Foreign Relations of the United States, 1955–1957, Southeast Asia, Volume XXII

459. Memorandum From the Director of the Office of Southeast Asian Affairs (Young) to the Assistant Secretary of State for Far Eastern Affairs (Robertson)¹

Washington, May 23, 1956.

SUBJECT

• Efforts to Establish Working-Level Consultation with the U.K. on Subversion in Malaya and Singapore

Attached for your information is a chronological summary of the British resistance we have met in our efforts to establish arrangements for close working-level consultation with the U.K. authorities with regard to communist subversion in Singapore and the Federation of Malaya.

As you will see, the British have been anything but helpful. Their reluctance to be candid probably stems primarily from Colonial Office attitudes.

Despite the lack of success, we plan to continue our efforts.

[Enclosure]

Memorandum for the Files²

SUBJECT

• The Department’s Efforts to Establish Working-Level Consultation with UK Authorities on Subversion in Singapore and the Federation of Malaya

Following is a chronological record of the Department’s efforts to establish closer working-level consultation with the UK authorities with regard to communist subversion, and measures to counter it, in Singapore and the Federation of Malaya.

1. December 14, 1955

The OCB formally approved a paper on measures to counter subversion in Singapore and the Federation of Malaya.³ Among the paper’s recommendations were the following:

• “B. Complete preparation of detailed suggestions to be used as a basis for working-level discussions with the British after (an) initial approach by the Secretary.
• “C. As soon as the British have indicated an interest in receiving our detailed suggestions, provide them on a working level in Washington, London, and Singapore with specific detailed suggestions. If no British response is forthcoming after the original high-level approach, the US should take the initiative in further approaches.”

2. December 21, 1955

Embassy London was informed in strict confidence of a position paper prepared in the UK Foreign Office for consideration at ministerial level to the effect that the Foreign Office should tell the Colonial Office that the time had come for taking the US into British confidence concerning Singapore and the Federation. (London tel 2552, December 21, 1955⁴).

3. January 14, 1956

The list of suggestions was completed and forwarded to appropriate posts for use when authorization given. (Dept’s CA–5294, Jan. 14 1956.⁵)

4. January 26, 1956

The UK Foreign Office told Embassy London that “unexpected difficulty” had been encountered in obtaining Colonial Office concurrence to discussions with the US of measures to counter subversion in Singapore and the Federation.⁶

5. January 31, 1956

The Secretary discussed the seriousness of the Singapore situation with UK Foreign Secretary Lloyd. (Deptel to London 4439, Feb. 8, 1956.⁷)

6. February 14, 1956

The Department suggested to the British Embassy that it might be helpful for US and UK representatives in the field to have closer consultation on subversion in Singapore and the Federation and on measures to combat it. (Deptel 4634 to London, February 15, 1956.⁸)

7. March 13, 1956

The British Embassy informed the Department that the UK agreed with our proposal for closer consultation in the field and that the appropriate UK officers in Singapore, Kuala Lumpur, and London had already approached certain US officers to establish the liaison. (Deptel 5289 to London, March 14, 1956.⁹)

8. March 15, 1956

In response to the Department’s inquiry, Embassy London said it had not been approached by the British. The Embassy requested instructions. (London tel 3982, March 15, 1956.¹⁰)

9. March 16, 1956

In response to the Department’s inquiry, the Consulate General of Kuala Lumpur said it had not been approached by the British. The Consulate General requested instructions. (Kuala Lumpur tel 373, March 16, 1956.¹¹)

The Department consulted the British Embassy and was told that the Embassy, after reviewing its instructions, found that US officials “are being informed.” The Embassy preferred that we leave the initiative to the British. The Department so instructed London, Kuala Lumpur, and Singapore. (Deptel 5356 to London, March 16, 1956.¹²)

10. March 19, 1956

The Consulate General at Singapore reported that liaison arrangement had been proposed “several weeks ago” by Gilchrist, British chairman of the UKFEJIC The proposal had been for consultation between Consul General Durbrow and Singapore Governor Black, with Anderson (Consulate General) and Broome (British internal security head, Singapore) as respective alternates. However, Gilchrist had said the arrangement depended upon the approval of the Governor, who would raise the matter with Durbrow. The Consulate General noted that the Governor had never done so. (Singapore tel 900, March 19, 1956.¹³)

