NATIONAL SERVICE (AMENDMENT) BILL

Order for Second Reading read.

5.35 p.m.

The Minister of Defence (Dr Goh Keng Swee): Mr Speaker, Sir, I beg to move, "That the Bill be now read a Second time."

I have the President's recommendation to proceed with the reading of the Bill.

One of the difficulties confronting me as Minister of Defence is the novelty of my responsibility. There are no precedents to fall back upon. When one thinks of what elements should be taken into account in framing a meaningful defence policy for Singapore, one has to begin from first principles.

A useful starting point is to ask oneself, why bother about defending Singapore at all? I am not being facetious in asking this question, for there are people, laymen as well as experts, who say that we should not. They tell you that the island is quite indefensible, and if there is a sustained major attack upon it, it is unlikely that, without major assistance from outside, Singapore can hold out.

There are, however, excellent reasons why we should bother about defence. I believe that the people who hold the contrary view are mistaken. For the logical conclusion drawn from their premise must be that Singapore should revert to a colony or a satellite of whoever wishes to afford it protection. If you are in a completely vulnerable position, anyone disposed to do so can hold you to ransom and life for you will then become very tiresome.

I consider it to be wrong to believe that there is nothing we can do or should do about defending ourselves, even though we cannot achieve complete invulnerability by our unaided efforts. In a sense, even the larger countries of the world today, other than the nuclear super powers, are indefensible. For instance, none of the European States can hope to survive a nuclear attack by the Soviet Union either singly or in combination. Yet this has not prevented them from spending enormous sums of money in defence. The two nuclear super powers have found themselves paralysed in a balance of terror and yet both continue to devote enormous resources to defence.

One cannot but regret all this - that the keenest scientific minds today are devoted to discovering and developing more effective methods of mass destruction rather than trying to bring about more human happiness and progress -- but that is the world as we find it today, and for small States like ours, we have to accept the position as it is, not as we would like it.

Singapore is not the smallest of the independent States, nor is it the poorest. One of the unexpected developments of the post-war world has been the proliferation of small States consequent on the process if decolonisation. Especially in the last ten years, large numbers of new States, often with artificial boundaries, small populations and dubious economies, have come into existence. If their present position is uncertain, their future prospects are even more doubtful.

Small States are likely to be a great source of trouble in this world if they cannot look after themselves. If the management of their domestic affairs is so bad as to invite civil war and disorder, there is always the risk that larger States may be tempted to intervene. Where this happens to a small State situated in a strategic area, as, for instance, South Vietnam, the great super powers may get mixed up and the risk arises of escalation to something more dangerous than a local conflict. Therefore, unstable, badly managed and poorly defended small States pose a threat to the security and peace of the world.

By the same token, if small States can manage their affairs efficiently and can raise sufficient defence forces to deter others from risky adventures by making them costly, then they would add to the stability and security of the whole region. The survival of small States within their original territorial boundaries has today much greater prospects of success than one would have thought from a cursory view of the situation. For the two nuclear super powers apparently are in favour of freezing existing boundaries as one method of reducing the danger of nuclear war between themselves by eliminating any temptation to be involved in quarrels between other nation-states. Where a small State is strategically situated, as Singapore is, it is important that it should maintain adequate defence forces. It goes without saying that the real security which we want can be found, not by our unaided efforts alone, but in an alliance with others. In the long term, Singapore should work towards the establishment of some kind of regional defence arrangement, possibly within a larger international framework. In this kind of regional defence alliance, we are likely to be a more valuable partner and hence can exert more influence, if we can make a defence contribution of some significance, rather than if we were to be utterly dependent on the arms of other States.

There is another aspect to our defence effort. This is a contribution it can make to nation-building. Nothing creates loyalty and national consciousness more speedily and more thoroughly than participation in defence and membership of the armed forces. This has been the experience of other countries; there is no reason why it will not hold true in Singapore. The nation-building aspect of defence will be more significant if its participation is spread over all strata of society. This is possible only with some kind of national service. If we were to depend only on a standing army of professionals, then we would get so many soldiers and no more. The civilians remain spectators outside the orbit of the defence forces except for the small number who take part as part-time soldiers.

