SINGAPORE ARMED FORCES (AMENDMENT) BILL

SINGAPORE ARMED FORCES (AMENDMENT) BILL: Order for Second Reading read.

The Minister for Defence (Mr Teo Chee Hean): Mr Speaker, Sir, I beg to move, "That the Bill be now read a Second time".

Introduction

Sir, the Bill before this House seeks to amend the Singapore Armed Forces Act. It will give legal powers for the SAF to conduct security operations in support of civilian authorities. The proposed amendments strengthen domestic legislation to address new security challenges.

_Strategic rationale
_

Since the end of the Cold War, many of the old certainties about conflict have disappeared. In the post 9/11 environment, threats to national security do not just come from armies, air forces and navies of foreign powers. Irregular threats in the form of transnational

Column: 771

terrorists and international criminals are growing and generating new challenges to domestic security.

Extremists, together with criminal elements, now operate globally, targeting what they consider hostile interests and governments. Many are small terrorist cells and radicalised individuals acting autonomously within their own countries. These home-grown cells, for whom Al Qaeda remains a powerful ideological icon, are capable of striking anywhere in the world and in any part of a country in unexpected and unanticipated ways. Well-defended borders alone do not guarantee security.

In this new threat environment, states face an elusive foe. Lead times for warning and response will be far shorter. The enemy hides amongst innocents and organises in small groups. He does not wear a uniform and may not even hold a gun - the 9/11 hijackers were armed only with box-cutters when they took control of several aircraft and used them as weapons against national targets. The 2002 Bali bombers merged into the bustling crowd of locals and tourists.

These new adversaries have a destructive impact that far exceeds their numbers. Radical extremists and terrorists have no qualms about murdering innocents to inspire fear for political ends. With long-term planning and access to technical know-how and money, they can launch deadly attacks wherever there are crowds of people and against infrastructure, such as aviation, petroleum and tourism-related targets.

The equation of national defence and security has changed. States face security threats that operate across jurisdictions for external defence and internal security. Any lack of coordination between security agencies can create vulnerabilities that such elements can exploit. A closely coordinated inter-agency approach to

Column: 772

security is therefore required to keep Singapore safe.

Existing security operations

What are our existing security operations? MINDEF and the Ministry of Home Affairs (MHA) are cooperating closely. The SAF has for some time been supporting the Home Team and other Government agencies in domestic security operations. This is, at their request, to effectively meet the evolving security challenges.

Terrorist attacks can come by air, by sea or by land. We know that Al Qaeda was actively targeting Singapore ports, and the JI was planning to crash a hijacked airliner into Singapore. The SAF is currently supporting civilian authorities to counter both air and maritime threats. This makes sense because it would not be efficient for the Home Team to duplicate the SAF's air and sea defence capabilities. Only the Republic of Singapore Air Force (RSAF) has capabilities to counter aerial threats. In the maritime arena, the Republic of Singapore Navy (RSN) works closely with the police coast guard to combat piracy and protect sea lanes. The navy conducts patrols 24 hours a day, seven days a week within our territorial waters, escorts selected shipping that ply our waters, and inspects sensitive vessels.

For land security operations, there are three things that the SAF is currently doing. This is for land security operations.

The Minister for Defence (Mr Teo Chee Hean): 4.55 pm

First, SAF personnel are called upon to support civilian authorities in operations requiring specialised capabilities that the SAF has. These include Special Operations and Chemical, Biological,

Column: 773

Radiological and Explosive (CBRE) operations.

Second, SAF troops are deployed on a long-term basis to protect key installations, such as Jurong Island, the Sembawang Wharves, Changi Airport and various SAF camps.

Third, SAF personnel are called upon to augment the Singapore Police Force to provide security during major events like the International Olympic Committee Session, the S2006 IMF-World Bank Meeting and National Day parades, and the SAF will be deployed again for the ASEAN Summit later this year.

Today, about 1,000 SAF personnel are deployed every day for security operations to protect key installations and for maritime and air operations. In the event of additional security operations like the S2006 IMF-World Bank Conference, a further 1,000 or so personnel are deployed. These current efforts leverage on the SAF's capabilities and resources to supplement civilian enforcement agencies. As a small country with limited resources, this is a sensible approach to enhance domestic security in a more complex and uncertain security environment that we face.

In order to fulfil the mission of national defence, militaries around the world are also undertaking homeland, air and maritime security operations in a non-war environment. For example, in Australia, legislation allows the Defence Force to be used to protect against national security threats within the country. They have the powers to detain, search, seize and exercise reasonable force to do so.

