ENLISTMENT (AMENDMENT) BILL

Order for Second Reading read.

3.55 p.m.

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

Sir, on the introduction of this Bill on the 4th November, I was obliged to make a full Ministerial statement under Standing Order No. 10 explaining the new enlistment policy and the reasons for the changes. I do not propose to go over the same ground except to recapitulate some of the main arguments.

This change in enlistment policy derives from a decision made by Government more than a year ago that students who proceed from the Higher School Certificate to the university should, in increasing numbers, do their national service before university education and not after it. It was not desirable to introduce this change in one fell swoop. Instead, deferment will be allowed to H.S.C. students, but in decreasing proportions over two or three years. For instance, this year about half of the H.S.C, students had their national service deferred until the completion of their university education. Next year, the proportion would be a quarter, and by 1973 everyone completes his national service before going to the university, except those awarded Colombo Plan and other overseas scholarships whose selection rests with the Public Service Commission.

I should stress here that deferment means precisely what the word purports to mean. Those deferred will do their national service after graduation. There is no question of letting them off for good. It is a commentary on the character of the Singaporean that those who had their national service deferred were considered lucky. I wonder whether people would hold the same view three or four years from now.

Today I propose to deal with three aspects of the defence policy. The first is why the defence build-up is necessary. The second is the new pay and service conditions for the Armed Forces, details of which I promised in my statement last November to give on this occasion. Third, I want to give details of what is going to happen to H.S.C. students next year.

As regards the necessity of our defence build-up, I am afraid it is necessary from time to time to remind our citizens of the hard facts of life. Lately, I notice a tendency among some citizens to be complacent. The reason probably is that things seem to be going reasonably well in the Republic. Some citizens seem to be incorrigible optimists and erroneously believe that the good conditions now prevailing form part of the natural, normal, and immutable state of the universe. The trouble with these optimists is that at the first sign of danger they are liable to lose their nerve and panic.

Let me therefore recount some of the harsh facts of life in our part of the world. We were overrun by the Japanese Army less than 30 years ago. Some, 20,000 to 30,000 men were massacred and most of the population lived under near-famine conditions. From 1948 to 1960, the Malayan Communist Party mounted widespread guerilla insurgency in the Malay Peninsula which was suppressed at great cost with much difficulty and with the full support of British arms. Between 1954 and 1963, the Communist United Front Organisations in Singapore literally ran riot. Between 1963 and 1965, while in Malaysia we were the target of what was virtually an undeclared low-level war waged by the Sukarno regime of Indonesia. But for British military protection, we would surely have succumbed.

If we look around Southeast Asia today, the view that meets the eye is far from reassuring. In South Vietnam, unlimited American fire-power through the deployment of the most scientific weapons systems on land, sea and air, backed by unstinting logistics and communications support, has failed to crush an army of peasants equipped only with rifles. The fighting has spread to Cambodia, while the position in Laos remains as insecure as ever. As a result of the pressure of public opinion, the American Government has decided to run down its combat operations in the Indo-China peninsula and leave the fighting to the South Vietnamese regime.

Insurgency has raised its ugly head in Northern and Northeast Thailand as well as on the Thai/Malaysian border. Our two closest neighbours, Malaysia and Indonesia, are faced with acute domestic problems. Malaysia is trying to find a new political equilibrium and a new political style after May 13th last year. Indonesia has made a return to political stability and economic sanity through military government after more than a decade of mis-government by the Sukarno regime. The Indonesians are making welcome progress. But the difficulties they are facing are monumental. We can only hope that the Governments of Malaysia and Indonesia succeed in their endeavours, for if they do not, the troubles that follow may well spill over their borders.

The British have reversed their earlier decision of total withdrawal east of Suez. However, the forces that they will station in Malaysia and Singapore are small, and even when these are added to those of Australia and New Zealand, they represent no more than a token acknowledgement that these three Governments have an interest in the peace and stability of the region. They have preferred not to close an important option by pulling back all their troops. We have to remember that these military forces have a different role from what they performed previously when there was a firm defence treaty, such as that between Britain and Malaysia, supplemented by tacit agreement with Australia and New Zealand. These defence obligations were clearly spelt out. Under the understanding envisaged under the Five-Power arrangements, their only commitment is to hold consultations in the event of a threat to Singapore or Malaysia.

