakened with time. The Right Wing leader, U Mya, has organised a fair following behind him in upper Burma, but all wholeheartedly under the banner of A.F.O. I quote that to show that although A.F.O. is predominantly under Left Wing influence, it is not exclusively a Left Wing organisation. He goes on to say: The Socialist Party which, with the Communists, forms the nucleus of A.F.O., has also expanded in the cotton belt. Although there is a difference, mainly in stability, between Socialist and Communist leaders, the membership in the districts certainly does not reflect it. It is simply a case of whether the best A.F.O. leader in a district calls himself a Communist or a Socialist, and that is mainly determined by ties of personal friendship. The basis of their unity is a policy which was exported from India by P. C. Joshi, via Thein Pe—the Calcutta end of the guerrilla movement "— which did do valuable work when the Japanese were still in occupation of Burma— The policy briefly is to canalise the enthusiasm and idealism of the young guerrilla fighters into social servants, and so to prevent disillusionment in a particularly difficult period. It seems to me that this is the most important passage in the quotation: It is a policy which might work anywhere in the East today, with liberty in the glory of adolescence; it works peculiarly well in Burma, where it merges perfectly in a strong religious tradition, and is practically unemcumbered by a middle class. Personally, in spite of a few infantile failings in A.F.O., it is the only political movement which I have been able to regard with undiluted enthusiasm. The leaders, especially the local ones, are such delightfully gentle and effective people. There was some difficulty a month or two ago, as my hon. and learned Friend is aware, about the possibility of a deputation of representatives of A.F.O. coming to this country, led no doubt by Aung San and Than Tun. I would be grateful if he could tell me whether there has been an advance in that situation? As he will remember, the A.F.O. asked that its deputation should consist of something like six or seven people, but they were told they could send only two. Although, on one sense, two would be perfectly adequate, since the two would probably be Aung San and Than Tun, it seems reasonable that they should ask for half a dozen, to include one or two secretaries and typists, and also—and this, I think, will appeal to the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Saffron Walden—they wanted to include one or two representatives of the minorities, the Chins, the Kachins, and the Karens, many of whom are also inside A.F.O. Can my hon. and learned Friend say whether there has been any development in that situation?

I would like to ask him one other question on the political aspect of the situation. The latest news I have had from Burma indicates that there has been a split on the Left and that one of the Communist leaders, Thakin Soe, has broken away and formed an extremist Party of his own. If this split on the Left has been either designed or welcomed by us in the belief that it will be a clever thing to weaken the influence of the Left in this way, I most strongly dissent from that. I think that, on the contrary, it would be more comparable with the tactics of the more reactionary Dutch —I do not refer to Dr. Van Mook—in Indonesia. Our tactic should be to strengthen so far as we can the influence of the moderate and responsible leaders of A.F.O. In that connection, by way of parallel, I would cite the testimony which has come recently from Indonesia, from "The Times" and other correspondents, saying that the influence of Dr. Sjahrir and the other responsible leaders over their extremists has been greatly strengthened recently, during the course of the negotiations which now look as if they are to have, fortunately, a happy result.

On a previous occasion my hon. and learned Friend committed the Government to what was, in effect, a date for the attainment of Dominion self-government for Burma. He said that it should be attained within the lifetime of the present Parliament—that is to say, within the next four years or so. That is an additional reason for hurrying along the general election as much as possible, because, since we are committed to self-government for Burma, it is as well that the Burmese should start learning something about the actual practice of democracy. In that respect there is one important psychological point that I would like to put to my hon. and learned Friend. "The Times despatch today, to which I have already referred, ends with these words: The continuance of the present unrepresentative Executive Council and the absence of a promise in regard to the date by which a general election is to be held "— that, of course, has now been put right by my hon. and learned Friend's statement today— are undermining the confidence which a substantial section of Burmese opinion had reposed on the British promise of early Dominion status, and there are indications that Burmese political opinion is tending towards a demand for complete independence. The psychological point that I want to put to my hon. and learned Friend is this. Many of the Burmese are, in fact, beginning to be a little suspicious of what we mean by Dominion self-government and Dominion status for Burma. They are almost beginning to feel that we may be working out some kind of Dominion status special to Burma, and less than that enjoyed by, say, Canada or Eire. One of the reasons for this suspicion, which I deplore and deprecate, and which I hope my hon. and learned Friend will do his best to dispel, is that repeatedly in official documents and proclamations—in the White Paper, for instance, or in the speech made by the Governor on his return to Rangoon—the phrase "Self-government for Burma within the British Commonwealth," is used. That phrase is constantly repeated. Of course, we all hope in the interests of Burma as well as in the interests of this country, that Burma will elect to remain within the British Commonwealth of Nations when she has Dominion status; but the more we seem to insist or suggest that membership of the British Commonwealth should be a condition of the granting of Dominion status, the more we provoke the extremists who are urging a complete breakaway. Dominion status is not Dominion status at all unless it includes the right to contract out of the British Empire altogether, and that should he known as clearly in Rangoon as it is in Westminster. I would like to pay tribute to the very wise words spoken by the Foreign Secretary in several recent Debates on foreign affairs, on the whole problem of the handling by ourselves, and by advanced Western countries generally, of these various countries in South East Asia, with the quite irrepressible upsurge of nationalist feeling which is now going on all over that part of the world.

Before I conclude, I would like to say a little about the economic aspects of the situation. I agree with the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Saffron Walden that much has already been done since last autumn for the economic rehabilitation of the country. I have met a number of the senior officers of C.A.S. (B.)—Civil Affairs Services (Burma)—which has been largely responsible for that economic rehabilitation. I must say that I have a high regard for the obvious integrity and efficiency of those whom I met. None the less, there is yet another disturbing sentence in this despatch in today's "Times ": Burmese public opinion, as ascertainable from the Press and from conversations with leading personalities,—accuses the British Government of setting up a puppet Burmese Government to facilitate the re-establishment of British commercial and economic domination over the country. That is a very serious charge indeed. I agree with the right hon. Gentleman that these Burmese themselves must be encouraged to play a full part in the economic recovery of their own country. At the moment it is a little difficult to see how this is to be brought about, because the main bare fact of the economic situation appears to be that Steele Bros. are moving in. Steele Bros. are the great monopolists of Burma who, before the war, always dominated the rice, the cotton, and the teak industries. They are steadily moving in again, and, of course, in doing so, are in one sense assisting in the economic rehabilitation of the country. I would like to ask my hon. and learned Friend whether monopoly capitalism is our only possible instrument for the economic rehabilitation of Burma.

What is actually being done to encourage the Burmese themselves, the Burmese producers, the middle men, the Burmese small men, or larger business men, in this regard? Is anything being done, also, to encourage co-operative marketing or distribution? From official documents which I have read it is quite clear that, however much good C.A.S.(B.) may have done, in some districts there is an appalling muddle on the distribution side. Is any thing being done to establish and promote co-operative marketing? Furthermore—and this is very important in the industrial rehabilitation of the country—what is being done to build up a live trade union movement in Burma? I gather that an official who has had a very long experience at the Ministry of Labour in this country has been sent there. Has he actually firsthand practical experience of the trade union movement, and of building up trade unions? Is he going to co-operate straightaway with the existing organisation, the All-Burma T.U.C., with whose executive council I personally have had long discussions, and whom I have found extremely enlightened and intelligent, both economically and politically? I should be grateful to my hon. and learned Friend if I could have answers to those points.