Current gaps

Although SAF personnel are already undertaking homeland, air and maritime security operations, their legal powers and

Column: 774

protection under domestic law when they are deployed are not sufficiently well-defined. These security operations often require the SAF to exercise selected and specific legal powers in Singapore territory and international waters and airspace that were not previously envisioned. Such powers include the right to intercept, stop, search and detain, seize, and apply force against hostile aircraft, vessels and persons. Existing legislation that SAF personnel operate under do not define these powers adequately.

Under the SAF Act, only military policemen have powers of search and arrest and these are limited to places under possession, control or occupancy of the SAF or situations where SAF operations are obstructed.

The Protected Areas and Protected Places Act (PAPPA) provides SAF powers of search and arrest to protect installations like Jurong Island, but only within the gazetted premises. So, SAF guards do not have the authority to stop or search suspicious vessels or persons in the vicinity of, or approaching the gazetted premises. They have to seek assistance from the police and wait for the police to arrive and take action. The Protected Areas and Protected Places Act does not cover situations where SAF personnel are called upon to support the police to provide security during major events or for patrolling Changi Airport. They are not empowered to search suspicious persons and are hence constrained in dealing with terrorist threats like car bombs or suicide bombers. For instance, the servicemen who accompany police officers at Changi Airport are not vested with powers to search or detain suspects or seize suspicious items during joint patrol duties. They assist the police whom they are accompanying.

The Public Order (Preservation) Act allows the SAF to be employed to assist

Column: 775

the civil authority, but only after the proclamation of a state of emergency by the Ministry of Home Affairs (MHA). This process is not sufficiently responsive in situations where the SAF needs to respond immediately to an imminent threat. The Public Order (Preservation) Act was designed to meet a completely different set of circumstances where you have riots and curfews.

Although SAF personnel can exercise force under the general provisions of the Right of Private Defence, these only allow them to act as though they are private citizens. It does not give them powers and protections as officers on duty, acting to protect public security.

Furthermore, there is currently no domestic law that regulate SAF operations in international waters and airspace, although under international law, Singapore authorities do have jurisdiction over Singapore registered and stateless vessels and aircraft.

Key provisions of the Bill

Mr Deputy Speaker, Sir, there is therefore a need for a proper legal framework to ensure everything in the conduct of security operations is properly specified, and to lay out clearly what servicemen can and cannot do. The proposed amendments to the SAF Act will provide the necessary framework for regulating the SAF when conducting security operations in support of civilian authorities. It will provide a clear legal basis for exercising the necessary powers. Permit me to highlight the key parts of this Amendment Bill.

The proposed amendments specify the circumstances under which the SAF may be utilised to conduct security operations in support of civilian authorities.

Under section 201B, the Minister for Defence may authorise the SAF to

Column: 776

conduct air and sea operations, such as to combat piracy and to detect and prevent any aerial or maritime threat to Singapore.

Under section 201C, the Minister may also make an order for the SAF to aid civilian authorities in land operations upon the occurrence or likely occurrence of an event like a terrorist attack or hostage taking. Such security operations would comprise protection of key installations, support during national events and counter-terrorist operations such as hostage rescue.

Sections 201B and 201C also set out the selected legal powers that may be lawfully exercised by servicemen involved in the security operations. These include power to stop, detain, search and use reasonable force against suspect vessels, vehicles and persons. The SAF will not be given investigation or prosecution powers against civilians. Under section 201G, any person arrested or things seized, whether in a land, sea or air operation, must be handed over, as soon as practicable, to the police.

The amendments also put in place checks and safeguards. In fact, that is really one of the motivations why we want to have this amendment in place. Under section 201B, authorisation for the SAF to support civilian authorities in air and sea operations can only be made by the Defence Minister. Section 201C imposes an additional safeguard for land-based security operations. The Minister for Defence has to first consult a committee appointed by the Prime Minister, before he can issue an order for the SAF to assist civilian authorities for land operations. However, if an extraordinary emergency makes it impractical to consult the committee before issuing such an order, he must consult the committee within three days or the order will lapse. Section 201E sets out the chain of command for the exercise of

Column: 777

powers. It requires a serviceman to exercise powers only in accordance with the authorisation by the Minister or under an order from a superior, acting in accordance with the Minister's authorisation.