One important side to the nation-building process is that there are not many members of our monied and intellectual elite who have grasped the elementary point that their status and position and wealth can be justified and maintained only if they undertake a responsibility in the defence of the nation consistent with their position. In a society like Britain where class distinctions are strong and traditional, you will find that up to very recently it has been the ruling class, the landed aristocracy, who have supplied the military and naval commanders, with whose exploits every school-boy in our English language schools is doubtless familiar. The British ruling class has never abdicated its right to govern through unwillingness to bear arms on behalf of the nation.

Ours, of course, is a different kind of society with many regrettable weaknesses. Our intelligentsia and wealthy citizens would do well to read that part of Plato's "Republic" dealing with the inevitable decline of oligarchies of rich men whose sons are spoilt by easy living and whose flabbiness becomes obvious to the citizens whom they govern, so that they, the citizens, eventually decide to take over power from them and deprive them both of their wealth and their positions. It is not a coincidence that sons of the British elite, as part of their classical education in the public schools, are taught not only Plato but also, among other works, "The Peloponnesian War" of Thucydides. Only in this way do you create a breed that can govern an empire.

Because of our own historical past, ours is a society which is deficient in many qualities, excelling only in the ability to get on in life whatever the regime - Japanese, British or P.A.P. Some of the valuable and indispensable qualities such as social discipline and moral values have unfortunately not been instilled in our education system to the extent that one would have wished. The result is a generation of young people who are largely amoral. They are easy victims of all kinds of ideas, passions and fads - be they the subversive doctrines of the Communist underground or the seductions of Beatle music and Beatnik philosophy. Such aberrations in human conduct may be accepted with equanimity in large and wealthy societies. But when we are trying to survive in a tight situation, there is very little place for harmful or even meaningless activities. At best, these are irrelevant eccentricities; at worst, they lead the young into a world of fantasy and make them unfit for the strenuous exertions that may lie ahead.

It is against the background of such considerations that our National Service scheme has been worked out. A minority of the young men will be selected for a two-year full-time stint in the Army. Those selected for promotion to the officer grade will do three years. At the end of their military service, they will be emplaced in civilian occupations appropriate to their ability and qualifications. Sufficient numbers of such posts in Government service, the Statutory Boards and large private firms will be reserved for discharged National Servicemen. Legislation on this will be presented to Parliament shortly. We intend to select the pick of our youth, within each education grade, for the Army and there is no doubt that prospective employers will be very eager to obtain their services as they represent the best of our youth.

Those not selected for the Army will be allocated to the People's Defence Force, the Vigilante Corps and the Special Constabulary. They will do part-time training during their off-work or off-study hours. This means that those who are now engaged in higher studies either in the Higher School Certificate classes or in the Universities will not have their studies upset. At the same time, it does not mean that by being posted now to the P.D.F., the Vigilante Corps or the Special Constabulary to do part-time training and work, they will not subsequently be called up for full-time military service on completion of their studies. There is need for quality in the Army, as in any other organisation, and the highly educated must do their duty along with the others.

In all the four Branches of National Service - the full-time Army, the People's Defence Force, the Vigilante Corps and the Special Constabulary -National Servicemen will receive, in addition to technical training specific to their Branch, instruction in moral values. This will teach them what good citizenship means and explain to them the nature of their social responsibilities. It is my intention, when the training manuals on this subject have been drafted, to seek guidance of the Inter-Religious Council of the Republic, both on the content of moral instruction and on the method of implementation. I am sure that there is a substantial common ground among the great religions of the world, whose values, if imparted to our youth, will make them better men.

