When considering the identities of those who were captured at Singapore, as reinforcements were sent under secrecy rules, many families did not know if their loved-ones had been in the area at the time of its surrender. In these circumstances as letters home stopped arriving in the United Kingdom, many families could only hope their relatives were alive and in enemy hands. Apart from the emotional strain, the lack of reliable information also carried financial implications. Barbara Hately-Broad pointed out that different allowances were made for the families of men who were missing, dead, or prisoners of war with Family and Dependents Allowances being paid by the War Office for the period of captivity for both Officers and Other Ranks. The War Office was eventually forced to assume that the great majority of the forces fighting in Hong Kong, Malaya, and particularly Singapore had been taken prisoner. If the British government had failed to adequately provide for welfare of the next-of-kin of those sent to fight on behalf and who were now thought to be prisoners of Britain’s the Japanese, this may have been a potential source of political embarrassment and could have led to a public outcry. London was already aware of the public concerns regarding the welfare of prisoners in Europe. As a consequence of the capture of British service personnel, prisoners of war committees and support groups had already been formed in many towns and cities. Nonetheless, negative publicity surrounding the failure to adequately government’s provide a supply of relief parcels to prisoners in Europe, had already raised the profile of issues surrounding the welfare of prisoners of war both in Whitehall, and with the wider British public. The capture of British service personnel and members of the public by the Japanese resulted in enquiries to the British authorities, from some worried family members concerned with the welfare of their relatives. Records demonstrate the amount of correspondence and time was demanded of government departments; for example, Mrs Rose Hunt wrote letters to Mr Eden, Lord Cranborne, Sir John Wardlaw Milne, Sir Robert Craigie, Miss Megan Lloyd George and the Manchester Guardian. Her persistence was seen by some to be taking time away from the business of helping the prisoners of war and internees. Although individuals had some influence, collectively the relatives of prisoners were able to exert greater pressure on the government. As a result of the paucity of information from the Japanese, it is perhaps not surprising that the British authorities had difficulty in dealing with enquiries concerning the plight
When considering the identities of those who were captured at Singapore, as reinforcements were sent under secrecy rules, many families did not know if their loved-ones had been in the area at the time of its surrender. In these circumstances as letters home stopped arriving in the United Kingdom, many families could only hope their relatives were alive and in enemy hands. Apart from the emotional strain, the lack of reliable information also carried financial implications. Barbara Hately-Broad pointed out that different allowances were made for the families of men who were missing, dead, or prisoners of war with Family and Dependents Allowances being paid by the War Office for the period of captivity for both Officers and Other Ranks. The War Office was eventually forced to assume that the great majority of the forces fighting in Hong Kong, Malaya, and particularly Singapore had been taken prisoner. If the British government had failed to adequately provide for welfare of the next-of-kin of those sent to fight on Britain’s behalf and who were now thought to be prisoners of the Japanese, this may have been a potential source of political embarrassment and could have led to a public outcry. London was already aware of the public concerns regarding the welfare of prisoners in Europe. As a consequence of the capture of British service personnel, prisoners of war committees and support groups had already been formed in many towns and cities. Nonetheless, negative publicity surrounding the government’s failure to adequately provide a supply of relief parcels to prisoners in Europe, had already raised the profile of issues surrounding the welfare of prisoners of war both in Whitehall, and with the wider British public. The capture of British service personnel and members of the public by the Japanese resulted in enquiries to the British authorities, from some worried family members concerned with the welfare of their relatives. Records demonstrate the amount of correspondence and time was demanded of government departments; for example, Mrs Rose Hunt wrote letters to Mr Eden, Lord Cranborne, Sir John Wardlaw Milne, Sir Robert Craigie, Miss Megan Lloyd George and the Manchester Guardian. Her persistence was seen by some to be taking time away from the business of helping the prisoners of war and internees. Although individuals had some influence, collectively the relatives of prisoners were able to exert greater pressure on the government. As a result of the paucity of information from the Japanese, it is perhaps not surprising that the British authorities had difficulty in dealing with enquiries concerning the plight
PLANNING%20AND%20REALITIES%20HAND%20IN%20with%20changes%20%285%29.docx