11. April 4, 1956

In response to the Department’s inquiry (Smith, SEA, to Campbell, British Embassy, who said he would consult Sir Hubert Graves), the British Embassy asserted that it had information to the effect that US representatives had now been informed (specifically mentioning that the Singapore Governor had confirmed the arrangement to Durbrow) and suggested that we just had not had full reports from our representatives. (Deptel 5859 to London, April 5, 1956¹⁴)

12. April 5, 1956

The Department requested confirmation from London, Singapore, and Kuala Lumpur of the Department’s understanding that our representatives had not been approached. (Deptel 5859 to London, April 5, 1956).

13. April 6, 1956

Singapore referred to its earlier message and reiterated that the Governor had not confirmed the arrangements. (Singapore tel 961, April 6, 1956.¹⁵)

Kuala Lumpur referred to its earlier message and said the situation was unchanged. (Kuala Lumpur tel 187, April 6, 1956.¹⁶)

Embassy London referred to its earlier message and said the situation was unchanged. (London tel 4479, April 6, 1956.¹⁶)

14. April 11, 1956

Smith (SEA) reviewed developments, as outlined above, with Campbell (Colonial Attaché, British Embassy). Campbell remarked that there was an obvious misunderstanding somewhere in British channels. He said the Embassy would take up the matter with the Foreign Office and he would let us know as soon as a reply had been received.

15. April 19, 1956

Mr. Sebald (FE), during a conversation on other matters with Sir Hubert Graves of the British Embassy, inquired whether any further word had been received with regard to the proposed liaison arrangements. Sir Hubert replied that no word had been received.

16. May 10, 1956

Campbell of the British Embassy, during a reception at Campbell’s house, told Smith (SEA) he would call at the Department, before his impending departure for London, for a final review of Singapore matters.

17. May 18, 1956

Smith (SEA), during a conversation on other matters, inquired of Sir Hubert Graves whether any further word had been received from London on the proposed liaison arrangements. Sir Hubert replied that the British Embassy had written to the Foreign Office about the matter “a couple of days ago” but had not received an answer.

18. June 8, 1956¹⁷

Question raised by Mr. Young (SEA) with Mr. De la Mare of British Embassy, who said he was unfamiliar with problem but would look into it.

19. June 11, 1956

Conversation with Patrick Dean of UK Foreign Office (See Deptel 2360 to Singapore¹⁸).

20. June 15, 1956

Approach to Department by British Embassy¹⁹ . . . .

1. Source: Department of State, Central Files, 797.00/5–2356. Secret. Drafted by Smith and initialed for Young by Kocher. The Bureau of Far Eastern Affairs was reorganized at the end of March. The Office of Philippine and Southeast Asian Affairs became the Office of Southeast Asian Affairs, with responsibilities limited to mainland Southeast Asia. Eric Kocher was appointed Deputy Director of the new Office of Southeast Asian Affairs.
2. Secret. Drafted on May 22.
3. See Document 448.
4. Not printed. (Department of State, Central Files, 746F.00/12–2155)
5. Document 449.
6. Reported in telegram 3068 from London, January 26, not printed. (Department of State, Central Files, 746F.00/1–2656)
7. Document 451.
8. See footnote 4, Document 453.
9. See footnote 4, Document 456.
10. Not printed. (Department of State, Central Files, 797.00/3–1556)
11. Not printed. (Ibid., 797.00/3–1656)
12. Not printed. (Ibid., 797.00/3–1556)
13. Not printed. (Ibid., 746F.00/3–1956)
14. Not printed. (Ibid., 797.00/4–556)
15. Not printed. (Ibid., 797.00/4–656)
16. Not printed. (Ibid.)
16. Not printed. (Ibid.)
17. The chronology was expanded after May 23, presumably by Smith, to cover the period through June 15.
18. Not printed. (Department of State, Central Files, 797.00/4–556)
19. No record of such an approach has been found in Department of State files.