NATIONAL SERVICE (AMENDMENT) BILL

Debate resumed.

Mr Speaker: Is there anyone who would like to catch my eye on this Bill at this stage? Mr Rodrigues.

Mr Bernard Rodrigues (Telok Blangah): Mr Speaker, Sir, several Members of this House have already stated their views on the National Service (Amendment) Bill, 1967. I wish to place on record my agreement in principle with the proposed amendments to the National Service Ordinance.

I am of the view that some form of national service is essential to the well-being and security of Singapore. Even if there would never arise a situation where the persons who have been called up for military training are required to defend Singapore from any threat or danger, whether externally or internally, such period of national training would stand those persons in good stead. By reason of such training, they would be fortunate enough to receive training in leadership and responsibility towards their State. Thus Singapore would have at least a substantial number of its citizens who are physically fit and mentally keen to give the effective and strong leadership required in the future years of our Island Republic.

I, however, have two comments to make in respect of the proposed Bill. I wish to refer ---

Mr Speaker: Mr Rodrigues, I think you are going a little too fast for the interpreters. Could you go a little slower, please?

Mr Bernard Rodrigues: I am afraid I cannot finish it today.

Mr Speaker: It does not matter. You can continue tomorrow.

Mr Bernard Rodrigues: I, however, have two comments to make in respect of the proposed Bill. I wish to draw the attention of this House to the proposed new section 21A wherein it is provided that an employer of any person placed in the national service reserve shall be responsible for the difference in the emoluments between such person's civilian and service emoluments. It is probably envisaged by this section 2lA that the employer pays the difference while the Government pays the service emoluments direct to such person. This section provides for persons who are placed in the national service reserve, but I am rather puzzled about the position of a person who is in full-time national service for the duration of the specified two-year period. It is likely that such a person might already be in the employment of a company or firm. I am not sure whether in the principal Ordinance any provision is made for the security of such person's employment and earnings for the period when they are receiving full-time military training. If no provision has been made, then I think it is essential that some amendment must be made to the principal Ordinance to safeguard the position of such person.

Another point which I wish to bring to the attention of this House is that while the Ordinance provides for the security of jobs of persons placed in the national service reserve, no provision is made to the effect that no person placed in the national service reserve shall be prejudiced in his employment by reason only of the fact that they are placed on the national service reserve for the duration of such reserve services. I have in mind the possibility that a person placed on the national service reserve may be placed at a disadvantage in respect of promotion opportunities as a result of his military duties. Because of his military training requirements, he may not be able to carry out overtime work in his company ---

7.00 p.m.

Mr Speaker: Order. Moment of interruption. Pursuant to Standing Orders and the earlier resolution of this House, this is the Moment of Interruption. Dr Goh, would you like to move the adjournment?