Now a word about the mechanics of this exercise. The names, addresses, ages and other particulars of young men liable to national registration are known to the Government and, in fact, have been fed into the electronic computer in the Ministry of Finance. On the 17th of this month, i.e, in four days' time, pink cards which we call Registration Reminders will be sent by post to young men liable to registration. These cards will be sent to the last known address, but some of these cards may go astray in the rural areas there is no proper system in the numbering of houses, many of which were illegally constructed; and in the slums anything up to twenty families may share a house and letters often go astray. Therefore, if a young man does not get his pink reminder card in a week's time he should inquire at the nearest community centre. I may say, in passing, that not getting a reminder card is not a valid excuse for not registering. And all persons who do not register when they are liable to do so will, of course, be prosecuted. In the present exercise we are registering only those male youths horn between 1st January, 1949, and 30th June, 1949. There are approximately 9,000 of them. Those born after 30th June, 1949, will be registered in a later exercise this year. Sixteen days from 28th March to 18th April - have been set aside for registration and four registration centres will be in operation. The Central Manpower Base in Kallang will be open each day during this period from 9 a.m. to 9 p.m. The Katong, Serangoon and Bukit Panjang District Offices will be open each day from 2 p.m. to 9 p.m.

In the middle of May, medical examinations will take place and the final selection of who is to go into what Branch of National Service will be made in July. Enlistment notices informing young men in which Branch of National Service they will serve will be despatched as from the 11th of July. And National Service itself is scheduled to commence as from the 26th July this year.

There are many complications in this exercise, as there are bound to be. I do not wish, to go into all of them. The Manpower Division of my Ministry has prepared a pamphlet which explains what those who are liable to National Service have to do. Five hundred members of the staff of the People's Association who work in the community centres have been briefed by the Ministry so as to enable them better to give guidance and answer questions about National Service. The booklet on National Service will be available at all community centres in the next few days. These pamphlets will also be distributed to schools. Any Association which wants copies of these pamphlets should apply to the Ministry of the Interior and Defence, Manpower Division, stating in what language or languages they wish to have them. At present, copies are available in English and Chinese. Copies in Malay and Tamil will be available shortly.

Mr Speaker, Sir, with the passage of this legislation and its implementation, the Republic moves into a new era. Often in the past, people have listened to Ministers of the Government urging upon them the paramount need to build a rugged, closely-knit society. Some might have wondered what this meant and might have dismissed it as so much talk. Now they know that it is not merely talk. Behind the exhortation lies a concept - a vision if you like - of the new society that must emerge in this island if we want to retain all the good that we have built in the past and move on to greater achievements.

Sir, I beg to move.

Question proposed.

Mr Teong Eng Siong (Sembawang): (In Mandarin): Mr Speaker, I rise in full support of this Bill. The introduction of this Bill is well timed, particularly at this juncture when there are four significant points.

Firstly, this is a measure by which an independent country shoulders the responsibility to see that all its people will perform their duties as citizens.

Secondly, this Bill will strengthen the defence structure of our Republic. It will also ensure that all our citizens in future will be able to shoulder the responsibility of national defence and prepare themselves for this task ahead.

Thirdly, this Bill will educate and train our citizens and future generations in military consciousness and preparedness and defence responsibility, so that they will develop healthy and strong bodies and have a sense of discipline.

Fourthly, this is a measure to ensure that a multi-racial society will march into a new era of a closely knit society with a new and rugged generation who can defend this country. I feel that one should be filled with pride to become a member of our Armed Forces. There is nobody against this with the exception of the Barisan Sosialis.

Mr Speaker, Sir, the Bill provides various forms of military training on a full-time or part-time basis. Most of the training will be done on a part-time basis. Only about 10 per cent of the persons who are liable to be called up will undergo military training on a full-time basis for two years. This is very appropriate and suitable to the realities of this country. As we are a small Republic, it is the main responsibility of the Government to look after the affairs of the citizens. We have to undertake the economic construction of our country, which has limited resources, in order to ensure that our people can live happily. In view of this prerequisite, we have to look after our own survival. We have to make friends with all nations and, therefore, we adopt a neutral foreign policy. We are unable to set aside large sums of money for the purpose of maintaining a very large armed force. As a matter of fact, this would be an unrealistic and inappropriate measure to adopt.

Mr Speaker, Sir, since this National Service (Amendment) Bill was introduced at the last sitting and publicised in the Press, we have received popular support from various quarters and leaders of the people. They are all of the view that it is a very realistic and far-sighted measure to adopt. Only the Barisan Sosialis are expressing their opposition to this Bill.

