In a report by British General Wavell to Prime Minister Winston Churchill, Australian soldiers were singled out for criticism of their actions in the Fall of Singapore. A criticism that led London Newspapers to write “Australian cowardice led to the fall of Singapore”. But a closer look reveals where the real responsibility for the Fall of Singapore lies.

In 1927, the British Government commissioned a review of the coastal defences for Singapore. The review was to focus on the protection of the seaward approaches to the new naval base to be built in the north of Singapore on the Strait of Johore which separated Singapore and Malaya. As a result, several improvements were to be made to existing fort facilities and, as the centrepiece of the review, included the construction of two new gun batteries that would house land-based 15” naval guns.

Lieutenant-General Arthur Percival, the General Officer Commanding Malaya, was a controversial figure for his part in the Fall of Singapore. But equally, so was Major-General (later to be Lieutenant-General) Henry Gordon (Gordon) Bennett. With a near contempt for British senior officers gained from WW1, an outspoken nature and a confidence in his own ability, Bennett clashed with Percival and the other generals of the Allied High Command in Singapore. But, unlike the other generals, Bennett escaped from Singapore, just hours after Percival had signed the surrender.

In April 1941, Lieutenant-General Arthur Percival was promoted to the position of General Officer Commanding, Malaya which oversaw the defence of Malaya (and Singapore). But just a little over two months after the Japanese invaded Malaya, Singapore would fall.

So how did Percival come to this position and to preside over the “worst disaster” and “greatest capitulation” in British military history?