SINGAPORE MILITARY FORCES (AMENDMENT) BILL

Order for Second Reading read.

4.14 p.m.

The Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister for Home Affairs (Mr Chan Chee Seng): Mr Speaker, Sir, I beg to move, "That the Bill be now read a Second time."

Sir, the introduction of this amending Bill has three main purposes. These are, firstly, to make the Defence Forces Record Officer, instead of the Commandant, Singapore Military Forces, responsible for all matters pertaining to reservists; secondly, to provide for the enlistment of youths between the ages of 14 and 17 years as drummer boys and band boys; and thirdly, to establish a benevolent fund for regular member of the Singapore Military Forces.

In accordance with the provisions of section 12 of the Ordinance, the executive command of all members of the Singapore Military Forces is at present invested in the Commandant, Singapore Military Forces. These members consist of two categories of personnel. They are (a) regulars on "army service" and volunteers doing "colour training" service on the one hand, and (b) those regulars and volunteers who have completed their service of active service and are not on the reserve on the other. Whereas the Commandant, Singapore Military Forces, is the correct authority to exercise command over all serving regulars and volunteers, the authority responsible for dealing with all matters pertaining to reservists should properly be the Officer in Charge of Records as in the British Army. In the case of the local forces, the officers holding the appointment of Officer in Charge of Records is called the Defence Forces Record Officer. This officer's duties in connection with reservists include, amongst other things, looking after their past records of service and recording their up-to-date addresses; the re-engagement of a soldier (about to go on the reserve) for further "army service" if regulars, or for further "colour training" service if volunteers; transferring a reservist from the reserve to the active list; granting a reservist permission to leave the State up to a period of two' years; permitting a reservist to wear uniform on special occasions, etc. The Defence Forces Record Officer is also responsible for paying pensions to retired service personnel and is the "Pensions Authority" under the Personal Injury (Civilians) Scheme, 1941, for paying pensions to war widows and dependants and for paying disability pensions to disabled service personnel. In order to place reservists under his control, an amendment is required to section 12 of the Ordinance. This is what clause 4 seeks to do.

The amendment to section 12 of the Ordinance will entail consequential amendments to section 2, subsection (1) of section 11, section 42, and subsection (1) of section 43 of the Ordinance so as to make provision for the Defence Forces Record Officer to take over the duties formerly performed by the Commandant, Singapore Military Forces, in connection with reservists These consequential amendments are covered by clauses 2, 6, 7 and 8 of the Bill. These amendments will also entail consequential amendments to the Singapore Military Forces (Reserve) Rules, 1957. These will be effected later.

As the Defence Forces Record Officer has since 1st September, 1960, been carrying out the duties already referred to in connection with reservists, it is necessary to give retrospective effect to this by ante-dating the Bill to 1st September, 1960. This is what clause I seeks to do.

Clause 5 amends section 40 of the Ordinance to allow for the change of designation of the Officer in Charge Records from his former designation of "Officer in Charge Forces Record" to his present designation of "Defence Forces Record Officer". This amendment has already been incorporated in the Schedule to the Departmental Titles (Alteration) Ordinance, and the opportunity is therefore being taken in this amending Bill to make a similar amendment to the Singapore Military Forces Ordinance.

Clause 3 amends section 10 of the Ordinance to allow for the enlistment of drummer boys and band boys between the ages of 14 and 17 years since the present provisions of the Ordinance provide only for the enlistment of those who have attained the age of 18 years. The intention in recruiting such boys is to ensure that the Singapore Military Forces Staff Band will have a regular flow of trained musicians available to take the places of those bandsmen who will leave the band when the latter's seven years' active service is over. Nearly all the present 60 bandsmen and drummers were recruited in 1958 within six months of each other, which means that all of them will be due to go on the reserve about the same time. It is hoped that at least some of them will want to re-engage for a further period of active service but we cannot be sure of that in advance. A similar system for maintaining a steady flow of trained musicians is adopted in the British Army. In 1954, it was also the scheme in force in the Singapore Police Force Band. Band boys and drummer boys of the Singapore Military Forces will be .governed by special terms of service and be paid special rates of pay, which will be incorporated in consequential rules based on this Ordinance.