The powers provided to the SAF are strictly circumscribed and are limited to those necessary for the serviceman to conduct the operations in aid of the civil authorities. They do not exceed the powers that the police have. The powers will be limited to specific areas, allocated periods of time, and for specific tasks, as approved by the Minister. Under section 201C, any order for the SAF to be deployed for land operations must specify the relevant circumstances, location or infrastructure, the interest to be protected or threat averted, the legal powers that apply and the period the order will be in force. SAF personnel will not have any powers when they are not on duty and hence, cannot interpose in situations like the police.

Implementation

To effectively operationalise these provisions, SAF personnel will be appropriately trained to exercise the limited legal powers accorded to them. MINDEF is cooperating closely with the Ministry of Home Affairs to ensure that SAF troops deployed in security operations are equipped with the necessary knowledge and skills.

The SAF Military Police Command is the lead agency in the SAF to ensure a comprehensive and robust training system. It will develop lesson plans and training aids, conduct courses and audit SAF units to ensure standards and compliance at the system level. It also maintains the currency of the training system by organising regular seminars and

Column: 778

workshops to disseminate updates and best practices.

To ensure quality training, we train our trainers rigorously and benchmark training standards to the Singapore Police Force (SPF). SAF Military Police Command instructors conduct the courses for SAF personnel expected to execute the legal powers of search, arrest and seizure. These instructors are also trained by the Singapore Police Force. In addition, Police Officers are regularly invited by the Military Police Command as subject matter experts to share operational experiences.

This ensures that our trainers' expertise is updated and kept relevant. The Military Police Command staff and instructors will also attend overseas international seminars and courses to learn global best practices for security- related organisations.

Sir, the SAF Military Police Command has worked closely with their Singapore Police Force counterparts to adapt the relevant training curriculum to meet the SAF's operational requirements.

The course topics conducted by the Military Police Command include general legal knowledge, assessment of situation and suspects, search techniques, effecting arrest, incident site management, and seizure of suspect materials during security operations. This training syllabus has been validated with the police.

After being trained by the SAF Military Police Command, SAF personnel return to their respective operational units and undergo specialised training that focus on scenario-, location-specific and rules of engagement training contextualised to their unique operational environment, prior to being deployed for security duties. Subsequently, the SAF Military Police Command will conduct refresher courses to ensure that core competencies are regularly maintained and updates in

Column: 779

doctrine and legal knowledge are disseminated systematically.

Currently, about 400 personnel have already been trained by the SAF Military Police Command. We will continue to train more personnel in the coming months to provide capacity to rotate personnel. As I mentioned earlier, we expect to train about 2,000 servicemen for this purpose.

Standard Operating Procedures and Rules of Engagement are being reviewed to govern the way the SAF conducts peacetime security operations under the new legal provisions, and how soldiers act in specific scenarios they might encounter during security operations.

The same protocols the police use will be followed by the SAF. These ROEs and SOPs will be reviewed and updated regularly to ensure their relevance.

Sir, currently our SAF personnel are already deployed to assist domestic enforcement agencies to address emerging security threats.

The Bill provides a good legal framework to regulate the conduct of security operations when the SAF is deployed for security operations. It will provide the legal framework and basis for SAF servicemen to carry out these security duties effectively, with confidence, and in a well regulated and defined manner. It will also give the public the assurance that these servicemen are trained and legally empowered to do the job that they are doing.

Sir, I beg to move.

Question proposed.

Ms Indranee Rajah (Tanjong Pagar): Mr Deputy Speaker, Sir, first of all, I would like to speak in support of the amendments to the SAF Act. These amendments which are really intended to

Column: 780

put in place a proper legal framework are timely. They are reflective of the changed security situation of the world that we live in today.

In the past, it was possible to have a clear divide between external threats to security and internal threats. Those were clear. The SAF dealt with the external threats and defence, and the Police and the Home Team dealt with internal threats. But, of course, 11th September 2001 changed all that. On September 11th, the line between the military element and the civilian element had blurred, and the problem we face today is that an external threat would not necessarily come from the foreign armed forces of another country. It could quite easily be initiated by terrorists and their civilian associates. The enemy no longer needs to wear a uniform which identifies him as such. The enemy could be from within and be just like one of us. And in our new security climate, it is no longer just military targets but also civilian targets as well. Hence, the need to amend the SAF Act to allow for the SAF to assist in situations where they have to act in support of civilian authorities.

I have been looking at the structure of the Act and there are really two parts to it - one, the ability to deploy the SAF for air and sea operations in aid of civilian authorities; and, second, the deployment of the SAF for land operations in aid of civilian authorities. And it is the part on land operations that I would like to concentrate on.