Mr Speaker, Sir, an organisation like the Barisan Sosialis, which is anti-national, cannot be expected to do anything useful and beneficial to the country. If we expect this to happen, then it would be something like "fishing on a tree". Therefore, the people of Singapore should not have any regard for the Barisan Sosialis. But if the Barisan Sosialis can drastically change their present outlook and show that they are loyal to our country, then, of course, we shall treat them quite differently.

Mr Speaker, Sir, we believe that the broad masses of the people fully support the National Service (Amendment) Bill. They will take practical steps to respond to the call of the Government, and will accept either full-time or part-time military training. In order that the implementation of this Bill will receive its proper effect, I hope that all those organisations which are loyal to the nation - be they civic organisations, Citizens Consultative Committees or any other organisations in Singapore --- will put aside some time to assist the Government by explaining the position to the people at large. Some publicity must be given by all these civic organisations, and steps must also be taken to ensure that the Barisan Sosialis do not distort the significance and intentions of the Bill so that its success will be ensured.

Mr Speaker, Sir, there are clauses in the Bill which provide punishment for contravention of certain provisions, that is to say, those who fail to register themselves for national service shall be liable to terms of imprisonment or fine or both. This punishment is deterrent in nature and I hope that the Ministry concerned will properly carry out the publicity through the Press, Radio, Rediffusion and Television, so that nobody will contravene any of the regulations out of ignorance.

Mr Speaker, Sir, I support this amendment Bill.

Mr Teo Hup Teck (Jalan Kayu): (In Mandarin): Mr Speaker, Sir, I feel that as a Member of Parliament I have a duty to support the National Service (Amendment) Bill and air my views on it.

Mr Speaker, Sir, this Bill not only concerns the interest of the people of Jalan Kayu but also the interest of all the people in the Republic. It is also a matter of life and death and involves the security of the nation. As a Member representing the people of Jalan Kayu, it is with great pleasure and pride that I speak on this Bill.

Mr Speaker, Sir, you will recall that in 1952, when the National Service Ordinance was introduced, it did not receive the popular support of the people in my constituency or the people at large. On the contrary, it was met with a certain degree of opposition from the people of my constituency. The reasons were very obvious. At that time, the people of Singapore were living in a colonial era. They were under colonial rule and were not imbued with national consciousness. For this reason, the people of my constituency and our country at large were under no obligation nor were they duty bound at that time to support national service in the interest of a foreign or colonial power. It was a very understandable argument at that time. Although this happened in Singapore only ten years ago, it cannot be denied that the people were right then in advancing such an argument.

Mr Speaker, Sir, you will have noticed that the political situation in Singapore has changed completely during the last ten years. We have thrown off the shackles of colonial rule and have obtained independence. It is, therefore, necessary that our own people should defend our sovereignty. So the significance of national service has changed completely now because it is not in furtherance of the interest of any foreign or colonial power. On the contrary, national service is intended for the defence and protection of the people of a sovereign State. So this change in outlook and attitude towards national service is necessary. Our people must take pride in joining the People's Defence Force, the Special Constabulary, the Vigilante Corps and other services. These organisations have been set up in order to make sure that we can depend on our own strength to defend our independent country and the property and freedom of our people so that our sovereignty and independence will not be jeopardised by any aggressive foreign power or anti-national elements. So the good young people of our country must take pride in joining the national service.

The National Service (Amendment) Bill is very significant in this respect. National service in the world - be it in France or any independent country which is neutral or otherwise- is a matter of necessity. For instance, in America, England, Russia, China and other countries, national service is implemented without any question, and even small countries like the Philippines, Thailand, Laos and neutral Switzerland have made provision for national service. Generally speaking, national service is a matter which concerns a citizen who has a duty to his own country. As a member of the Armed Forces of an independent country, I say that it is the duty of all citizens to protect and defend the country and the lives of the people. It is very much a matter of pride for everybody to do this. It is a matter of glory, I would say. Today Singapore is a fully independent, sovereign and integral State. Our people, I am sure, will take great pride in joining the various units for national service.