Clause 9 provides for a new section with the object of establishing a benevolent fund for regular members of the Singapore Military Forces. By virtue of the rules of the Singapore Government cooperative Thrift and Loan Society, which limits its membership to permanent civil servants of Government only, regular members of the forces cannot join that Society. Nor can members of the forces benefit from the Ex-Servicemen's Association in Singapore unless they have taken part in either World War I or World War II. Very few, if any, of the present regular members of the forces have so served. There is therefore no association or thrift society to which members of the forces can turn for financial assistance in a domestic crisis, or for other deserving purposes, unless a special fund is created for that purpose. The creation of such a fund is what clause 9 seeks to do. Consequential rules will lay down the conditions governing the operation of this fund.

Question proposed.

4.22 p.m.

Dr Sheng Nam Chin (Nee Soon): From what the Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister for Home Affairs has said, it would appear that the Government, particularly the Ministry of Home Affairs, have been acting ultra vires the law for more than one and half years and that the appointment of the Defence Forces Record Officer was made on 1st September. 1960. It is only after l� years have elapsed that the Government came to this House for powers to make that appointment and subsequently to ante-date the amendment made to the Bill today.

We feel that such action on the part of the Government can only be described as high-handed and that it is typical of the fashion of the dictatorial behaviour of the Government. We on this side of the House would urge the Government not to repeat the same mistakes in future, if at all they would admit that this is a mistake. Perhaps the Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister for Home Affairs will give us an assurance that similar oversights or errors will not be made in the future.

Mr David Marshall: Mr Speaker, Sir, I listened with delight to the stream of language which poured forth from the Parliamentary Secretary at a speed of reading to which I am not always equal and which prevented me from completely understanding him. But I would say this, Sir, he asks us in a great deal of technical jargon to approve something because the British Army does it. Well, I have a great regard for the British Army and I have no doubt that what it does it has good reasons for. But to me it is not adequate that we should do something just because the British Army does it. Surely we have our own problems. I would like to know, apart from the fact that we are copying the British Army, whether there is any reason at all why the Commandant of the Forces should not be in charge of reservists. Instead we have to create a special post, a gentleman to be known as the Defence Forces Record Officer, and we would like to know whether this officer is being paid more for being in charge of reservists than himself as Officer in Charge Forces Record, which was his previous title; and if so, since when has this additional payment been made? Has it been made since 1st September, 1960? Have we been for 1� years making payments not authorised by this Assembly? If that is the position, then at least elementary frankness requires that we should be told the truth. I do ask that the Parliamentary Secretary put away his brief and tell us if he knows what really is the reason for the change of title, what is the cost in the change of title and the cost incurred by the change of status, and why it is necessary that we should remove the Commandant of the Forces from command of the reservists and put in his place this gentleman. What exactly is behind all these manoeuvres? It may be that they are perfectly legitimate. I just do not like the sound of them because I do not understand it.

Then we have this question of the Singapore Military Forces benevolent fund. The poor gentlemen have nowhere to turn to and no ex-servicemen's association. But, Sir, if there is legitimate need to care for these persons who leave the Singapore Military Forces, there is surely the Government and there is the question of their own pension. In any event, would the Parliamentary Secretary indicate who is going to make contributions to the Singapore Military Forces benevolent fund? Is there going to be a public appeal for funds? Or does he not know? There is a comment, Sir, that this Bill will not involve the Government in any extra financial expenditure. Is this a technical truth for today or is it also the truth for tomorrow? What is the truth about this?

Mr Speaker: Mr Chan Chee Seng, in reply.

Mr Chan Chee Seng: Mr Speaker, with regard to the charge made by the Member for Anson that we are copying the British Army, this is in fact true. The duty of looking after the reservists has been carried out by the Defence Forces Record Officer since 1960, and the same procedure is adopted by the Malayan Government. So we are not following the British style.

