NATIONAL SERVICE POLICY (Statement by the Minister of Defence)

3.14 p.m.

Dr Goh Keng Swee: Mr Speaker, Sir, in the normal course of events, detailed explanation of policy arising out of new legislation is given at the Second Reading of the Bill, not at the time of its introduction. In the case of the Bill which I am introducing today, the Enlistment (Amendment) Bill, I will not have the opportunity under Standing Orders to make a statement at the time of the introduction of the Bill. I am therefore making a Ministerial statement on the subject under Standing Order 10. Enlistment policy has been a subject of heated public debate in recent weeks. The extraordinary thing about this debate was that members of the Singapore Armed Forces joined in the fray with great zest. I can only assume that these soldiers were unaware of the existence of Regulation 680 of the Queen's Regulations. It is hardly possible under these circumstances for the Government to announce some major change in enlistment policy without a detailed explanation of its intentions. An explanation is all the more necessary as there seems to be widespread public misconception about Government's policy.

When national service was introduced in 1967, it appeared that Singapore could depend on the extension of the British military presence until at least 1975. Accordingly, the rate of our military build-up was planned at a deliberate pace. Deferment and exemption from full-time national service were freely granted. Boys leaving school and admitted to the University were granted automatic deferment. Even those who were in employment were exempted from full-time national service.

This liberal policy on exemption or deferment had the effect of restricting full-time national service intakes mainly to boys in the lower educational standards. There was a shortage of officer material. To make up for this, the Ministry of Defence recruited persons into full-time national service who entered Government service or the service of statutory authorities even though they were not of the age groups currently being enlisted.

When early in 1968 the British announced their plan to accelerate the withdrawal of their military forces to he completed by the end of 1971, it was necessary to speed up the build-up of our Armed Forces, in 1968 and 1969, University graduates were enlisted whether or not they were recruited into the service of the Government or the statutory authorities. However, such enlistment was selective and not comprehensive. The policy of allowing boys to proceed to the University on completion of their H.S.C, examination continued in these two years.

In January 1970, my predecessor decided to make a comprehensive review of enlistment policy. By that time, expansion of the Armed Forces was in full swing, and there was need to recruit an enlarged number of officer material to man not only the Combat Units but also the logistic bases that had to be established or expanded at great speed. Also there were many staff positions in the Defence Ministry which had to be filled.

A major innovation which my predecessor introduced was to change the policy of granting exemption for students who had completed their H.S.C, examination and were proceeding to the University. The decision was made that for 1970, half of these would be enlisted and half deferred. The basis for deferment in respect of other categories of age registrants was examined in detail and rationalised. Contrary to popular opinion, clearly defined rules were laid down but the details were not then published. The rules were implemented by administrative measures. I am taking this opportunity today to publish rules that were laid down in January 1970 by my predecessor, together with an indication whether they still remain in force or not. A reference to this document(See Annex, cols. 359-68), which has been circulated to Members, shows that nearly all the rules laid down in January 1970 remain in force.

Special arrangements have been made at the two Universities to enable H.S.C, students enlisted this year to enter the University with minimum loss of time. As from next year the university session will commence in the first week of July instead of May. H.S.C, students enlisted in January this year and subsequently commissioned as officers will be allowed a break in national service in July 1972 when they will join the University. They will complete their service liability, usually another additional six months, during the University long vacation. H.S.C. students enlisted in April will also be permitted to join the University in July 1972, and they will complete their service liability during two long vacations.

Under the policy introduced in January this year, it was envisaged that progressively larger proportions of H.S.C, students would be enlisted before they join the University. In 1971, it is proposed to enlist three-quarters of them and defer one-quarter. By 1973, all H.S.C, students will be enlisted except for those awarded Colombo Plan and other overseas scholarships, whose selection rests with the Public Service Commission. They will commence their national service on their due dates but will be allowed to proceed overseas when their university term begins. They will complete their national service on their return to Singapore.

That was the position earlier this year. In making a further review of enlistment policy, it is necessary to take into account two factors. The first is that the British presence will remain until at least 1975. This reduces the urgency of rapid and accelerated expansion. Secondly, progressively larger numbers of H.S.C, students will be enlisted for full-time service.

Both these factors reduce the need to enlist University graduates for full-time national service. Sooner or later, a decision must be made on the liability of University graduates for full-time national service. The problem is a difficult one. To continue past policies indefinitely would serve the interests of equity, as much of the discontent arising among graduates in national service is that enlistment had been selective and not comprehensive. At the same time, it is clear that a decision on liability of graduates cannot be deferred for long. I decided to exclude graduates from the October 1970 intake unless they were of the age group liable for national service in any event, that is, if they were born on or after 1st January, 1949. The result of this decision has been unhappiness among graduates now serving in the Armed Forces. I will refer to this subject later.