There is one other passage which I would like to read from the British officer serving in Burma, which seems to me to illustrate rather seriously the point I have been making about monopoly capital moving in again. He writes: Steele Bros. are re-opening shop in Burma. Their cotton business in this part of the cotton belt will be. presumably, under Major "X" and his friends. I will not quote the officer's name. These gentlemen, having used their official powers to the utmost for the benefit of their firm, are expected to leave the Government service shortly. Curiously enough, I came across Major X's ' name some time before I came across this cotton racket. This confirms what was said about conditions up-country in Burma, both by my hon. Friend and by the right hon. Gentleman: Owing to poverty, the main livelihood of the local Burmese is the theft and sale of military property. There is a large ordnance lepot nearby. Arriving with my detachment in the area, all innocent and ignorant, I lost seven tents and the kit of 5o men in a night's raid. To recover them, I called in the Burmese Field Security Police. C.A.S.(B.) Police are hopeless. The Burmese Field Security Police traced the stuff to a village nearby, and to three houses therein. One was owned by a clerk in the office of the District Superintendent of Police; the other two by officers in Major ' X's ' Upper Burma supply scheme. The C.A.S.(B.) Police, who are legally necessary to a search, effectively refused to search. But we managed to recover some of our losses and unearth a prodigious quantity of ordnance cloth, all, we were told, owned by Major ' X,' who wished to have it ' made up '! The tailpiece of this story," my correspondent adds, "is an epigram on Burma today. The evening after the raid on the civil officials' houses three very frightened F.S.P. men (Burmese) came to me asking for protection, as they had received threats of sudden death as a consequence of their interference with the officials' criminal activities. I pointed out that the protection I could provide was negligible, the police would provide none, even if they could; the only people who would dare assist them in suppressing corruption, and afford them protection, were A.F.O. So, three of Britain's faithful agents went off to seek the protection of A.F.O. That links up perfectly, as it seems to me, the political and economic aspects of this complex situation, and confirms what I said at the beginning of this speech. That is the testimony of a Captain in the Royal Artillery. I should be pleased to show the letter, which is a very long one, to any hon. Member who is interested. I ought, in fairness, to say that I took this up with the War Office, who are responsible, and they sent me a very long answer and report countering some of the statements made in the letter, saying that some of these allegations were unfounded, but adding: Major ' X ' was posted as supply officer to assist with the buying of cotton in connection with the relief scheme. He was an ex-employee of Steele's and had an expert knowledge of the area. Several local mills were put into working order by C.A.S. (B.), and, of these, it is confirmed that a high proportion were owned by Steele's. But the suggestion that exploitation took place under the guise of official control is unfounded. There is no evidence that Major ' X's ' death "— and, incidentally, that is the reason I have not given his name— was in any way connected with the irregularities concerning the Upper Burma cotton purchasing scheme. There has been only one official complaint against C.A.S. (B.) operations in the area "— I do not quite know how one distinguishes between an official complaint and an unofficial complaint. I do not know how many unofficial complaints there may have been.— In addition, there is a claim made by Daw Kyaw of Natogyi in connection with ginning charges which is at present under investigation. Some of the allegations were repudiated, including the more general allegation. However, there does seem to be sufficient evidence to show that things are in a rather disquieting condition economically. One particular point is in regard to the question of price fixing. I gather that is still largely directed from Whitehall. Could there not be more consultation on the spot, with people who know the actual conditions—perhaps consultation with the All-Burma T.U.C.? It is evident that, despite the advance represented by this morning's Debate, in the statement of my hon. and learned Friend about the election, all is not well, either politically or economically, in Burma. It is too much to expect that all should be well so soon after a devastating war. However, I am not sure that we have really shown that imaginative urgency for which I appealed at the beginning of this speech.

Would my hon. and learned Friend consider something in the nature of a fairly high-level delegation or mission to Burma? After all, we do not want the Burmese to feel that India, much vaster as that problem and country are, gets all the attention, when Burma is near the head of the queue for self-government and will, in fact, be the first non-white self-governing Dominion—an extremely interesting prospect. We do not want Burma to feel neglected. Will my hon. and learned Friend consider either a ministerial deputation or a parliamentary delegation or some kind of official mission to examine conditions on the spot?

When the Governor went back to Burma and civil government was restored, the official publication "Burma Today" gave a description of the great event in glowing prose. It said: The ceremonial re-entry of Sir Reginald Dorman-Smith into the capital of Burma lacked nothing of pomp and circumstance. Even nature was kind. It was a glorious October morning, brilliant with sunshine.…His Excellency took up his position at the saluting base…. Then there were the Royal salute—the guard of honour ' dazzling in their white uniforms.' The Governor then drove to Government House: there was a salute of 17 guns—another guard of honour. As His Excellency arrived, the Royal Salute was given, and the personal flag of His Excellency the Governor of Burma was raised on the flagstaff of Government House. It only remained for His Excellency to inspect the saluting battery and the ceremonies came to an end. Sir Reginald Dorman-Smith had returned where he belonged. In my view, His Excellency the Governor of Burma, Sir Reginald Dorman-Smith, does not belong in Burma, he belongs here in England, and the sooner he returns finally from Rangoon to London, the better will he and the Burmese be pleased. It is really necessary to speed up self-government to the maximum.

Hon. and right hon. Gentlemen opposite are often too courteous to express fully and frankly in public what they really think about the Burmese character and the Burmese people. The right hon. Gentleman said that the essential note of the Burmese character was that it was "gay." In conversation, they will often tell one that the Burmese are gay and charming and picturesque people, rather feckless, and, of course, "they just won't work." They worked pretty effectively just before the liberation of Rangoon, and those of them who were in the resistance Forces or in the patriotic Burmese Forces worked and fought so effectively that they killed a number of Japanese estimated at something like 10,000. Moreover, since we have committed ourselves to this guarantee of self-government, surely we must hope and believe that freedom will be at once the signal and the stimulus to the Burmese people to get down to the job? The more grudging, the more reluctant we seem to be in approaching Dominion status for Burma, the more we shall get this pull towards a complete breakaway. The more fully and freely we give what is not really ours to give—because it is the birthright of every human being—the closer friends shall we and the Burmese be afterwards.

1.9 p.m.

Captain Sir Peter Macdonald (Isle of Wight)

As one of a small group of hon. Members on this side of the House, who have always tried to take an interest in the affairs of Burma, especially during the dark days when no time was given in this House to them, I am glad to have the opportunity given us today. by the, introduction of these Motions, to discuss the affairs, economic, political and otherwise, of this very important part of the British Commonwealth. I shall not follow the hon. Member for Maldon (Mr. Driberg) in his dissertation on affairs which he endeavoured to bring before the House in the form of quotations from letters, which he himself admitted were refuted by responsible authorities—

Mr. Driberg

I did not.

Sir P. Macdonald

Letters representing somebody who represented somebody else, but were evidently discrediting the British name in that country —

Mr. Driberg

rose

Sir P. Macdonald

That will not be very helpful in trying to restore confidence in that territory, which is so desirable at the present time.

Mr. Driberg

Might I interrupt the hon. and gallant Gentleman?

Sir P. Macdonald

Throwing mud either at the Governor or people who are trying to rehabilitate that country does not do anybody any good.

Mr. Driberg

I threw no mud whatever at the Governor. I am sure that all hon. Members who heard my speech will agree. Nor did I admit that the charges in the letter had been refuted. I said that some of them had been denied. That is not the same thing.

Sir P. Macdonald

It amounts to the same thing as far as I can see. The hon. Gentleman admitted that only one of his charges were partly accepted by a responsible authority after an investigation. I do not think a contribution of that kind to this discussion will be of any good at this time. I welcome the proclamations because they bring about the day when we shall have in Burma a general election. I know that when the Governor went back to Burma he was very anxious that that day should be soon. A small group of hon. Members in this House, among them the hon. Member for Farnham (Mr. G. Nicholson), framed a report on Burma at a time when it was very difficult to get any information out of that country, and they made certain recommendations. I was proud to be associated with them, in a small way, in their investigation and with that report. They recommended a period of seven years at first and then five years, when Burma should be given Dominion status. I know myself that the Governor thought that the time should be shortened; his view was that Burma should be given self-government at the earliest possible moment, consistent with the rehabilitation of the country. I can see that that is a policy which is being carried out, and I welcome it, particularly because of the fact that there are, as the hon. Gentleman has just said, certain elements growing up from the Left. My impression, and my information, is that they are far more noisy than numerous, but a general election will test their strength. Then we shall know what is the strength of these forces. Therefore it is important, as the hon. Gentleman said—and I support him in this—that this election should take place at the earliest possible moment, and that the Government should press on with the necessary legislation for that purpose.