In the past, we relied mainly on the Commonwealth and other friendly nations for our national defence and safety. But after independence and in the context of the present international situation, we must take note of the particular fact that England is now taking steps to cut down its troops in the Far East, including the withdrawal of its base in Singapore. This reduction will be planned stage by stage, and the time will come when there will be a complete withdrawal of British troops from Singapore. So we must not depend too much on Britain for our defence. We cannot deny that, for our own security, we must take certain steps in this direction. Of course, if necessary, we can also come to some kind of arrangement with friendly nations in the matter of defence. But between us, I say that the main task of looking after the defence and security of our country is a matter for the people of Singapore themselves to decide, so that we can protect our nation from invasion or being jeopardised by anti-national activists. Every responsible and loyal citizen of Singapore must protect his own country and the lives and property of the people from subversion.

Under the old society there was a saying which goes like this: "Good iron is never used for making nails, and good men are never made into soldiers." This is quite a popular Chinese saying, but it is an old concept. Perhaps in the old days this saying had some significance. But in the present context, its significance has been completely lost. If good young men are not turned into soldiers, then it follows that the nation will have to depend on good-for-nothing people for its defence. So how can the national security be safeguarded? If good men are not turned into soldiers, then who will be there to defend and protect the independence of our country, the lives and property of our people?

Mr Speaker, today to be in the army and fight does not mean that we fight only with spears and swords. It also entails the exercise of the mind. Some brain work is involved. So the task of defending the nation cannot very well be placed on the good-for-nothing people, but it must be placed on the useful citizens of our country, who have been disciplined and well-trained. These will be the people who will defend our country. I believe that the old concept that good men do not become soldiers must be discarded in toto. At a time when our nation is in need of people to defend its independence and security, we must all come out bravely and accept this challenge and responsibility. This is the time when good iron must be made into nails, and good men turned into soldiers. This is the new concept that must prevail in the present situation. To join the army is a matter of glory for everybody. The old concept must be completely discarded and replaced by the new concept. This is the pre-requisite and spirit which we must establish to ensure the successful formation of our defence force.

Singapore is an oasis in South-east Asia, and there is no place other than Singapore capable of giving such a high standard of living to its people. Therefore, it is our good fortune to be able to live in a country like Singapore. As the Prime Minister has already said, our young people must always bear in mind that if we do not understand the necessity of defending our country, then whatever we do will be in vain and in the end we shall lose everything, and others will come and step into our shoes. This is what the Prime Minister has said, and it reminds us of the great responsibility of the youths of Singapore. They must understand and appreciate the realities of life. So at a time when our country is calling us to take up national service, we must come out bravely and take up the glorious task of defending and protecting our country. We must do our level best to shoulder our responsibility as citizens. To those who join the Army, Navy and Air Force, the Police Force, the Vigilante Corps, and the Special Constabulary, great glory goes to them.

Mr Speaker, Sir, national service is needed not only to defend our country and deter foreign intervention and suppress internal subversion, but it also has a more significant and positive meaning. As we all know, our foreign policy is basically a non-aligned one. What we want is the maximum number of friends and the minimum number of enemies. Therefore, we have no intention whatsoever to invade other countries. But, on the other hand, we will not allow any other country to undermine our sovereignty or our territorial integrity. Therefore, the setting up of the Armed Forces is with a view to defending our country. We are definite about this.

We are a young country and we must establish well-trained armed forces. This will take perhaps 10 or 20 years to accomplish. This is what our Prime Minister has said - that it will take about 5 to 7 years, or even 10 years, to complete this training programme. By that time we will be able to rely on ourselves to defend our country. At the same time, we will have laid down a firm foundation for a multi-racial society, because during the course of training the youths of various races will have the opportunity to live together, understand one another, and get to know their habits of living and their respective strong and weak points. In this way, a strong body corporate will be established. This is one of the main tasks of our nation-building and also one of the most significant features in the National Service (Amendment) Bill. In the task of nation-building we will be able to train and bring up a generation infused with national consciousness and patriotism. These young people will be able to understand one another, and so the national solidarity of our nation will be strengthened. After our younger generation, under the correct guidance of the Government, has been organised to meet the exigencies of a national emergency, they will certainly answer the call of the nation to defend our country with pride and glory and to ensure our national survival.