The way the regime works, as I understand it, is that, first, the Minister must think that a relevant event has occurred, could occur or would be likely to occur, and then he can order the SAF to be declared for the relevant event for such period as is specified in the order, and that is a relevant event. That would be something like terrorist attacks, injury to life, damaged infrastructure, taking of

Column: 781

hostages, unlawful carriage of weapons or explosives. Only when the Minister makes the deployment order, the serviceman is deployed and then he has certain powers. And these would include various things, one of which would be the exercise of any powers conferred on a police officer under Chapters 4, 12 and 68 of the Criminal Procedure Code. He also has certain powers of arrest without warrant and powers of search and seizure if he has ground to think that an offence has been committed under the Arms and Explosives Act and the Corrosive and Explosive Substances and Offensive Weapons Act.

The serviceman cannot exercise these powers unless he is authorised either by the Minister or under orders from a superior. In the context of being authorised under orders of a superior, I had heard the Minister say in his speech that the orders of the superior must in turn be authorised by the Minister. I would be grateful for a clarification from the Minister with respect to section 201E of the Act, because it says, "a serviceman may exercise any power either in accordance with the Minister's authorisation or under the authority of an order of a superior." I would like to seek clarification that under the Act, the order of the superior must be authorised by the Minister. Otherwise, the superior would be acting on his own. I assume that comes from section 201E(5) but I thought that it would be best to seek clarification here. So, at least, there is a clear chain of command - from Minister to superior officer, and then from the officer to the serviceman.

There are two aspects of the Act that I want to touch on. One, that the provisions of the Act are quite wide-ranging and understandably so, because of the need to be able to respond to a security threat. One item that was of

Column: 782

interest was section 201C, because there are three instances where the Minister can make an order for deployment. Of course, he has to do it after consulting the committee. The first is when a relevant event has occurred. When a relevant event has occurred, there is no problem, because I think the public will understand that there is a clear danger.

It also allows the Minister to make an order if a relevant event is likely to occur. That is not a problem as well because people know that there is a probable danger. It is the words that the Minister can deploy the SAF where a relevant event could occur, because "could occur" is where anything is possible. In this respect, I would like to ask for the Minister's assurance that such an order would not be made lightly or arbitrarily, and would be really made in a situation where there is a real need to do so. I think that is where the need for public reassurance comes.

The second aspect is the powers that the serviceman would have, because these are quite wide-ranging and, importantly, the serviceman has an interface with the public in the exercise of these powers. I appreciate that there are already built-in safeguards because he cannot exercise these powers unless the deployment order has been made and unless the Minister has given the authorisation or a superior officer has given the authorisation. But once those three things have occurred, the serviceman is actually in a position where he will have to exercise some element of discretion, particularly when he is exercising any of the powers conferred under the Criminal Procedure Code, Chapters 4 and 12, or section 68, or, for example, if he is deciding to arrest without warrant or to stop and search any vehicle in connection with the two Acts mentioned earlier.

In this respect, I suppose the need for proper training is very important. I was

Column: 783

reassured to some extent by the Minister's speech where he outlined the type of training that the serviceman would undergo. I think what is of importance is the serviceman's ability to carry out those powers when they are dealing with civilians, because there will be a time when he has to exercise his discretion. If he stops a vehicle and he thinks, for example, that there has been a commission of an offence under the Arms and Explosives Act, he has to take a decision because he has the ability to disarm such a person; he has the ability to seize what is in the vehicle; he has got to take a judgment call on the spot whether to do that or not. There will also be times when he may have to decide whether to stop and search a civilian. So, for these instances where the discretion is necessary, because I appreciate that the serviceman cannot stop on the spot and call back for orders and say, "Excuse me, do I search the person now?" He cannot do that.

The training is extremely important. For that, the point that I wanted to make was, it is not just the methodology of carrying out the search or seizure, but the training in when to exercise that discretion, how to exercise that discretion, particularly when dealing with civilians.

These are the main points that I wish to make, Mr Deputy Speaker. I would also like to say that I do support the amendments to the SAF Act.

5.25 pm

Mr Michael Palmer (Pasir Ris-Punggol): Mr Deputy Speaker, Sir, thank you for allowing me to speak on this Bill.