The Member for Anson has also asked how much this officer is being paid. At the moment, I cannot supply him with the necessary details. But if he wishes it, I can furnish him with the necessary information.

Question put, and agreed to.

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

Assembly immediately resolved itself into a Committee on the Bill.-[Mr Chan Chee Seng].

Bill considered in Committee.

4.30 p.m.

[Mr SPEAKER in the Chair]

Clause 1 -

Question proposed, "That clause 1 stand part of the Bill."

Mr David Marshall: Clause 1, I take it, is the Short title and the date of operation, Mr Speaker, Sir. In those circumstances, I would like to draw the attention of the Assembly to the fact that his operation is being ante-dated one and a half years for no adequate reasons at all.

Sir, it is a constitutional principle that one does not introduce retrospective legislation except for the gravest reasons. One does not lightly embark upon changing the law retrospectively. We are entitled to, and I do demand, adequate explanation of the reason why we should ante-date these amendments by one and a half years.

The Minister for Home Affairs (Mr Ong Pang Boon): Mr Speaker, Sir, I presume it is because the Defence Forces Record Officer has been in charge for the last one and a half years.

Mr David Marshall: If it please you, Mr Speaker, Sir, this is really begging the question. First, they commit an impropriety - I will put it no higher. And then they say because it has been improper, therefore, it is now proper to be a second time improper. If that is the only reason to be given, then I should say the Minister should take a good look at whatever officer was responsible and should make him feel ashamed of himself, as I hope the Minister feels. I for one will refuse to approve this provision.

The Chairman: I take it that the Member for Anson has seen clause 5.

Mr David Marshall: Clause 5? Yes.

The Chairman: "What is in a name" - that is the answer.

Question put, "That clause 1 stand part of the Bill."

Mr David Marshall: Division, Sir.

The Committee divided: Ayes, 30; Noes, 13; Abstentions, 3; Absent, 5. Ayes Noes Abdul Hamid bin Bani, S.T Haji Jumat Chan Sun Wing Buang bin Omar Junid. Fung Yin Ching, Miss. Byrne, K.M. Lee Siew Choh. Chan Chee Seng Leong Keng Seng Chan Choy Siong, Lin You Eng Madam. Low Por Tuck Chor Yeok Eng Marshall, David Goh Chew Chua Ong Chang Sam Goh Keng Swee Sheng Nam Chin Hoe Puay Choo Tan Cheng Tong Madam. Tee Kim Leng Kandasamy, G. Wong Soon Fong Lee Khoon Choy Lee Kuan Yew Abstentions. Lee Teck Him Lingam, S.V. Lim Cheng Lock Ng Teng Kian Lim Yew Hock Ong Eng Guan Mohd.Ali bin Alwi Absent. Mohd.Ariff bin Suradi Ahmad bin Ibrahim M. Ismail Rahim Ahmad Jabri bin Ong Pang Boon Mohammad Akib Rajah, A. P. Koh, C.H Rajaratnam, S. Mammen, John. Ramaswamy, S. Teo Hock Guan Sahorah binte Ahmat, Madam Seow Peck Leng, Mrs Tan Kia Gan Thio Chan Bee Toh Chin Chye Wee Toon Boon Yaacob bin Mohamed Yong Nyuk Lin

Clause 1 accordingly ordered to stand part of the Bill.

Clause 2 -

Question proposed, "That clause 2 stand part of the Bill."

Dr Sheng Nam Chin: Mr Speaker, Sir, in the Explanatory Statement of the Bill, the second sentence states very clearly that:

'This will bring the executive command of the Singapore Military Forces Reserve into line with that of the British Army Reserves where the Officer in Charge Records is also the Commanding Officer, Reserve.' When the Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister for Home Affairs was replying on the Second Reading of the Bill, he emphatically denied that the passage of this Bill in this House was connected with British traditions or was in line with the British Army Service. In view of the contradictory statements issued, Sir, could we have a clarification from the Government whether this Bill was actually brought in to bring the Singapore Military Forces Reserve in line with the British Army Reserves, or whether the Parliamentary Secretary was correct when he denied that?