Mr Speaker, Sir, there is no doubt about the need for this National Service (Amendment) Bill. I believe it will receive the enthusiastic support of our people. In the past few years the people in Jalan Kayu and other constituencies have taken part in all activities, such as organising themselves into the Vigilante Corps, and have expressed a high degree of patriotism particularly during the confrontation. I believe this Bill will also receive the support of our young people. Therefore, I fully support it. Its successful implementation will certainly ensure the survival of our country.

Mr Speaker, Sir, the Member for Sembawang has said that when we implement this Bill, the Barisan Members would oppose it and would try their best to frustrate its implementation. This is true. But what we have done is correct. If we believe this, we can disregard their opposition. The people of our country are well aware of who their enemies are. In the recent by-election in Thomson, the Barisan Sosialis incited the people to cast blank votes. But the results showed that the people were not misled by them. There were only about 300 misguided people who were deceived by them. There were about 11,000 voters, and about 9,000 of them cast their votes for the P.A.P. This shows that what the Barisan Sosialis did in the past was not approved by the people. Therefore, this National Service (Amendment) Bill will be successfully implemented, no matter how the Barisan Sosialis try their best to sabotage it. I will try to fulfil my obligation to mobilise all the people within this age group to answer the call of the nation.

6.31 p.m.

The Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister for Culture (Mr Fong Sip Chee): Mr Speaker, Sir, I will confine my remarks to some general aspects and leave the details of the Bill to my other colleagues. In order to appreciate the essence of the National Service (Amendment) Bill, I think we ought to make a brief survey of this part of the world because what goes on in South-east Asia is more than academic to Singapore, being the centre of this region. If you look around us, Mr Speaker, Sir, particularly on the military aspect, you will find that Singapore is indeed in a very peculiar situation.

[Mr Lim Cheng Lock in the Chair]

6.32 p.m.

The Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister for Culture (Mr Fong Sip Chee): Our Singapore Infantry Regiment, which was raised in 1957, is almost ten years old and saw action. Sir, we are only beginning to crawl. But the Indonesian Army is more than two decades old and has acquired a fair amount of combat experience. We do not know much about the Indonesian Navy and the Air Force because they are unknown qualities. Perhaps the only experience we think the Indonesian Navy can claim is piracy during the confrontation. There was an occasion when a disgruntled pilot directed his plane and his guns at the President's palace; and then, of course, the recent coup.

If you go further north towards Communist China, the Chinese Liberation Army was developed from large groups of organised guerrillas into a well-established fighting force of more than 2.5 million. And if you were to mobilise each and every one in Singapore, young and old, you would only succeed in getting 1.89 million. The Chinese Army alone is more than the population of Singapore. More so, Sir, the Chinese Communist Army is the only military force in this part of the world that has the experience of fighting in international wars, particularly fighting the Allied Powers. And if you come down a little bit south, North and South Vietnam, they are still building and fighting at the same time. North and South Korea, for example, had similar experience and they were only slightly better off when compared with the Vietnamese. Even India, which is a neutral nation and has a very sizable standing army, is tied down to two border disputes with her neighbours.

Closer to us, the Malaysian Army is still expanding, and it is said that they will build an initial target of at least 35 battalions, with full Commonwealth support. The experience of the Malaysian Army during the Emergency was indeed a hard-earned one.

Are we in Singapore going to join in this armed rat race? What for? Who will benefit? Can we afford to raise and maintain a reasonably large army for our security? Or are we expanding the Armed Forces to provide employment opportunities, as some other country not very far from Singapore is doing?

Sir, for over a hundred years, under British rule, we had been fed with a different language, a different way of life, and, most important of all, and perhaps the most upsetting thing of all, we had been made to evolve a very peculiar outlook and social assessment based on a philosophy and education system completely foreign to us. Those who were fortunate were given an education which was sufficient to serve the colonial administration but not good enough to question their colonial masters' right; except for a few, of course, to whom the British thought a higher education could be given in the motherland, so that they could be equipped with better knowledge, and then later on baited with high social position and security to serve the colonial interests. But there are many - perhaps most of the Ministers on the Front Bench - concerning whom the British regrettably admitted that their plans had misfired.