The powers that will be given to the Singapore Armed Forces in this Bill are timely and essential in this day and age. As the Minister has reiterated, terrorism is on the rise and the world is fighting back

Column: 784

to stamp it out. The fight against terrorism is a global one. Singapore must do its part in that fight. In order to do our part, it is important that our laws enable our armed forces, whether they be local enforcement or the military, to have the power to be effective in that battle.

I believe that the amendments that are tabled in this Bill will give the SAF the ability to act together with, and supplement, where necessary, our Home Team in the battle against terrorism. Some of us may ask whether this is really necessary. Can't our local law enforcement officers do the job? Aren't the conventional methods of law enforcement sufficient without having to involve the military? Don't our current laws allow our Police to fight terrorism? Much of the time, the answer to these questions is a resounding yes. But, occasionally, when the situation calls for it, more is needed. I believe that these amendments give the power to the SAF to help our Police Force so as to ensure that there are no gaps in our defences against terrorism.

That said, I would like to highlight an area of concern that I have with these proposed amendments. This concerns the operation of section 201C, which relates to land operations. Under this section, the Minister for Defence would be authorised to make an order which will call for the deployment of SAF personnel on the occurrence of or possible occurrence of one or more trigger events called "relevant events". Essentially, if the Minister is of the view that a relevant event, which includes a terrorist attack or hostage situation or threat to life or our infrastructure has occurred or may occur, he may make an order deploying SAF personnel to address that relevant event after consultation with the committee appointed by the Prime Minister. The committee, in fact, acts as a check and balance to the power granted to the Minister.

Column: 785

Amongst the powers that the Minister may confer on the serviceman to be deployed are the powers, which Ms Indranee Rajah has already covered under the Criminal Procedure Code, such as the power to stop and search without warrant and the power of arrest with warrant. The order is then published in the Government Gazette . Once that order is made, two questions arise. First, how are Singaporeans going to know that it has been made? Yes, it will be published in the Government Gazette , but that, with respect, is not staple reading of most Singaporeans, and even me, as a lawyer, hardly reads the Gazette. But I presume that aside from publication in the Gazette , due publicity will be given to the order so that all people in Singapore will be made aware of the fact of the order and the terms of the order. That really is the lesser issue or the more minor issue.

The greater issue and the one which concerns me most is how Singaporeans are going to know which SAF personnel have the authority to act under the order. I do not think that it is intended, and the Minister has clarified, that all SAF personnel would be deployed each time that an order is made. We are looking at about 2,000. I am sure this will be done in limited numbers and not all 2,000 at the same time, depending on the relevant event that has arisen or which may arise. But almost every male Singaporean owns or has in his possession a camouflage No. 4 uniform. In fact, they are readily available for purchase at various army surplus stores. Does this mean that once the order is made

we must allow everyone in No. 4 uniform to stop, search and seize and arrest us without warrant? How would we know which servicemen have the authority to act under section 201C order? How would we know whether a serviceman is or is not on duty even if he falls under the Act? When guarding a protected place or installation, such as an

Column: 786

army camp or Jurong Island, the boundaries are clear. If the man is at the guardhouse, there is no dispute. But when we start talking about Suntec City Convention Centre or Changi Airport, the line becomes blurred. In the current situation, as the Minister highlighted, the army personnel that tag along with the Police doing the patrols at Changi Airport have no powers. After these amendments are passed, if the Minister makes a deployment order, in relation to guarding Changi Airport, the Police need not accompany the SAF personnel. The point then is how do we know whether these people are on duty or not on duty.

The situation becomes even more interesting when you talk about Suntec City during a convention like the ASEAN Summit. We all grow up in a knowledge that a policeman in uniform has these powers of stop, search and seizure. So when a policeman in uniform tells us to stop, we stop. When he asks us questions, we answer those questions. And we know that he has got the power to arrest us on reasonable grounds. In addition, a policeman carries a warrant card which is a symbol of his authority to stop, search and seize. If a policeman is out of uniform, he can still exercise those powers provided he shows his warrant card. What about the servicemen deployed under section 201C? Will they be issued some symbol of their authority so that the general public know and are aware that these servicemen have that same powers as the police?

In my view, it is only fair to both the servicemen as well as the general public that those empowered under section 201C be issued with a proper form of identification to make the authority clear. This will leave no room for doubt in the minds of the general public. The last thing we want is a situation where a member of the public is challenged by SAF personnel wielding a semi-automatic machine gun because there is doubt as to

Column: 787

whether he has got authority to stop, search and seize them.