It is not enough to press on with political developments. It is also essential that economic development should march forward at the same time. The rehabilitation of this country, which has suffered probably more than any other part of the British Empire as a result of having been fought over not once but twice, should be pressed forward. That is a very difficult task when you consider that Burma today is barely able to produce sufficient rice to feed herself, and that she was once one of the greatest rice exporting countries in the world and fed other rice consuming countries. It is a very serious thing that today they should be in this position. Why are they in such a position? I understand that it is largely due to the fact that the Japanese, during the occupation, destroyed a great many of those animals that were used in the husbanding of the soil. I want to know what steps are being taken to restore the animals. I also want to know what steps are being taken to mechanise rice production. I see no reason why rice growing in Burma should not be mechanised, for it is mechanised in other parts of the world; although I agree that there is more low-lying land in Burma than there is, perhaps, elsewhere. I am, however, quite convinced that the development of mechanical implements during the war offers every possibility of mechanical implements being used in agriculture and the raising of rice crops in Burma. I ask the Under-Secretary of State to investigate that possibility thoroughly.

I am told that another deterrent to the production of rice today in Burma is that considerable disturbances are occurring and that, consequently, the peasant is afraid to leave his home to develop his paddy fields, except those near his own home. He will no longer go away from home and live in a hut by his crops in the rainy season because he is afraid of the dacoity that goes on. He stays at home to defend his own family. That is a very serious matter, and it is bound to delay the production of this essential primary crop. When I was in Germany recently I was told that the same thing applied in the Ruhr, that gangs were raiding homes at night, and that the miners were afraid to leave their homes to go to the mines because of what might happen to their families while they were away. That was delaying coal production. That alarming state of affairs has been overcome by the restoration of law and order. It is the same problem that we have in Burma today. We must reinforce the Police. I am glad that the Under-Secretary of State has said that steps are being taken to transfer officers from the military forces to assist the police, and that the police force itself is being strengthened. I hope the Government will not hesitate to arm those policemen, because the dacoits are very fully armed, and in many cases led by Japanese. The Japanese, as in Indonesia, have been stirring up the dacoits, and not only arming them but leading them. The police. therefore, must be given every support, and they must be given arms.

There are many other problems in connection with the rehabilitation of Burma. Certainly, an important one is that of the development of the industries of that country. While that is being considered, I hope that the Government are not going to be carried away by doctrinaire ideology and that they are not going to discourage private enterprise. There is far too much support for the sort of suggestions made by the hon. Member for Maldon about controls. There is too much support for those suggestions on the other side of the House. I deplore them myself. Burma was once a prosperous land, and it was made prosperous by private enterprise and by private capital. Either Burma is to be encouraged to invite capital from outside sources for the development of its territory again, the development of its timber, oil and other resources, or the capital has to be provided by the British Government. There is no other source of supply. The Government of Burma have no money of their own. It is a very sad thing. Today we are lending them £8o million to help them on to their feet, but we ourselves are not really in a position to lend money to anyone, for we are a borrowing nation. I hope that this Government are not going to allow themselves to be carried away by these doctrinaires who think that private enterprise and private capital must have no part to play in the redevelopment and rehabilitation of Burma.

I also hope that the Government will press on with the franchise and with the election, for which the date has already been fixed, and with the setting up of self-government for Burma. That is our declared aim, and it is one to which we must give every encouragement in order that those people who, today, are encouraged to think we are not sincere in our desire for self-government for Burma may be refuted. One recommendation of the Conservative Imperial Affairs Committee in their report which I support very strongly, is that the affairs of Burma should be transferred from the India and Burma Office to the Dominions Office. I think that gesture would appeal to the people of Burma very much indeed. There was a great demand for that at one time, and they are now anxious, I am quite sure, if they are to be given Dominion status, to find themselves associated with the Dominions Office. I think that that would be a wise move, and a gesture which would appeal to the Burmese and encourage them in the belief that we are sincere in our desire that they should have self-government and Dominion status at the earliest possible moment. Whether this Dominion status is to be within the British Empire or not depends upon the Burmese themselves. It was not a condition laid down by the Government that they should remain within the Commonwealth although we hope that they will be con- vinced that if they should find their place within the framework of the British Commonwealth, they will benefit by it, and by the support—the willing support—which this country arid the Comonwealth can give them in their rehabilitation, which we are all anxious to encourage and develop at the earliest possible moment.

1.24 p.m.

Mr. Thomas Reid (Swindon)

Burma is one of the most delightful countries in the tropics, inhabited by one of the most attractive peoples in the whole British Empire. I should like to say at the start that in our administration of Burma in the past we have nothing of which to be ashamed. I speak with experience of our administration in the tropics, and I do not swallow all the tales told about it by some people in this country. The relations between the Burmese Civil Service, the administrative service, the real rulers of Burma and the Burmese were of the friendliest, and there were very few of these civil servants who wished to leave Burma, because they became so attached to the country and its people. We have, in fact, done a magnificent job of work in Burma in the past.

It may be asked then why there is this agitation for Dominion status or complete independence. The answer is that the rule in the past has not been self-government, and that there has sprung up this nationalistic feeling and a revolt against white domination. It is not a revolt against misgovernment, but a political revolt against white domination. I am glad that it has occurred, because it is much better that people should govern themselves than be governed from outside, however good that government may be. In the case of Ceylon, I had a hand in introducing a radical innovation. It was one of the most radical innovations till then introduced in our Colonial Empire. It was proposed to transfer to elected Ministers the whole internal administration of the country; it was, in fact, three quarters of the way to self-government. Now, Europeans are frequently surprised at the impatience of native politicians in these Oriental countries. They find it difficult to understand, because here, our Constitution is fixed, having been built up over the centuries, and there is no agitation against it. In those countries, the people are engaged in the elementary task of evolving a Constitution which they want and therefore they are in a very violent hurry. They are often ignorant of administration, and cannot understand the difficulties which have to be overcome before a new constitution can be introduced. The people in Burma and elsewhere are in a hurry, and I ask hon. Members of this House and the Government to accept it as a fact and to meet them by acting in a hurry.

In the case of the Ceylon Constitution of 1931 it was agreed beforehand in outline what the Constitution should be. We recognised that people in Ceylon were in a hurry, and we passed an electoral law which enabled the Ceylon Government to define constituencies and pass the electoral law and put it into effect for a constitution which did not exist. The people accepted all this and they were delighted by the rapid work. Meanwhile, we were getting on with the job of framing the Constitution and the result was there was no trouble in the transition and by the time the electoral law had been worked out, the Constitution had been framed by Order in Council. The two coincided and the job was completed in two years instead of five years as was first thought necessary. It was a great success and the Constitution of 1931 gave the people 75 per cent. self-government. I am not going to say that it improved the administration; for the time being it did not, but when the war came we found that the Ceylonese were Too per cent. on our side.

In the case of Burma and India the same procedure might be followed. These peoples are shouting for independence, but when the day comes I am not so sure that they will not find it is not a bad thing, after all, to remain in the British Empire, although that is a matter for them to decide. I urge the Government to get on with the electoral law and get it through as quickly as possible. There is no difficulty about it because it is agreed that there should be adult suffrage. I am glad the Burmese are asking for adult suffrage, and although it is true there are illiteracy and poverty and ignorance, it is impossible to lay down any restrictions on franchise that are satisfactory. You cannot confine the franchise to those who can read and write, because they are not always the only wise people, and it is invidious to confine it to people possessing a certain amount of property. The only way is to have adult suffrage, and that can work as it has worked in Ceylon, where 70 per cent. of the people voted at the first elections in spite of the fact that many are illiterate. There are various devices which can be adopted to get over the difficulty of illiteracy such as by using colours.

Looking at the matter from the point of view of the Burmese, they wish us to proceed quickly; so let us get on with the electoral law as quickly as possible. Many Members have spoken about the present difficulties of administration and economic difficulties but whatever we may do, I do not think we shall give satisfaction. Therefore let us, as quickly as possible, transfer responsibility to the Burmese themselves. Let them run their own country in the future, and the sooner they have the responsibility the better. I hope that whoever replies to the Debate will make it absolutely clear to people who may not understand the Statute of Westminster that by it, any country which has Dominion status can contract out of the Empire and become completely independent if she so wishes. Many people do not understand that, and I hope it will be made abundantly clear to the Burmese that if they want their isolated independence they can have it.

1.31 p.m.