Sir, defence was then not our business. We were free to make a living and go to any commercial enterprises provided the resultant benefits were to the British interest and in their favour. And none at that time regarded this place as our permanent home. Very few questioned the rights that were due to them. The question of security then was not our business too, because the security of Singapore meant the security of the colonial interest here. And so when the Japanese were nearing Singapore - not actually in Singapore - the British packed up and Singapore was handed over to the Japanese. They could get away because they had the Prince of Wales. What did we have? Our sampans? We could not get away. And where could we go? For the Chinese, back to China; the Indians back to India; and the Malays back to Indonesia? Sir, the lesson taught to us was that the British could pack up and scoot off and then return at a time when they felt it most opportune to do so.

Sir, we were the unfortunate that were left behind to face the music of three years and eight months. Where were the British? The Australians fought well, the Indian Regiment fought well, and so did the Malay Regiment. Not the British. Our forefathers perhaps and our brothers were the ones that fought the Japanese. Sir, the Japanese taught us a lesson. [Interruption] I was five.

Mr Lim Cheng Lock: Order.

Mr Fong Sip Chee: The lesson was that our stake is here, and not anywhere else. If you want to survive, stay here and fight.

Sir, going back to recent history, the circumstances leading to our independence can be said to be very unique. Overnight we found ourselves masters of our own destiny, standing alone at the southern tip of the Asian continent. The first step was to establish ourselves internationally and make as many friends as we possibly could. Then came the big question mark: our security. Can we handle the job? How? With or without the British? The position of the British base here in Singapore is more than one of military consideration. But we cannot forever be dependent upon a foreign country for cur livelihood, more so our security. The British are beginning to have a re-appraisal of their defence arrangements east of Suez. For us, the British base here can be a very delicate and explosive political issue. And so we give ourselves a very thorough examination and post-mortem. With the almost immediate withdrawal of Malaysian troops and the Federal Reserve Unit, who forbade people singing Christmas hymns during Christmas time, we would have to more than fill up our security vacuum. This we did. But as a long-term policy, with the impending and eventual and inevitable withdrawal of foreign troops, we have to handle the job on our own. This will lead us to the question, what kind of army do we want to build up? How big should the Armed Forces be? And most important, against whom are we defending? Sir, let us tackle the last question first. Against whom are we defending? The established policy of the Government on foreign policy is non-alignment. India, too, professes a neutral foreign policy. Yet that does not prevent her from military conflicts with her neighbours, China and Pakistan. The disputes with Pakistan and China have created doubts in the minds of many as to the practicability of neutrality. Sweden and Switzerland, for instance, maintain a sizable army even when their foreign policy is neutral. Sir, we cannot take it for granted that nobody will harm us, that everything is well and good if we adopt a neutral foreign policy. Neutrality is meaningless without safeguards to our national integrity. Who will guarantee our territorial integrity?

[Mr Speaker in the Chair]

6.44 p.m.

Mr Fong Sip Chee: In the past two decades the international boundaries of countries have changed and are still changing. For example, the 38th parallel in Korea and the 17th parallel in Vietnam are very artificial demarcations. The Thai/Cambodian border was the subject of a World Court decision. The West Irian, India and Pakistan, and India and China borders and many African countries are still disputing over their boundaries. Some of these are of military significance, but in our case it is more economic than political.

Sir, we cannot afford to involve ourselves in power bloc conflicts in this part of the world. But we cannot, at the same time, be so ridiculously presumptuous that because we will not and cannot play the part of the aggressor, we need not therefore think about our defence. We cannot afford to maintain a large standing army and, therefore, our very small Armed Forces must be a very efficient one. That means that the duty and obligation to defend the country is open to a very small minority of those people who are serving in the regular forces. Others are indifferent. And the answer is national service so as not only to provide the means of defence but also to make it obligatory on the part of the people to defend their own interest and their own property.