I would also like to invite the Minister to consider what penalties would be imposed on people who impersonate a serviceman who has been granted authority under section 201C - as I said, No. 4 uniforms are owned by many male Singaporeans - or a serviceman who abuses the power granted to him under section 201C. I do not see provisions in the Bill which relate to those scenarios. Currently, complaints of abuse of powers by police are dealt with by internal enquiries within the Police Force. If they are justified, firm disciplinary action is taken. Will a similar procedure be established for such cases of abuse by SAF personnel? In the same way that you got a higher level check and balance, in terms of a committee appointed by the Prime Minister in respect of an order that is made by the Minister, we also need these lower level checks and balances in respect of the same powers that you are giving to SAF personnel that are given to the Police. I hope the Minister will consider and address the concerns that I have raised so as to ensure a smooth implementation of the powers provided for in this Bill, as I believe the amendments will enhance Singapore's ability in the fight against terrorism.

With that, Sir, I support the Bill.

5.35 pm

Dr Ong Chit Chung (Jurong): Mr Deputy Speaker, Sir, thank you for allowing me to join in the debate.

Sir, after 9/11, the security landscape has changed drastically. Terrorism is a clear and present danger, a threat to the peace and security of Singapore. So far, we have been spared the ravages of terrorism. This is due to the good work of the police, the Internal Security Department and the Security Forces as well as

Column: 788

the support and cooperation of all Singaporeans of all races. We can understand and appreciate therefore the extension of powers to SAF servicemen in their deployment for air and sea operations. Air and sea operations are by nature external operations for which SAF servicemen are trained and geared up for.

Sir, however, empowerment of SAF servicemen for land operation is not the same. In the amendment, SAF servicemen will be empowered to search, arrest and detain persons within Singapore in land operations. This is clearly a new domestic military role. It is a big psychological change which may be difficult to accept. In the domestic context, we are all familiar with the neighbourhood policemen - our men in blue. But it could be quite frightening for a layman to be confronted by a soldier in army camouflage with an array of powerful weapons.

I therefore have the following questions for the Minister for Defence. Currently, the SAF servicemen work side by side with the police officers in land operations. They complement each other and in emergency, the Minister for Home Affairs can extend the police powers to the SAF servicemen. This system seems to be working out well so far. Why do we need to change this? As they say, "If ain't broke, why fix it?" If we need more manpower to do police patrols at vital installations like the Airport, why not increase police personnel by sending more National Servicemen to join the Police Force, instead of enlisting the SAF? Traditionally, the SAF is for external defence and the Police is in charge of law and order within the country. In a way, it is a separation of powers.

Will the empowerment of SAF servicemen in domestic operation distort this fine balance of power? We can trust the current Government Ministers we all know are people of integrity. I know we

Column: 789

can trust Minister Teo Chee Hean who will absolutely abide by the rules. But what if the PAP were to lose power one day, and I hope not, and another set of leaders take over the country and the government? Will such concentration of powers in the SAF lead to potential abuses under a different government? Will there be a chance of a military backed government? When the SAF personnel operate in internal land operation, will they be subject to civil law or military law? If there were abuses of misconduct, would they be charged in civil court or would they be court-martialled? Even the SAF servicemen need to know under what laws are they operating.

Sir, SAF personnel are mainly males. May I ask if they will be allowed to search female persons in public? In the London underground, a person was shot by mistake, suspected wrongly of being a terrorist. Would there be clear rules of engagement for SAF personnel and how well will they be trained to handle tricky and delicate situations, bearing in mind that mishaps cannot be ruled out? My question is: are we expecting too much of our young SAF National Servicemen?

5.40 pm

Ms Sylvia Lim: Mr Deputy Speaker, Sir, I do appreciate that the intention behind these amendments is benign. However, I have some concerns regarding the proposed section 201C relating to the deployment of the army for land operations as it appears to contain some rather drastic powers given to the Minister for Defence. Under section 201C, a relevant event, as defined by subsection 10, must occur or be likely to occur before deployment. Section 201C gives the power to declare that such an event has occurred to the Minister for Defence.

Column: 790

First, I would like to ask the Minister if he could clarify the constitutional status of section 201C. The Constitution currently prescribes that it is the President who will issue any proclamation of emergency. Such an emergency is defined under Article 150 of the Constitution as a grave situation where the security or economic life of Singapore is threatened. The existing SAF Act itself, under section 198, envisages that it is the President who will decide whether emergency powers should be in force. Looking at the triggering events in this Bill, under subsection 10 are situations listed such as a terrorist attack and damage or disruption to the operation of infrastructure, which would seem to overlap with the emergency situations defined by the Constitution since these events too threaten the security and economic life of Singapore. As the President is not intended to be involved under this Bill, does this undermine the Constitution?