Mr. Godfrey Nicholson (Farnham)

The House has listened with interest and respect to the speech of the hon. Member for Swindon (Mr. T. Reid), as it always listens with respect and interest to people who know what they are talking about. I found myself pretty well in general agreement with everything he said, although I think it is a mistake to draw an exact parallel between Ceylon and Burma. After all, we drew up the Constitution for Ceylon, but we are now expecting the Burmese to draw up a Constitution for themselves. That, I think, makes a difference. As I have said, I agree with practically everything in his speech, and I feel that the House is lucky to have among its Members someone who has had such a long and distinguished experience in the Colonial Service. I want to say a few words about the speech of the hon. Member for Maldon (Mr. Driberg). I hope he will forgive me for saying this, because he has spoken kindly and graciously about myself, and I know that he is a true lover of Burma, but J very much regret a great deal of his speech. I do not think it helps anyone to make an attack on a Governor, and I do not think the Floor of the House is the place for it. I do not think it helps any situation, and it helps less the more difficult is the situation. The reading of anonymous letters about anonymous people who are dead tends only to cloud the situation and prevent good will.

I consider that in his line of thought he violated one of the fundamental principles which we should adopt in dealing with Burma. We are sincere in our desire that Burma should be mistress in her own house, and that the Burmese should draw up their own Constitution and live their own lives. I know that he holds that view as strongly as anyone, but it is fundamentally inconsistent with that view to attempt to embroil this House, the Burma Office, with local politics in Burma or to attempt to get the Administration in Burma or the Burma Office to outline in detail the sort of structure, whether social or otherwise, which should be imposed on the Burmese. Surely, if our object is to make Burma mistress in her own house, we must content ourselves with doing the minimum, and direct all our endeavours to making Burmese politicians and the people of Burma become the architects of their own destiny. I think there are two unhappy parallels which can be drawn. In the case of Greece, I do not think that it helped anyone that Members of this House should try to interfere with her internal politics and ask questions as to whether we are in favour of E.A.M., X.Y.Z., or any other organisation. And I do not think that the situation in Java, which some people mistakenly call Indonesia, was improved by our interference in this House with matters that were the business of the men on the spot. I think that the less we involve ourselves in details of local politics, especially when these areas are administered by ourselves in a purely temporary capacity, and the more we leave it to the man on the spot, if we trust him, the better; and if we do not trust him, then get rid of him. I think that it is impossible to indulge in the details of Burmese, or Javanese, or Greek politics from this distance. I am sure that is a sound doctrine and I hope that the hon. Gentleman will not mind my having said it. I think that he has made a great mistake, for I fear that to a large extent his speech will have unhelpful reactions in Burma. In saying that, I am not taking up any political side, one way or another.

There is one matter on which I agree most heartily with the hon. Gentleman, and that is when he said that some mission or delegation should be sent to Burma. It has shocked me deeply to find that very few people in this House have first hand or any recent information about Burma, and that, although we are responsible for Burma in this House, we are very much cut off from Burmese thought. I believe that some sort of delegation or mission would be of very great help, but I hope that it will not be charged with making a report, and that it will not be in the nature of a Royal Commission.

In common with other speakers in this Debate, I welcome the occasion which it affords to this House to discuss Burmese affairs. On and off, I have been in this House since 1931—about 18 months off and the rest of the time on—and I only remember one previous occasion when Burma had anything like a proper run for its money—and that was last June. I am ashamed of that because, first, it tends to obscure in the minds of the people of this country that we are directly responsible for 17,000,000 people in Burma, which is a great Dominion of the British Crown and an important land area. Secondly, it has tended to leave the impression in the minds of the people in Burma that we are oblivious to our obligations with regard to them. I hope that this Debate will set a precedent, and that we shall realise that our responsibility for Burma is of a very high order indeed.

I want to say a few words about the political and economic situation in Burma. So far as the political situation is concerned, I think that we should send out from this House very definite messages of sympathy and friendship with Burmese aspirations. We want the people of Burma to know that we want to help them, and we want to know what help Burma wants from us. We on our part want Burma's help in solving the problem of South-East Asia, and all the other problems that face us. In dealing with Burma's political future, let us remember one thing above all. Hon Members have referred to the Burmese as gay and charming. That is all very well. I am sure that they are, but they have another quality which is even more impor- tant. They are a proud race. No other Dominion in the British Empire has had such a long national history as Burma. For over 1,000 years, Burma has had a national independent history of its own. This pride is a dominant factor in Burmese character, and it often emerges in xenophobia and a dislike of foreigners and outsiders. In any political set-up in Burma, unless this pride is satisfied, the Constitution has not much chance of success. It is pride and self-respect and the question of status which are the predominant factors. The second point I wish to stress is that all our efforts must he directed in Burma, as in India, to making the people and the politicians fully responsible for their own actions. Both times that I have been in India, I have been impressed by the fact that Indian politicians have never been answerable in the ultimate for their actions. The same applies in Burma. There should never be the feeling that if there is a breakdown you can push the responsibility on to the shoulders of the British. I think those are the main points which we have to remember: the satisfaction of Burmese pride on the question of status, and the fact that all our efforts should be directed to seeing that Burmese politicians and statesmen have full ultimate responsibility for their actions.

To turn to the economic side, I was much interested that we have at last been told by the Minister the amount of the loan granted to Burma, namely, £80 million. That is all sterling expenditure. It will be helpful to ourselves because the economic relationship between Burma and ourselves is complementary. We want what they can send us, and they want what we can send them, so I regard this loan as an investment, and I am most happy about it. But I am surprised that the Minister did not say anything about what I regard as one of the primary economic problems in Burma, and that is the question of land indebtedness. Before the war it was estimated that it had reached a figure of about £40 million. About a quarter of the land was owned by the Indian class of moneylenders known as the Chettyars. I do not think that we can blame the Chettyars, because by Oriental standards they have not been unduly extortionate or harsh, and by providing agricultural credit they have performed a service to the community. But because of economic crises they have had, against their will, to do a certain amount of foreclosure, with a result that a quarter of the rise producing areas are in their hands. Another quarter is mostly owned by landlords, and the remaining half was mostly mortgaged. It seems to me that that is a sort of dead weight around the neck of the Burmese peasant which must be considerably lightened. The use of cooperative land banks and cooperative credit has been tried but has not proved a success. I was surprised and disappointed that the Minister did not refer to this, for I do not think that we shall get much further until there is a policy thought out and applied for the solution or, at any rate, palliation of this grievous state of affairs.

I do not want to say more than has been said already about the effect of the destruction caused by the Japanese occupation. But I want to ask the Minister one question, and that is this: There is a small-community in Burma for which we are particularly responsible, and that is the Anglo-Burmans. They are a very remarkable community indeed. They seem to combine the best qualities of both races, and they have done extraordinarily well. They have suffered practically every possible indignity and cruelty under Japanese occupation. Their women are beautiful, and they were maltreated and abused by the Japanese in a manner which defies description. I do not think I have seen anything more tragic in the legion of sad tales one reads about as a consequence of this war than the story of what happened to this community. I am urging the Minister not only to make inquiries, but to let the House know the result of those inquiries and to tell us what steps are being taken for these unfortunate people. I will not harrow the hearts of hon Members by recounting the stories, but I can assure them honestly that they bring tears to one's eyes, and I beg the Minister to do something for them.

In conclusion, I must point out that it is something of an anomaly that we in this House should be directly responsible for Burma and that we should not be responsible for Malaya or Borneo or Ceylon, which are under the Colonial Office. I think it is likely because of that that there is a danger that there will be a lack of coordination between our Burmese and Colonial policies, and I deplore this, for I believe that, without distinction of party, we in this House and in this country have to think out our Asiatic policy. That is the real problem which confronts us. What have we to offer Asia; what do we want from Asia in return? We have to offer a great intellectual and cultural heritage, and we have a great deal to learn from her. We have to offer many of the advantages of Western civilisation and Western commerce; and there are many products, raw and manufactured, that we want from Asia. Relations between us up to date have been good. I believe we are respected in Asia more than any other foreign nation. I believe that relations between Asia and this country can be entirely friendly. But we cannot go on treating Asiatic Dependencies in a piecemeal fashion. We have to do a great deal of hard thinking in this country.

As far as Burma is concerned, we must send out the warmest message of friendship from this House as the result of the present Debate, and add to it that there is no difference whatever between the two sides on this. We stand by the policy for which His Majesty's Government stand. We wish well to Burma and we trust that, in the future, we shall remain on terms of happy friendship and confidence.

1.47 p.m.

Mr. Gallacher (Fife, West)

I do not join in the welcome for the continuation of the proclamation.

Mr. Nicholson

I knew the hon. Member would not.