Sir, history has proved that no standing army in Asia can be demobilised. Once you raise an army, you have to maintain and feed it and even to expand it, for a general cannot be a general if you have not got an army division. Sir, this is particularly so when a country's independence is achieved through violent revolution, and after that the freedom fighters form the elite group of the nation's army and claim the right of place in society. After all, they fought for independence. Our situation in Singapore is unique in the sense that there is no front line in view of the smallness of our Republic. You cannot run from Pasir Panjang to Katong. In a nuclear war there will be no one left behind to build a memorial, because there will be no one left to pick up our bones. Even in a conventional war, you cannot run from east to west. It is a matter of 27 miles - 14 miles by 27 miles. There is no front line. Every inch of our territory is, in fact, a front line. Who is going to defend that?

Sir, we cannot afford to have a soft-kneed new generation if we are to survive. And we hope through military training that we can build up a tough and rugged new generation that can make this country tick. The situation has changed in Singapore over the last decade or so. In the mid-l950s, national service was the subject of very violent protests from such categories of the population as hawkers, factory workers, shop assistants and students. Today, 10 years later, these are the same categories of people who are serving now in the Vigilante Corps, the Special Constabulary and, most important of all, in the People's Defence Force. The same categories who protested 10 years ago are the same people who now understand the mechanics of survival and they serve diligently in their respective arms.

Shortly before the Japanese occupied Singapore, a great number of somewhat questionably able-bodied men and youths were "mobilised", handed with rifles and ordered to go oil to the so-called front. And all of us know what happened after that. With due respect to the people who fought so well shortly before 1942, we cannot afford to face a similar kind of situation - the situation of being caught unprepared. Some of the stories related to us now by the still surviving members of the then Volunteer Forces were that they thought they went for a picnic - and a "picnic" it was, Mr Speaker, Sir. Can we afford another such "picnic"? Are we to be caught again in a state of un-preparedness? As I have said, the fact that we cannot and will never attack others does not mean that we do not have to defend ourselves. National service has more important aspects than military. As the Prime Minister and earlier the Minister of Defence have said, it is through military training that we can build up a disciplined, well-organised, tough and rugged new generation. For if we are to give up this place, we had better know to whom we are giving our authority. If we give up ourselves, and the next generation with soft knees are prepared to compromise under the slightest pressure, then I say we had better pack up now. We have a right to guide ---- [Interruption].

Mr Speaker: Order.

Mr Fong Sip Chee: We have a right and an obligation to guide and to help build up the next generation and to evolve a spirit of oneness. In the most advanced countries of the world, as my colleagues, the Member for Sembawang and the Member for Jalan Kayu have earlier mentioned, almost everyone of them has national service. In some countries, a deserter or one who evades national service will never in his life reveal this fact to his friend or even to his wife, for he regards this as shameful. Evasion of the responsibility to defend the nation is something that we have yet to put into the minds of our population. After all, military service is not purely military service. In the Army, one can learn a trade, the mechanics of repairing a car, fixing up wires, and possibly repairing a bridge. Therefore, in our new nation military service can be very important in one other aspect, i.e., to provide sufficient trained and, most important, disciplined men to fill up the vacancies in our industrial houses.

Therefore, Mr Speaker, Sir, it is oui duty to explain to the people that their obligation is to these 224 square miles -- 225 square miles at low tide - of territory and not somewhere else, not further north where a certain country exploded an atom bomb. Some of us in Singapore take particular pride in that, and not in any other country to which by sentiment or race we feel we are attached - Indonesia or India.

Sir, to end our discussion today, ][ should like to quote a passage from the speech of the Minister of Defence made on the 29th of December last year at a passing-cut parade. Dr Goh then said:

`Throughout man's long history, defence of the community has always been regarded as a novel duty. In the process of integrating the loose collection of peoples into a nation with a strong sense of identity, military service has played a significant role from the great city states of the 5th century B.C, to the 12th century continental super powers. We have seen how the development of national consciousness has been so often centred around service in the defence forces.

In Singapore, we are not yet a closely-knit community. So many of our people are of recent migrant origin. All this goes towards creating a sense of value which is personal, self-centred with anti-social tendencies when a conflict arises between personal interests and social obligations. These are the values of the ruthless parvenu of society. We cannot hope to remove them over-night. But in the proces3 of creating a stronger national consciousness among our people, we will find that military service will play an increasingly important role as it has played in other nations and in other ages. This aspect of military service is at least as important as the purely defence consideration."

6.55 p.m.