Against this background of general uncertainty in the region, and in the absence of any firm defence commitments from our Commonwealth associates, it is a matter of common prudence that we should strive to be as self-reliant as we can in matters of defence. Here, I have to repeat what is often forgotten in popular discussion of the subject. This is that there is a long time lag between a decision taken to build up a military capability and the actual acquisition of that capability. Between two and four years pass by between placing an order for military hardware and actual delivery. Then it takes more time to train men to use these weapons and equipment and an even longer period to achieve a high level of skill and competence. The time lag varies according to the sophistication of the weapons systems and may range from a minimum of three years for simple military weapons to seven to ten years for more advanced weapons systems. This means that you cannot wait until you are in dire trouble before you decide to build up your defence forces.

In my statement of 4th November, I promised improved pay and service conditions for our soldiers. I now mention some of the major items. Full details will be published shortly in the Government Gazette and in the Ministry of Defence Orders.

The object of improving pay and general service conditions is to make a career in the regular force more attractive so that the defence service will receive its fair share of talented and ambitious young men. At the same time, these improved terms of service are an acknowledgement, albeit somewhat belated, of the loyal and devoted service of those regular officers of the 1st and 2nd Battalions, Singapore Infantry Regiment, who had to bear such a heavy responsibility of leadership in the rapid expansion of our defence forces.

To start with, the pay of Other Ranks will be substantially increased. A soldier's pay consists of three components his rank pay, his vocation pay, depending on whether he is a rifleman, a cook, a vehicle mechanic, a machine gunner, or whatever it is, and a third element, a new one, called the technical pay supplement. Because of the great shortage of technical skills, our Armed Forces have been unable to recruit sufficient numbers in the technical vocations at the going rates of pay. Rank pay and vocation pay in these trades are inadequate compared to what the private sector is paying. So technical pay supplements are introduced. These vary between $40 p.m, and $400 p.m. Let me give some examples of the new pay Structure.

At present, a private in the army gets a rank pay of $90, with an annual increment of $5 to a maximum of $115 p.m. The new pay scale will be as follows: $90: 95: 140x10-170.

A corporal now gets a rank pay of $105x10-175. The new pay scale will be: $115: 170x10-$230. This represents an increase of $55 p.m, at the maximum. Similarly, a sergeant will get an increase of $80 p.m, at the maximum.

Warrant officers are reasonably well paid; for instance, Warrant officer I scale is $350x20-450. The new pay scale will be $390x20-470.

Vocation pay will not be affected. Examples of vocation pay are as follows. An army tailor gets an additional $5 p.m, to his rank pay; a rifleman Class II, $10 p.m.; a mortarman $35 p.m. A seaman Class I gets an additional $75 p.m, while a jet aircraft fitter Class I receives an additional $200 p.m.

Since those rates are inadequate, a new technical pay supplement is to be paid to vocation grades in short supply. For instance, a corporal in his second year, serving as a communication fitter Class I, now gets a total pay of $240 p.m. Under the new scheme, he will get a total pay of $415 p.m., consisting as follows: Rank pay $170 Vocation pay $125 Technical Supplement $120 ---- Total $415 ====

The soldier who hits the jackpot is the communication technician Class I. He is normally of Warrant officer rank, and his total pay, that is, rank, vocation and technical supplement, adds up to between $1,015 and $1,160 p.m. A jet aircraft fitter can look forward .to $920 p.m, if he makes the top grade.

These new rates of pay will come into effect as from 1st January next year. The revision in rank pay will cost the Government $10.3 million a year in additional pay if the establishment of the current year is filled.

I now come to the retirement and disability benefits scheme as well as the new Army Pension regulations. Hitherto, these were a result of historical legacy of the time when our Army was part of the Malaysian Army during 1963-65. Because we had to cope with so many other pressing matters, revision of the inadequate retirement and pension benefits had to give way to more urgent tasks. This can no longer be delayed if we want to make a service career in the Army attractive enough to draw and retain good quality officers.

The full details will shortly be published in the Government Gazette and explained in a pamphlet. I will only give some of the highlights.

Soldiers are engaged on two different terms of service, depending on a number of considerations. First, they may be given a limit in the terms of employment for definite periods, say three, five or seven years, or they may be placed on the permanent regular service, in the same way as the civil service.

At present, a sergeant on short service engagement as an infantry section leader Class II, with five years' service, receives a paltry gratuity of $250 on his discharge. Under the new scheme, his gratuity will be $2,565.

Soldiers on the permanent regular service who retire on reaching the age of retirement will get a larger annual pension than present rates provide. For instance, a major with five or six years in that rank on completion of 22 years' service in the Army will get a pension of $660 p.m, as against $435 p.m, as of now. A Warrant officer I at present gets a pension of only $122.55 p.m, after serving 21 years. Under the new scheme, he will get $214.20 p.m.