Mr. Gallacher

I would rather we brought out Sir Reginald Dorman-Smith, and with him our military forces, and, above all, the agents of corruption—the agents of the big monopoly companies—who can do such incalculable harm. It it utterly nonsensical to talk of free elections and the setting up of Ministers, when there is in Burma a situation such as exists at the present time. We know the corruption which is carried on in this country by the big monopolies. Everybody is aware of it. Every one of the big monopolies keeps a fund for the purpose of buying over people to its side, and in a place like Burma, particularly in its present situation, their agents will be carrying on every kind of corruption among a people where the need is—

Earl Winterton (Horsham)

The hon. Gentleman has made a most serious charge against a number of British subjects. I challenge him to produce evidence of this corruption.

Mr. Gallacher

I will produce the evidence that was published before the war in connection with the big armament and oil firms. What they did, other firms are carrying on. I can produce, for instance, the fact that when the hon. Member for Dumbarton Burghs (Mr. Kirkwood) made a speech in this House, of which a few words seemed to be favourable to a certain company, he received a letter and a cheque for £100, which he returned.

Earl Winterton

That is not what the hon. Gentleman said. It is no use making vague statements of that kind. He has brought a definite charge against the great business interests in Burma and I challenge him here—and I will challenge him outside—to produce evidence.

Mr. Gallacher

We know how the business interests—

Earl Winterton

You cannot do it, because it is not true and you know it is not true.

Mr. Pritt (Hammersmith, North)

On a point of Order. Is it in Order for the Noble Lord to call the hon. Member a liar across the Floor of the House? The actual words he used were, "You cannot do it, because it is not true and you know it is not true."

Earl Winterton

On that point of Order. May I point out that a general charge of corruption has been made and that I merely said that the accusation is not true?

Mr. Deputy-Speaker (Mr. Hubert Beaumont)

I did not hear the Noble Lord use the words in question. He does not appear to have been out of Order.

Mr. Gallacher

What goes on in this country with the big monopolies? What was proved to be going on in the monopolies in every country before the war? There was the most amazing exposure of how they were buying up people and even Governments in order to get their way. The letter from an officer over there, read by the hon. Member for Maldon (Mr. Driberg), made quite clear —as it is made clear continually by soldiers coming home from these different places—what is going on in the East. It is futile to suggest that the monopolies who are in Burma, as in other countries, have not put their agents there busily trying to corrupt people, particularly because of the present Situation. What is the situation there? As the result of the exigencies and aftermath of the war the Government have control. The following is a news item in connection with a speech made before a congress of anti-Fascists, by U. Aung Sau: The British Government's £87 million to Burma is designed not for reconstruction of economic life of the people but for rehabilitation of economic stranglehold on the country. In the name of State control, British Government try to set up old British businesses and interests for a limited period and cost of that is these economic setups will be handed back to old British vested interest as compensation. Then this is said with regard to these companies and businesses that are supposed to he under the control of the Government: The basis of each of these business projects is a consortium of the old-established firms operating as agents for the Government, and the organisation is so designed that in due course it can readily be changed over to full commercial operation. This was said by Sir Harold Roper, speaking to the East India Association on 24th January this year, So the process is going on now, with the monopolies working there continuously to make certain that they get back their positions and that they control the economic life of Burma. I would say here that I would be happy if Sir Reginald Dorman-Smith were brought out, with the British troops and the agents of the monopoly companies, so that the Burmese were left free to build up their life and their country in their own way. When Walt Whitman referred to the "never-ending audacity of elected persons," I have a feeling he must have had a Tory Imperialist in mind. I listened to an hon. Member earlier saying that Burma should be given Dominion status. Who are we? What sort of people are we? Of course it is not the Members on this side who have developed that sort of mentality; it is the very people who continually talk about giving this or giving that, to the downtrodden poor, to the working class—a little bit here and a little bit there. They talk as superior persons, as the master race. They talk about what we should give to Burma—Dominion status. What impudence. What arrogant presumption, that we can give a status to the Burmese. What the Burmese want, and what any people would want, is that we should withdraw from the country and give them an opportunity to build up their own life —and they will be capable of doing that.

An hon. Member suggested that Burma should be taken away from the India Office and put into the Dominions Office. Some other hon. Members seem to agree. What is it we are dealing with—scrap iron, old bottles or something? Take them out of here, and put them into there. We are told that India is going to get independence, and at the same time, the suggestion is made that we should take Burma out of the India Office and put it into the Dominions Office. It would be more sensible, if India is to be independent, to leave Burma in the India Office so that Burma can get independence with India, but I am doubtful of the Tory Imperialists supporting, or allowing to go through, anything real so far as India or Burma is concerned. One hon. Member was concerned about what the hon. Member for Maldon happened to say about Sir Reginald Dorman-Smith. Who is Sir Reginald Dorman-Smith? He is the Governor of Burma and a nice respectable gentlemanly Tory.

Earl Winterton

On a point of Order, Mr. Deputy-Speaker. May I ask whether criticism of a Governor in this case comes within the rule that there may not be criticism of the Governor-General of a Dominion, or is the hon. Member technically in Order in criticising the Governor of Burma?

Mr. Deputy-Speaker

I feel that the hon. Member is making comments that perhaps are not desirable. An hon. Member cannot criticise the conduct of a Governor except on a Motion.

Mr. Gallacher

I apologise for having referred to the Governor of Burma as a Tory gentleman. I withdraw. He is no Tory gentleman. I was only drawing attention to the fact that an hon. Member took exception to the remarks of the hon. Member for Maldon about the Governor of Burma and some officers in Burma. He said that the hon. Member for Maldon was throwing mud. When anything is said about the Governor or officers, it is throwing mud, but one can say anything about the Communists or Left Wing, in Burma or anywhere else, without throwing mud. After chiding the hon. Member for Maldon about throwing mud at the Governor, the hon. Member expressed his opinion of the noisy character of the anti-Fascists in Burma. One must not dare in any circumstances to say a word of criticism about a gentleman, but any of the ordinary people—Burmese, dockers, miners or Communists—can be kicked around all over the place and it always gets applause from Tory gentlemen. Then we had an hon. Member on this side of the House who has been in the Civil Service somewhere in the tropics and he pays a tribute to our administrators in Burma, but, after he has paid a tribute, he goes on to talk about the condition of affairs in Burma now, and refers to poverty and ignorance and wide spread illiteracy. It is all right to talk about a nice tropical country and nice pleasant people, but in every generation in Burma, thousands upon thousands of men, women and children die without knowing what life is, because of the terrible exploitation of the monopoly capitalists, and the poverty and illiteracy they suffer. That is one of the shames of the Imperialist role of Britain in country after country, whether it be India, Ceylon or Burma. It is a fact that it has kept people in a state of illiteracy and kept them from the bigger and better and brighter things of life.

Earl Winterton

The words of Moscow.

Mr. Gallacher

The Tories have been demoralised since the Election. They are steadily going out of the picture. Not only in Burma—because the Burmese are going to achieve their independence—but in this country, too, they are going out of the picture. They thought they had a great trump card when they had the man who won the war, but the people of this country did not accept it. As for cheap jibes about Moscow—I represent West Fife and I have been a proletarian all my life and am proud of it. I have never had anything but contempt for the parasites on the other side of the House.

Mr. Deputy-Speaker

The hon. Gentleman will admit that he has gone very wide of the subject, He must now deal with the Motion before the House.

Earl Winterton

Where do you get your money from?

Mr. Robens (Wansbeck)

On a point of Order. Is it in Order for an hon. Member to address this House without rising?

Mr. Deputy-Speaker

It is out of Order and undesirable, and if persisted in, increases the length of speeches.

Earl Winterton

I was referring to the Communist Party in general, and not, of course, to the hon. Gentleman.

Mr. Gallacher

In view of that remark may I say that the Communist Party is prepared to publish a balance sheet, but the Tory Party is not prepared to publish one.

Mr. Deputy-Speaker

It is not permissible for that subject to be introduced in this Debate. Will the hon. Member now deal with the Motion before the House?

Mr. Gallacher

The point was introduced by the Noble Lord. There is a very serious question here. We have a situation admitted by one who was in the Civil Service—appalling poverty and illiteracy among the masses of the Burmese—and I consider that, in view of that situation, every encouragement should be given on this side of the House to the progressive forces in Burma associated with the anti-Fascist Association.