Mr Rajaratnam: To bring it in line with the Russian Army!

Mr Chan Chee Seng: Mr Speaker, when I replied to the Member for Anson just now, I never said that it was not in line with the British Army. I said that it was in line with the Federation Army as well. And you can even put it in line with the Russian Army or the Chinese Army. This is not something ridiculous. It is something that fits in with the circumstances in Singapore, and so we do it.

Dr Sheng Nam Chin: Point of order, Sir. Can we check the records? I cannot recall that the Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister for Home Affairs has ever mentioned the Federation Army just now in his reply.

The Chairman: The hon. Member can look at the Hansard when it comes out.

Mr David Marshall: Mr Speaker, Sir, the Parliamentary Secretary stated in so many words - it is wholly inaccurate (he did not use the word, he says), it is absolutely inaccurate what the Member for Anson said, that this has anything to do with the British Army procedure. All I want from him now is: would he like to deny that he ever made that statement? We will check it at a later date. But I say to you, Sir, that he did, in fact, say that he denied it totally as being wholly inaccurate. My suggestion was that the only excuse for these provisions was to keep in line with British Army traditions.

Dr Toh Chin Chye: Sir, the House is aware that the purpose of this Bill is to place the Singapore Military Forces Reserve under the executive command of the Defence Forces Record Officer. Now, Members of the House are also aware that the Federation Regiment is run along certain lines, and we are also aware that in the future when merger takes place -

Mr David Marshall: Wait for it.

Dr Toh Chin Chye: - the Central Government will be in charge of Defence and Foreign Affairs, and therefore in charge of the Army. So it will be in keeping with that if in this Explanatory Statement it is quite plainly stated that certain lines are followed. I see no contradiction at all.

4.45 p.m.

Mr David Marshall: The British Army -

The Chairman: Order.

The Minister for Finance (Dr Goh Keng Swee): Sir, I am really astonished to hear the Member for Anson getting excited over the British Army tradition and, in fact, condemning the Government for following an administrative pattern which he believes in the tradition of the British Army.

Mr David Marshall: On a point of order, Sir. The allegation by the Minister is inaccurate, Sir.

The Chairman: The point of order being?

Mr David Marshall: The point of order is that he has completely misconstrued me.

The Chairman: Order. That is not a point of order. It is a point of explanation. The hon. Member for Anson will have an opportunity.

Dr Goh Keng Swee: The Member for Anson's objection rests on the fact that we are imposing the pattern of the British Army on our local forces, and I say this is absolutely astonishing coming from -

The Chairman: Order. I think it is time for the Chair to intervene. That was not what the Member for Anson was alleging. His allegation was that the Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister for Home Affairs did not make a correct statement when he said that this was not modelled on British lines. That is all.

Dr Goh Keng Swee: Sir, I was referring to his speech on the Second Reading of this Bill. The remarks made by the Parliamentary Secretary were consequent on what he said during the Second Reading. As I have said, Sir, it is absolutely astonishing for the Member for Anson to object to this Bill on the grounds that it follows certain administrative procedures -

The Chairman: Order. The Minister is out of order in raising that point in clause 2. He should have raised it on the Second Reading. We are now on clause 2, which seeks to add to the definition of the word "Forces" to insert "with the exception of the Singapore Military Forces Reserve constituted under Part IV of this Ordinance." In other words, just to take over command of the Forces Reserve from the Commandant and give it to the Defence Ministry. That is all there is to it in clause 2.

Dr Goh Keng Swee: Sir, the debate on this clause has ranged rather far and wide. I just want to make an observation based on what the Member for Anson said when clause 2 comes up for consideration before this Committee. The Member for Anson during the Anson by-election displayed four medals before the electorate.

The Chairman: Order. I must stop this trend. I am sure the Minister will have another opportunity. Let us get on with the debate on clause 2.

Dr Goh Keng Swee: You were then a member of the British Army!

The Chairman: Order.