Second, Sir, the Minister in charge has very wide powers. Section 201C provides for the Minister to consult a committee before ordering deployment. This committee is to be appointed by the Prime Minister. However, section 201C(7) provides for situations when the Minister need not consult the committee, that is, if he is satisfied that the emergency is sudden and extraordinary such that it is not practical to consult. If the Minister orders deployment without consulting the committee, his order can continue for 72 hours after which it will lapse unless the committee confirms it. Sir, if the ground situation is indeed very grave, should the Prime Minister not be a critical decision maker, instead of asking the Minister to decide after consulting a committee? Should the Prime Minister not make the decision?

Next, Sir, although it may be far-fetched to imagine it now, we may one day have a Minister in charge who has

Column: 791

ambitions to overthrow the Government and take control, and in answer to the preceding Member, Dr Ong, it could very well come from this ruling party in years to come, we can never say. The proposed section 201C would allow this Minister to deploy the army for 72 hours without seeking approval from anyone. Once the three days have passed, it may be the point of no return. As such, Sir, I have grave concerns about the powers given to the Minister under section 201C and would urge the Government to review this.

Lastly, I would like to seek clarification on one of the relevant events in subsection 10 of section 201C and, that is, injury or threat to life of such person as the Minister proposes to specify in his order. It seems very drastic to mobilise the army to protect an individual. The Explanatory Statement to the Bill mentions that such individuals include foreign dignitaries. Could the Minister clarify who else the Government has in mind for this triggering event?

Mr Teo Chee Hean: Mr Deputy Speaker, Sir, first of all, I would like to thank the four Members of this House who have spoken for their support and the need for such a Bill. First of all, let me recap why such a Bill is necessary. The situation has indeed changed from the past. The current regulations and laws provide for a situation, say, of riots or civil disorder, and this is envisaged under the Public Order (Preservation) Act. This is the question that Dr Ong Chit Chung asked.

In this Act, the Minister for Home Affairs is required to make a proclamation that there exists in an area in Singapore a state of danger of public order and is intended for a different set of circumstances - civil disorders, riots, imposition of curfews, rather than for the type of security operations that the SAF is

Column: 792

now in and will be conducting against terrorism. The other situation is one where the Home Affairs Ministry or the Police calls the SAF in to help protect lives and property in specific ad hoc circumstances, for example, by calling in our Special Operations Force as in a hostage rescue situation. But the issue at hand here is that the current legislation is not well-suited to the circumstances at hand and also does not provide enough safeguards in the event that the SAF is deployed. For example, SAF servicemen who are deployed do not have the Police powers of search, arrest and seizure. The SAF servicemen cannot conduct searches, maintain road blocks, seize objects independently without the presence of a police officer. And also, for security operations in the air and sea, today, there is no specific domestic legislation for the Minister for Home Affairs to call on the SAF to do those operations and acts specified in the SAF (Amendment) Bill.

So the situation is quite different and the existing legal framework is inadequate either to provide the SAF the legal powers to do the things that it is needed to do in order to help to assure public security nor are there enough safeguards to give assurance to the public that when the SAF does act, that it will do so within well-defined limits and in a regulated way. So this Act is put in place to achieve both purposes.

We should also bear in mind that, unlike in bigger countries where, in a given city, you can draw upon state or federal authorities to come to your assistance, whether it is the police at the state and federal levels or the fire service and other security-type agencies, Singapore is a relatively small country. There is no state or federal authority. We only have one level of authority in the police force. There is no neighbouring police force in a neighbouring county, city or state, or federal police force from which we can draw reinforcements and

Column: 793

resources if we face a situation where we need additional resources. So we have to optimise the resources that we have at hand in order to be able to protect our security in the best possible and most efficient way.

The Act provides for important safeguards. Let me deal with some of the concerns that Members have raised.

Ms Indranee Rajah asked about how the superior officer is empowered and whether I could confirm that the superior officer or the superior specified in 201E(1)(b) is indeed the superior stated in 201E, paragraph 5, and I do confirm that that is indeed the case.