The hon. Member for Maldon asked the Minister what had happened about the deputation. It was proposed that a deputation should come here from Burma, and it was hoped that it would be representative of all the principal forces who are anti-Fascist. Five, or half-a-dozen, delegates were selected and they were, very broadly, representative. They were then told that shipping accommodation could not be found for half-a-dozen, but only for two. Here is what they say: It is now known, in connection with the question of travel facilities for the proposed delegation to England, that sea passage for only two will be available when pressure on accommodation eases. I do not know whether it is a complete mental breakdown, or that Johnny Walker has taken possession, but the Noble Lord is certainly giving a great representation of an inmate of a mental hospital.

Mr. Deputy-Speaker

The hon. Member must deal with the subject under discussion and refrain from indulging in personalities and abuse.

Mr. Gallacher

I was quoting from this document, Mr. Deputy-Speaker, but I felt I had to make a remark.

Mr. R. A. Butler

The hon. Gentleman is quoting from what is obviously a very important document. According to the practice of the House, is he prepared to lay the document?

Mr. Deputy-Speaker

The hon. Gentleman has described it as a private document and therefore the rule does not apply.

Mr. Gallacher

Certainly I will hand over the document to the right hon. Gentleman if he wishes. But in quoting from the document it is necessary to say that I am not an expert like Balaam and I do not know how to deal with the talking ass. It would be very much better if the ass would keep quiet while I read the document.

Mr. Deputy-Speaker

The hon. Gentleman has gone too far. He must finish with personalities.

Mr. Gallacher

I will quote from the document: It is now Known in connection with the question of travel facilities for the proposed delegation to England, that sea passage for only two will be available when pressure on accommodation eases.

1. (1) Since accommodation is to be available for only two and not for five as requested, there can be no likelihood of the delegation's object being fully achieved.
2. (2) Travelling all-sea would mean so much waste of time.
3. (3) Though a request has been made to have the travel arrangements complete by 31st March, the reply from the Governor's secretary does not definitely indicate when travel facilities will be really available.

For the above reasons, the Working Committee of the A.F.P.F.L. has decided rift to pursue this object of sending a delegation to England. There is an occasion where a real effort was made by the anti-Fascist movement in Burma to get into touch with people in this country through a broad delegation representing all the forces. Every conceivable obstacle was put in its way. First, accommodation has only to be made available for two and then no date was promised as to when that accommodation would be available. The anti-Fascist organisation had to call off the delegation altogether.

The situation in Burma is very serious for the Burmese people, and I wish that action could be taken to withdraw our forces from Burma. What is the use of talking about free elections and of setting up Ministers, and the rest of it, when all these forces are in Burma? Last week end the Foreign Secretary laid down what he declared was a fundamental principle in dealing with weaker nations. All troops must be withdrawn, for if forces remain it is bound to have an effect on the character of the discussions that are going on. Let that fundamental principle be applied to Burma. In the days that lie ahead, let us withdraw forces from Burma and give the Burmese people an opportunity for the first time to get rid of poverty and illiteracy and to build up and live a happy life of their own.

2.13 p.m.

Major Niall Macpherson (Dumfries)

The hon. Member for West Fife (Mr. Gallacher), towards the end of his speech, modified a little what he said at the beginning, when he was all for withdrawing from Burma forthwith. In his last few words he spoke of withdrawing in the days which lie ahead. I think perhaps he has come into line with general opinion in the House in those words. I think we have heard similar speeches from him dealing with many other countries.

The attack the hon. Member made on what he pleases to call monopolies seems to me especially unwarranted. British firms enjoy the highest reputation of any firms operating in the Far East. In addition to that British firms have been very largely responsible for building up the economic prosperity of Burma before the war. It would be a strange paradox if, as a result of the Japanese invasion, those British firms were to be deprived not only of their legal rights, but also of the privilege of contributing to Burmese prosperity in the future.

The hon. Member for Maldon (Mr. Driberg) referred to the necessity for the Burmese to start learning self-government as soon as possible. Before the war the 1935 Constitution had already given them a very large measure of self-government, perhaps the largest that exists in any similar country. They had already started, and I think it is doing them an injustice to say they have to start all over again. Hon. Members on all sides of the House will be very anxious to see that Constitution working again as soon as possible with the enlarged franchise. But in the meantime it is obviously the duty of our Government, having finally recovered Burma, to re-establish those conditions of prosperity which make a franchise possible and without which it would be impossible to work the Constitution or make any further progress. The first duty must obviously be to reestablish economic conditions as the right hon. Member for Saffron Walden (Mr. R. A. Butler) has so well said. Something has been said about the disgraceful illiteracy of the Burmese people. Here again, the hon. Member for West Fife does far less than justice to the Burmese people. There is a remarkably high standard of literacy, considering that progress has been made in the last 70 years only.

Mr. Gallacher

I was referring to a statement made by an hon. Member who had been in the Civil Service. When he was speaking about the difficulties of an election, he referred to those arising out of the great degree of illiteracy.

Major Macpherson

That did not prevent the hon. Member for West Fife from trouncing the Burmese and the British for Burmese illiteracy. He was doing less than justice to the Burmese and to the British for the degree of education that has been achieved in that country.

I wish to deal with one question which has not so far been dealt with in this Debate, that is, the question of defence. It is idle to offer a people independence unless they are in a position to defend that independence, whether it be within the British Commonwealth of Nations or within the framework of the United Nations organisation. According to the information I have, when the war broke out the Burmese forces,consisted of some four infantry battalions, together with an auxiliary brigade of artillery and three infantry auxiliary battalions. Of these, a large proportion was recruited not from Burmans but from the Scheduled States. In addition, there were some British infantry battalions, this small force, with the addition of some 10,000 frontier police having to maintain order in and defend the frontiers of a country which is, in extent, about three times the size of the United Kingdom. I repeat that it is idle to consider independence for a country which is not in a position to defend itself. It would be idle to ask the Burmans to choose independence or self-government—

Mr. Gallacher

Could New Zealand defend itself?

Major Macpherson

New Zealand would make a very good attempt to defend itself, as its wonderful record and the vast forces which it has put into the field alongside of us have shown during the war. But New Zealand also happens to be an island, whereas Burma is not. I believe I am correct in saying that Burma is contiguous with some five different States.

Therefore, I would urge the hon. and learned Gentleman when he replies to give us some statement as to what are the intentions of the Government with regard to building up sufficient forces of Burmese, so that when the time comes for them to choose, they may choose without a suspicion that there will still be military domination by Great Britain in Burma. In any other circumstances a choice would be very unreal. I do not mean to imply that we should accept absolutely no responsibility for the defence of Burma within the British Commonwealth of Nations, or that there should not be regional schemes worked out for mutual defence within the framework of U.N.O. I wish to know that Burma will be able to play its own part, whatever the framework may be—the British Commonwealth of Nations or the United Nations organisation. I wish to conclude by joining in the tribute that has been paid to the Burmese for their gallant assistance in recovering their country, and in the expression of good will that has been extended to Burma from all sides of the House.

2.20 p.m.

Mr. Harold Davies (Leek)

I wish the House had been a little better filled today. I do not wish to repeat parts of the Debate that have already been heard, and I believe that the Minister desires to wind up soon, but I hope it will not be thought presumptuous of me if I intervene very briefly and seek to bring the Debate for a moment to the level of reality. I wish to look at the situation which exists in relation to the present economic and educational set-up. I had the honour to be in Burma in January and to discuss with the Burmese and with Sir Reginald Dorman-Smith the problem of Burma. Sir Reginald Dorman-Smith undoubtedly has a difficult task, but have we looked at this issue of the franchise in relation to Northern and Southern Burma? Let the House remember that we British people are indebted to the Burmese in the Shan States and other places. Many British boys serving with the 14th Army owe their lives to the patriotism and help of people in those remote villages which I visited in Northern Burma. Because of that, I believe that this country owes the Northern Burmese—I am using the wrong technical term but the House will understand the different groups to which I am referring—and the Northern Burmese deserve some system of government of their own.