Question put, and agreed to.

Clause 2 ordered to stand part of the Bill.

Clauses 3 and 4 ordered to stand part of the Bill.

Clause 5 -

Question proposed, "That clause 5 stand part of the Bill."

Mr David Marshall: Mr Speaker, Sir, to quote Shakespeare to the Prime Minister or his colleagues would be wasting pearls. But I would ask, Sir, just what is the purpose of this which seems to reach the stage of a farce? We want to change "Officer in charge Forces Records" to "Defence Forces Record Officer", and it requires a whole section. Why? What is the meaning of this absurdity, this pantomine?

Dr Goh Keng Swee: Mr Speaker, Sir, the Member for Anson is surely familiar with the functions of this officer because, when he was a prisoner of war after an inglorious campaign in Singapore, he received four medals just like every other person, and these were duly displayed before the electorate in Anson. Now, he had dealings with this particular officer, so that he could draw a pension and get free transport to Australia, I believe, to recuperate. Obviously this particular officer in the old days performed functions which are dissimilar to those which he is performing today. Therefore, a change in nomenclature is to be expected. It is quite natural. I do not know why the Member for Anson is making a song and dance about this very trivial matter.

Mr David Marshall: Mr Speaker, Sir, obviously the Minister knows as little about English as I know about the officer in question. I am delighted that he has had the opportunity to display yet once more his unhappy jealousy at my war record. But I still ask the Member, who was comfortable in bed when I was a prisoner for his sake, amongst others - to my regret; I did not know I was defending the P.A.P. - just why and what is the difference between "Officer in Charge Forces Record". I will repeat it in simple English. What is the difference between "Officer in Charge Forces Record" and "Defence Forces Record Officer". That is what I like to know.

Dr Goh Keng Swee: Sir, in the course of his military career, I believe the Member for Anson went as high as the rank of Lance-corporal.

An hon. Member: Unpaid!

Dr Goh Keng Swee: Unpaid. I therefore assume that he is not unfamiliar with military usage, much of which is incomprehensible to civilians. I have never even reached or gone above the rank of Private and never had occasion to deal with military terminology. I suggest, Mr Speaker, Sir, that this is a very trivial matter. With respect, I suggest we get on with the rest of this Bill.

Mr David Marshall: Why?

Question put, and agreed to.

Clause 5 ordered to stand part of the Bill.

Clauses 6 to 8 inclusive ordered to stand part of the Bill.

Clause 9 -

Question proposed, "That clause 9 stand part of the Bill."

Mr David Marshall: May I have a reply, Sir, to my query as to who is expected to make donations to the Singapore Military Forces Benevolent Fund? And whether the allegation or statement in the Explanatory Note that the Bill does not involve Government in any extra financial expenditure is merely technically true for today, and whether, in fact, it is anticipated that the Government will be involved in expenditure in the future in making donations to this benevolent fund?

Mr Ong Pang Boon: I would imagine that a large amount of the donations to this benevolent fund would come from members of the public.

Mr David Marshall: I would like to ask a serious question, Sir. There is a statement in the Explanatory Note to say that this does not involve the Government in any expenditure. Is this merely technically true of today? Are we to anticipate expenditure in the future.

Dr Goh Keng Swee: Sir, if it says it does not involve Government in any expenditure, then no contribution will be made to this benevolent fund. On the other hand, if in some distant future, circumstances are such that a Government contribution to this benevolent fund has strong justification, then the matter can `be considered. I do not really know what difficulty the Member for Anson, is raising. I am saying that no payment is envisaged now. But we cannot say that for all time the Government will not make any payment. There is no trouble at all.

Mr David Marshall: Surely there is.

The Chairman: Order.

Question put, and agreed to.

Clause 9 ordered to stand part of the Bill.

Bill reported, without amendment; read a Third time and passed.

Mr Speaker: I think it is time to suspend. I will suspend the sitting until 5.30 p.m.

Sitting accordingly suspended at 4.59 p.m. until 5.30 p.m. Sitting resumed at 5.30 p.m.