Ms Indranee Rajah is concerned about the term "could" rather than "likely". Sir, could a terrorist attack occur, say, in a place like Jurong Island? Is it likely to occur in Jurong Island today or tomorrow? What are the consequences if an attack were to occur in a place like Jurong Island? I think the consequences would be quite catastrophic, the damage would be quite immense, and it would not affect just Jurong Island because of the types of activities that are carried on Jurong Island, and the impact may be beyond Jurong Island. So, even though in a case like Jurong Island, if you ask, "Is it likely to be attacked today or tomorrow?", I would say I could not honestly answer that is likely to be attacked today or tomorrow. Could it be attacked? I would say it could be attacked. What is the consequence if it is attacked? The consequence could be quite catastrophic. In such a circumstance, I think that it is wise to provide the security that we do indeed provide today for Jurong Island.

Mr Michael Palmer wanted to know how a person knows that an event has been gazetted. I think if such an event occurs, if there is no security implication

Column: 794

related to it, we will certainly publicise it beyond the Gazette , if necessary. But more importantly, Mr Michael Palmer wants to know how we would identify such a military personnel who is on duty. And I do agree with him that it is necessary to provide such identification. So SAF personnel on security operations will wear an identification, like an armband that says, "Military Security", much like a military policeman wears today. In addition, we will issue a military security identification card to SAF personnel conducting security operations. This card will have a photograph of the serviceman, his name and NRIC number. The card would be issued to the SAF personnel for the duration of the operation. Unlike a police warrant card, which has wider powers, the military security identification card gives SAF personnel limited powers for security operations duty in a defined area and allocated period of time to conduct specific tasks, as authorised by the Minister for Defence. The armband and military security identification card would provide the public assurance that the SAF personnel are conducting authorised security operations. Although it is not specified in this amendment Bill, there are indeed current laws against impersonating an SAF officer. In fact, there have been people prosecuted for personating SAF personnel.

There are also currently sufficient legal safeguards in place against the SAF Servicemen who may misconduct themselves in such operations. SAF Servicemen are in the privileged position of being subject to both military law and the laws that you and I are subject to, and it is actually up to the Attorney-General whether he chooses to prosecute SAF personnel under the laws that you and I are subject to or whether he chooses to hand prosecution over to the military prosecutor before a Court Martial. So, in fact, if you like, the rules under which military personnel operate are tighter than

Column: 795

the rules under which normal civilians function.

Ms Sylvia Lim asked about the constitutional provisions. I think there are no constitutional impediments for such a law to be passed. There is, in fact, a provision for emergency powers under section 198 under the SAF Act, and the powers proposed by these amendments are narrower in scope and for specified threats which may not warrant a declaration of emergency. When you have a declaration of emergency by the President, it is really an extreme circumstance. But if you have a S2006 conference, do you declare an emergency in Singapore? I think it is not the kind of situation where we say there is an emergency in Singapore just because we are holding a World Bank Conference or just because we have an ASEAN Summit. It does not warrant the declaration of an emergency. In fact, when an emergency is declared, the emergency powers under section 198 of the SAF Act give the SAF more wide-ranging powers than those envisaged under the proposed amendments. For example, when an emergency is declared, the SAF may enter, inspect, occupy, take possession of, evacuate, use, transfer, confiscate or destroy any private and public property and order any person to do any work and render any service. So, that is quite an extreme situation in Singapore before we would want to request for the President to declare an emergency and for the SAF to invoke such powers. So what we are actually asking for is a much more limited set of powers for the SAF in a very controlled and carefully specified way, and the place, time and duration, so that we are able to carry out operations in a way and still assure the public that their interests are well-protected.

Ms Sylvia Lim asked quite an improbable question whether the law will then allow a Minister for Defence to do something which is obviously illegal. I think if the Minister for Defence, whether

Column: 796

in this Government or in any future government, had such an intention, he really does not need a law for him to carry this out. In fact, the law here is to try and make sure that the powers that the Minister for Defence has in these circumstances are well-defined and well-conscribed, and what he can do and cannot do are also well-specified. And if I may inform this House, one of the reasons why I wanted to move this Bill is, in fact, to make sure that, as the SAF takes part in support of the Home Team in security operations in Singapore, these are well-defined, so that there is no ambiguity that these limitations on the Minister for Defence and the SAF are specified in the Act, so that there is no doubt that there are no other areas into which the Minister for Defence or the SAF can stray into which they ought not to be straying into.

Question put, and agreed to.

Bill accordingly read a Second time and committed to a Committee of the whole House.

The House immediately resolved itself into a Committee on the Bill. - [Mr Teo Chee Hean].

Bill considered in Committee; reported without amendment; read a Third time and passed.

Column: 796