As a student of international affairs and economics, I am amazed to find that the best books I can procure on the Far East and on Burma are written by Americans. When I spoke to Sir Reginald Dorman-Smith in Government House in Rangoon he told me, I believe I am right in saying —I hope I shall be corrected if I am wrong—that the Permanent Secretary for Burma was visiting Burma for the first time in 3o years. Is that the way in which this country hopes to understand Burma, and the remoter parts of this Commonwealth of nations, this heterogeneous system of government which we have hammered out through pages of history? Therefore, I urge on this House the necessity of keeping more direct contact, in this shrinking world, with the remoter parts of our Commonwealth, and of seeing that our permanent officials, who have to deal with these problems, have a real knowledge of the country with which they are dealing.

There is a further point with which I wish to deal. I believe that we must not look upon the democracy of Burma from the viewpoint of Britain, because of illiteracy. It has been asked whether we could not hammer out a constitutional system of a rough and ready kind, for the Northern Burmese, based on the number of houses per village. It was suggested in some of the villages which I visited that 50 houses in the village should select a head man. Give them a little responsibility by which a head man would be responsible for instance for spending money. But it is no use saying, as we have done for "donkeys' years" in this House, "When they learn." It is true to say of Burma that an opportunity must be given to the Burmese now, in the normal way, to learn the responsibilities of government. It is wrong to say that Burma has had any opportunity of developing self-government, especially in the Northern States. Consequently, what we are doing is paralysing them politically while making them bold in theory. We are making them timid in action, strong in opposition, helpless in power, right on paper and incapable in politics.

When I visited Southern Burma, I was amazed at the devastation created by the Japanese. We know the story, which was given in the food Debate. What we sometimes forget is that this country does not worship enough at the shrine of the goddess of education. I wish occasionally that we would nail our flag to the mast of education. I believe that in Burma, as in Malaya, we need to develop an educational system based on the psychology and culture of the people and having nothing to do with the ultra-academic educational outlook of the Western universities. It is through that educational system that I believe that Burma can be developed, but what have we there? I have looked at their system, which is an education based on the philosophy of the past and the teaching of Buddhist priests. I think that only 300 students from Burma have visited a Western university, whereas 3,000 from Siam have done so. Are we trying to develop that educational movement?

One hon. Member on this side of the House mentioned the need for developing an intelligent interest in the trade union movement. I believe we sent out two officers last week to Malaya, but we have only one officer in Burma, and to talk of one practical trade unionist, trying to develop a trade unionist movement in Burma—a nation of mixed tribes and 17,000,000 people—is completely hopeless. In this modern world, these people need to learn the intelligent realism of trade unionism. I was delighted to hear an hon. Member opposite mention the important matter of land ownership and land alienation. We did pass an Act in 1941, but millions of pounds must be spent in Burma to abolish the one-year lease system under which no Burmese farmer can work with success. I distinctly remember asking Sir Reginald Dorman-Smith how these people were living, and I shall always remember being asked 3s. 6d. for a 2d. book or pamphlet. Sir Reginald said that the people lived by looting the Army, Navy and Air Force, and, if we get trouble in the Far East, it is no good blaming it on Communism, or Stalin, or the Kremlin or Russia. Much of it is created by the disorganisation of economic society, by high prices, inflation and unemployment. Much of the trouble in the Far East is created through that and that alone. Consequently, it should be of paramount importance to this country to speed up its economic activities and get our steel industry, silk industry and other industries going, so as to supply consumer goods to those areas and break down this evil of inflation.

Do not let us forget that the strategy of the Far East has completely broken down. In this shrinking world, Burma is no longer a buffer State. The old lectures at staff colleges years ago, when the map was brought out and the lecturer said "This is Burma—impenetrable," no longer apply. Our 14th Army proved, better than the Japanese, that that story is no longer true. This country must have a completely new viewpoint with regard to this Commonwealth of British nations. We must break down that idea of the security of any part of the world, in this stage of atomic energy. We can only offer ourselves in some international organisation like U.N.O. and contribute to the strength of that organisation by organising an intelligent, democratic, party system of government for our dependencies. It is the duty of this House today, to let the people of Burma know that we appreciate the way they stood by our boys in the jungle in the North during our dark days; that we shall not forget, but that we shall implement this Labour Government's policy and evolve a system of self-government which will give satisfaction to the Burmese and do credit to the Government now in power in this country.

2.31 p.m.

Mr. Arthur Henderson

I think the House will agree that this Debate is evidence of the fact that there is widespread interest taken in this country in the present position in Burma and in what the future holds for that nation. A good many points have been raised by various hon. Members, and, at the risk of appearing to retrace my tracks on occasion, I propose to deal with the points raised in the order of speaking.

The right hon. Gentleman the Member for Saffron Walden (Mr. Butler) put a number of points to me. One concerned the question of internal security. The right hon. Gentleman appreciated that present conditions had been accentuated by the fact that a large quantity of arms had been distributed, or have come into the hands of the people in Burma from Japanese sources. I am unable to say what that quantity is, but it is quite correct to say that, as a result of the policy of encouraging the Burmans to hand in their arms, 30,000 weapons of one sort and another have, in recent months, been returned to the authorities. The right hon. Gentleman also discussed the question of the rice harvest and wanted to know more details about present production. As I indicated in my opening remarks, the area under cultivation was reduced to between 6,000,000 and 7,000,000 acres, as against over 13,000,000 prior to the war. In fact, the present estimate is that approximately 2,750,000 tons of paddy will be provided from the last harvest, which is barely sufficient to meet internal needs. It is true to say that Burma has made a contribution to meeting the present food shortage in India and other parts of the Far East, and some export has taken place, but there is no doubt that, at the present time, the rice position is such that Burma cannot, this year, at any rate, be considered an exporting country. I indicated earlier that it was hoped to increase the acreage under cultivation to the extent of another 2,000,000 acres, which will make some contribution to the problem and will certainly aid the position in Burma and might, indeed, allow for an increased measure of export, but I think it would be wrong for me not to indicate that the problem is such that it will be two or three years before Burma can be expected to be back in the position in which she was in 1939.

The right hon. Gentleman also raised questions about labour. Before the war, it was a well-known fact that a considerable number of Indian labourers worked in the rice fields at harvest and the timber industry. The present position is that, as regards the ploughing season which is just about to open, apart from the Arakan, which is adjacent to the Chittagong area in India, where numbers of Indian labourers are crossing the frontier, they do not require Indian labour for the purpose of ploughing. We have been advised by the Government of Burma that they may require Indian labourers when the harvest time comes along later in the year. The right hon. Gentleman also asked about transport; he wanted to know what was being done to replace the inland air. It was made clear to them that His Majesty's Government were not prepared to receive a deputation from any of the parties in Burma, but that they were prepared to provide, should some members of the League wish to visit the United Kingdom in a private capacity, the necessary travel facilities once the pressure on accommodation was eased.

The first request was made by letter on 28th December. The League thereupon put forward a further request for purely unofficial visits on 15th January. That request was replied to on 18th January, and on 2nd February the League returned to the charge and asked for travel facilities for at least five persons. On 25th February the Governor's Secretary replied that the earlier offer, as regards two members of the League plus one secretary, still held good. I think I am entitled to point out to my hon. Friend that, had the original invitation been accepted, it is quite correct for me to say that, by now, those representatives would either have reached this country or have been well on their way to it. It is their own responsibility that that is not the case.

Mr. Gallacher

In the statement which I have, they say they asked the Governor to give them something specific and to say that they would get accommodation by 31st March, but that he would give them no such undertaking.

Mr. Henderson

I should be happy to look into any fresh facts that my hon. Friend can bring to my notice, but I still say that the timetable, which I have given to the House this afternoon, is correct according to the information we have received from Rangoon. It indicates that they have missed their opportunity. If, as I have said, they had accepted the offer made by the Governor as far back as 18th January, it is reasonable to suppose that they would either have been in this country by now or well on their way to it. My hon. Friend also asked me about the split in the Communist Party. It is not for me to explain why splits have taken place in any particular political party, and I am sure he does not really expect me to give him an explanation on that point. I was asked where the Government stood with regard to the policy relating to the Shan States. I assure him that the policy set out in the last paragraph of the White Paper still remains the policy of His Majesty's Government, and can be summed up in these words: The administration of the Scheduled Areas…would for the time being be subject to a special regime under the Governor until such time as their inhabitants signify their desire for some suitable form of amalgamation of their territories with Burma proper. We say that the decision must be taken by the inhabitants of the areas concerned.