The new Enlistment Bill which I will soon be introducing reduces the period of service of national service officers from 3 years to 2 1/2 years. It increases the period of service of non-commissioned officers, corporals and above, from 2 years to 2 1/2 years. The period of service of other ranks remains at 2 years.

The new Enlistment Bill will apply to national servicemen enlisted as from 1971. It will not apply to national servicemen already in the service.

It is the intention of the Ministry of Defence to enlist H.S.C, students in the January and April intakes in 1971. Those most likely to be admitted to the University - this will be judged by their school examination results, since the H.S.C. results will not be known in time - will be taken into the January intake. This will enable them to complete the 2«-year service in time for admission to the Universities in July 1973.

It is in the light of this new enlistment policy that I want to discuss the subject of exit permits for those children whose parents want them to do their secondary education overseas. At present, if they are less than 16½- years of age, they are not granted passports and there have been some complaints in the newspaper columns by parents who wish to send their children abroad. My colleague, the Minister for Home Affairs, will be introducing a new Passports Bill which will allow conditions to be laid down on the issue of passports. It will then be possible to issue such passports to children under the age of 16« intending to go abroad for secondary school education.

So far as their national service liability is concerned, they will be treated exactly on the same footing as children who do their education here. Under no circumstances will these children be treated as a privileged group. The Government fully endorses the position recently taken by the unions affiliated to the National Trades Union Congress. Parents will be required to furnish adequate security by way of cash bond or bank guarantee that when their children reach their 18th birthday, they will return to Singapore to do full-time national service. Deferment will not be granted on grounds that the students have secured a place in a University, or, for that matter, on any other grounds. The bond will be forfeited if the children do not return, but forfeiture of the bond will not preclude the Government from taking other steps to secure the return of the student to Singapore to do his full-time national service.

I now deal with those graduates who were born before 1st January, 1949, and who are now doing full-time national service. They feel that they are being let down. Some have even asked to be discharged from the Army. There is, of course, no question of agreeing to this: if any redress is to be found for them, it must lie in the enlistment of those graduates who were due to be enlisted last month, but who had been let off.

For the graduates now doing national service, especially those who have been commissioned as officers, I want to say that the Government acknowledges that it has a special obligation to them. Those with the requisite qualifications who wish to apply for appointments in the civil service, especially in the higher services such as the Administrative service, will find that their military service will be given due recognition by the Public Service Commission. I have the agreement of the Chairman, Public Service Commission, to say this. Furthermore, the P.S.C, will review examination requirements in the civil service for national service officers recruited into the civil service. It would be possible to exempt these officers from some, probably most, of the examination requirements. They will also be given special consideration in respect of requirements of probationary service.

Officers who are due to complete their national service next year may apply for vacancies in the government service while still in the Army, lf appointed to the civil service, their Army service will count as pensionable service and they will get full increments for the years of service in the Army.

The Ministry of Defence is proposing to make available a number of scholarships for under-graduate and post-graduate studies in the local Universities as well as overseas Universities. Officers on completion of their national service who are willing to accept a regular commission will be eligible to apply for these scholarships. If they are awarded such scholarships, they will receive full pay as regular officers during the tenure of their scholarships. Conditions of service in the Army, which are at present governed by Malaysian regulations, will be revised to greatly improved levels. I will give more details of these subjects at the Second Reading of the Bill.

There is another way in which the Government will be able to discharge its obligation to full-time national servicemen. This is by way of implementing the National Servicemen (Employment) Act which was passed by Parliament on 26th June, 1970. A Director of Employment has been appointed. He is Mr Lee Ong Pong, formerly Director of the National Productivity Centre. The Department is being established and should be in operation in two months' time.

All national servicemen are covered by the National Servicemen (Employment) Act during the whole period of their reserve liability. University graduates who obtained a commission in the Army and who do not belong to the normal age group registration, have a claim for special attention of the Director of Employment.

Under the National Servicemen (Employment) Act, employers will be required to engage national service reservists unless they have obtained exemption from the Director of Employment. So the graduate officer throughout the whole period of his reserve liability will have a safety net should he decide to try his fortunes in the private sector. His contemporaries who were not enlisted will have to fend for themselves if, for instance, they lose their jobs in the private sector, as is not unknown to happen.

There are several other implications in the change of period of enlistment, but my statement is already too long and these will have to wait for the Second Reading of the Bill. However, I want to make brief references to two consequences of some significance. The first is that officers commissioned under tht existing Act have to do three years' service as against 2« years for those enlisted from 1971 onwards. While many will not regard a difference of six months as of great moment, others, especially the graduates, may feel that their frustrations are being compounded. The other point is that the reduction to 2« years' service for officers creates very serious problems in support arms combat units, such as the artillery and the engineers. The training period for officers in these units is close on two years. I will deal with these matters and their possible solutions at some length in my Second Reading speech. I mention these in passing to register the point that they are being looked into.