My hon. Friend the Member for Maldon had some comments to make about the re-establishment of British commercial and economic domination of the country. I think there is a good deal of misunderstanding in existence with regard to what exactly is being done on the economic side in Burma. There is no question of His Majesty's Government facilitating any kind of monopoly capitalism, as he called it. That is a very picturesque phrase, but I do not think it is in accordance with the facts of the situation. May I explain exactly what the Government are seeking to do? I have indicated to the House that we are providing an interest free loan of approximately £80 million. The object is to finance the economic rehabilitation and reconstruction of the country. In view of the fact that two major campaigns have been fought in the country, and there has been occupation by the enemy for three years, obviously a great deal remains to be done. The way in which the Government of Burma have sought to tackle this problem is by the establishment of what they call projects. We live in days of curious terminology, but perhaps if I explain what they mean by "projects," it may assist the House. They have established four projects—for agriculture covering rice, cotton and other commodities; timber; road transport; and civil supplies. The projects board is appointed by the Government and is under the control of the Government. The chairman is a Government official, and the duties of the board are to rehabilitate the particular industries concerned and get them working on sound financial lines in order that a degree of prosperity may return to the country. It is true they are using private firms as agents. I do not know what else they could do. They have to use the organisations which exist and the experience they possess, and it is, there- river steamers which had been largely destroyed or taken away during the occupation years. I cannot say that anything substantial has been done in the five months during which the Governor has been back, but steps have been taken and orders placed for the purpose of replacing those steamers as soon as possible. Obviously, that is going to take some time, but I believe that some steamers will shortly be back on those waters.

With regard to the right hon. Gentleman's question about education, it is true to say that there is a good deal of illiteracy in Burma, especially in the tribal areas, but I believe it is a fact that among the Burmese people there is a high standard of literacy, even higher, perhaps, than in other Eastern countries. Nonetheless, there is a good deal to be done especially in the hill areas. The Director of Education of the Burmese Government was one of the first officials to land in Burma with the military Forces, and he has taken steps to carry out the plans already prepared for the purpose of constructing an overall system of education and bringing education into the hill villages. But we have to be realistic and we must realise that it is going to be a slow process. At the same time, a great many of the schools have been reopened, and the position is very much better than it might have been. Several departments of the Rangoon university have been reopened, but the university is not yet fully functioning.

My hon. Friend the Member for Maldon (Mr. Driberg) raised a number of points and the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Saffron Walden also emphasised the importance of speeding up the preparation of the Franchise Bill which is to be the basis for the coming election. I hope it is not necessary for me to say that, as far as I am concerned, I am just as anxious as my hon. Friend to have the election held at the earliest possible date and that everything I can do will be done to ensure that this Bill will be introduced into the House as soon as possible. I am sure that the right hon. Gentleman, with his great experience, will agree with me when I say that even though the basis of the Bill may be simple, in the sense that adult suffrage has been approved, because of the special electorates, and so on, in Burma, it may be more than a one or two Clause Bill. Parliamentary draftsmen are very hard at work at the moment, and that fact will have to be taken into consideration. However, I will undertake that the Bill will be introduced at the earliest possible moment. The hon. Member for Maldon also raised the question whether there was any truth in the statement in "The Times" this morning to the effect that: An unauthorised report in a Burmese newspaper, that the question of arresting U Aung San, formerly General of the patriotic Burma Forces, was discussed recently between the Governor, Sir Reginald Dorman-Smith, and Sir Paw Tun, Home Member, has enhanced the interest taken here in the expected debate on Burma in Parliament. Quite frankly, I am not in a position to say what conversations may have taken place between the Governor and the Home Member, but I would like to say that, so far as the arrest of any political leader such as U Aung San is concerned, there will be no question of such a thing happening except on the authority of His Majesty's Government. My hon. Friend than referred to the relations between the Governor and the Anti-Fascist People's League. I do not think it is necessary for me again to traverse the ground with regard to the formation of the Executive Council. The House is well aware that the Governor did offer in November to this particular organisation seven out of the eleven seats on the Executive Council. The conditions which they sought to lay down were such that it was not possible for the Governor to accept and, as a result, it has not been possible to include those representatives of the Anti-Fascist People's Freedom League on the Executive Council. I can only say that, on several occasions, spokesmen far the Government, including the Governor himself, have indicated quite definitely that the door still remains open and that the Governor would welcome the cooperation of this political organisation in the rehabilitation of the country. They have not availed themselves of that opportunity, and I do not see what more can be done, so far as the Governor is concerned.

As to the question of a deputation, I should like to correct the statement of the facts made by my hon. Friend the Member for West Fife (Mr. Gallacher) when he was dealing with this particular proposal. The first move was made by the representatives of the A.F.P.F.L. who wanted permission to send a deputation of five or seven members to this country by fore, correct to say that organisations like Steel Brothers as well as other British concerns, and Burmese and Indian companies, will assist in this direction. There is no question of it being kept as a British monopoly. All organisations—Burmese, Indian and British—will be utilised. It is quite true to say that the Burmese companies are in a minority. The explanation is, as my hon. Friend knows, and as other hon. Members are aware, they have not in the past been as active in business as the British and the Indians, and, therefore, they do not possess the organisation and the necessary experience.

My hon. Friend the Member tor Maldon wanted to know about the trade union movement. It is true we have sent an official from the Ministry of Labour, not to organise the trade union movement, but to give to those who want to organise such a movement the benefit of his advice and experience. I understand he is a very experienced official from the Ministry of Labour, who is well able to perform the task. My hon. Friend also asked about the possibility of a delegation going from this country to Burma. I am sure he will not expect me at this moment to commit the Government and say whether that can be done, but I will certainly bear the suggestion in mind.

The hon. and gallant Gentleman the Member for the Isle of Wight (Sir P. Macdonald) asked what was being done to encourage greater production of rice. I think I have dealt with that point as far as I can. It is a problem of which we are all very conscious, and it is, of course, of vital importance to Burma itself. The question of animals is difficult. There is a shortage in Southern Burma where tractors cannot be used owing to the conditions, and animals have to be used instead, but everything is being done to increase the number of animals in Southern Burma and it is hoped that it may be possible to use tractors by degrees in Northern Burma. Of course, they cannot be turned out like rabbits out of a hat, and there is a great demand for tractors in other parts of the world, but we will do everything we can to secure a good proportion for Burma.

The hon. Member for Farnham (Mr. Nicholson) raised two points in his speech. One had reference to money lenders in Burma. There is no doubt that a good deal of indebtedness does exist in the agricultural areas, and the problem of having to ease this burden which bears upon them very considerably, or certainly has done in the past, will have to be faced by the Government of Burma, but that will depend upon an improvement in the financial position of the country. It is a matter which will have to receive very serious consideration. The hon. Gentleman also referred to the rather tragic position of the Anglo-Burman community, and I entirely agree with what he said about the unfortunate position in which they have been placed, I also agree that we shall have to pay due regard to their welfare when we are forming the political settlement

Mr. Nicholson

I would be obliged if the hon. and learned Gentleman could make inquiries and let us know something about the immediate position in Burma; I am not so concerned with the ultimate position, but the immediate position.

Mr. Henderson

I will see that what the hon. Gentleman had to say will he brought to the notice of the Governor, and I will endeavour to get a reply. I was asked a question about the defence forces in Burma. Before the war they were not very large, and at present efforts are being made by His Majesty's Government to reconstitute those forces, but even so they will be on a comparatively limited scale. I am not prepared to argue at the moment as to whether we should go slow on the policy which I have enunciated today, merely because they might not have sufficiently large defence forces to compare with other independent countries. I hope I will not be misunderstood when I say that in spite of any deficiency in that regard, it is the declared intention of His Majesty's Government, which they will carry out on the lines which I have indicated, to ensure that the people of Burma do realise their national aspirations at the earliest possible moment.

Sir P. Macdonald

Would the hon. and learned Gentleman say something on the point I raised, namely, that the functions of the Burma Office should be transferred to the Dominions Office at the earliest possible moment?

Mr. Henderson

I am sure the hon. and gallant Gentleman will not expect me to answer that point today, but it will be on record and it can be considered by those concerned.

Question put, and agreed to.

Resolved: 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 Proclamation was presented on 9th February, 1943

Resolved: 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 17th October, 1945, a copy of which Proclamation was presented on 22nd February."—[Mr. A. Henderson.]