When a soldier dies in service, even when death is not due to service, such as illness or accident outside working hours, his survivors get an equivalent of one year's pay or a commuted pension or gratuity, whichever is the greater. This gratuity is payable whether the soldier is on permanent regular service or full-time national service, or a reservist called up for the reserve service.

Where a soldier in regular service dies as a result of injury received in and attributable to service, a pension is payable to his widow and children, in addition to the gratuity of one year's pay. Take, for instance, the case of a Lt. Colonel with twenty years' service drawing $1,850 p.m., who dies in these circumstances. Under the new regulations, if he leaves a widow with three children under 18, the family will get a pension of $986.65 p.m., in addition to a gratuity of $27,750.

A soldier who i5 disabled as a result of injury received in and attributable to military service, will receive an annual pension for the rest of his life, depending on the degree of disablement, the length of his pensionable service and his pay. For instance, a captain with 10 years' service drawing a pay of $1,000 p.m, who is totally disabled in this way, will receive a pension of $750 p.m, for the rest of his life.

Finally children of soldiers whose death or disablement is due to military service, will receive assistance in meeting educational expenses. This will extend to meeting the cost of tuition, board or living allowance of children, the cost of books, materials, equipment and so on to enable them to complete not only their primary and secondary education but also their university education.

Scholarships will be made available to commissioned officers and non-commissioned officers serving in the permanent regular service. Those not in the regular service, such as national servicemen, may be awarded such scholarships if they sign on for regular service. These scholarships will be for study in universities in Singapore and, in the case of very talented soldiers, in universities abroad. Where the course of study is in Singapore, the soldier will be paid his normal Army pay; if in an overseas university, an overseas allowance is payable in addition. Allowances vary according to rank, the country where the courses of study are taken, and whether board and lodging are provided. These allowances are in line with Government rates. However, soldiers studying abroad will not be allowed to marry except with official permission, and then only to Singapore citizens.

Award of scholarships will normally be made on a competitive basis among eligible candidates. Selection will be done by a Scholarship Selection Board chaired by the Chairman, Public Service Commission. In return for benefits under the scheme, a soldier will be required to enter into a bond and will serve in the Armed Forces on completion of his course of study in the same way as other Government-sponsored scholarships. For soldiers of exceptional promise who do not have the qualifications to enter a university, arrangements will be made to allow them time off to acquire such qualifications.

As regards older officers who may not want to do a full university course, special short-term courses will be provided to widen their general knowledge, to improve their level of articulation, and generally to enable them to conduct themselves with the poise and deportment expected of an officer of the Singapore Armed Forces. In addition to these general courses, there will, of course, be specialist and professional training courses both in Singapore and in the Training Schools and Staff Colleges of friendly countries.

I now turn to H.S.C, students and their liability for national service. Those who have sat for their examinations last month will be called up in two groups next year - 900 in January and the rest, some 600, in April. Next year the university's term will begin in July and not in May. Of the 1,500 H.S.C, students expected to pass their examination, about 1,200 will probably gain admission to the local universities in 1971. It is proposed that 25 per cent of those accepted for admission to the local universities be granted deferment. They will be taken out of their units in July, enter the university and complete their national service after graduation. The rest, those who remain in the Armed Forces, will enter the university in July 1973. The April intake will not have done two and a half years and they will serve out the balance of national service during the university long vacation.

The 25 per cent to be deferred will be selected by ballot, except for medical and dental students, who will be included automatically in this 25 per cent. Medical and dental students will complete their -two and a half years' service on graduation as medical and dental officers in the Armed Forces.

The practice of balloting differs from the method used this year when preference was given to students with better examination performance as well as students admitted to preferred courses such as engineering.

In my statement of 4th November, I referred to the problem of getting sufficient numbers of officers in the support arms units, such as the artillery, signals and engineers. Officers in these units, in addition to doing the basic infantry officers' course, have to undergo several months' specialist training in their particular arms. With the reduction of officers' service from three to two and a half years, these support arms units may be hard pressed if all national service officers leave after two and a half years.

I intend to award a bounty to national service officers who volunteer to stay for another six months. The amount of the bounty is under negotiation with the Treasury.

The reduction of officers' service from three to two and a half years for next year's intake brings up the problem of equitable treatment for those enlisted before 1971. It -may be possible to reduce the term of service of some national service officers and allow them the option of leaving the Army before the full three years. It is not possible to extend this to all officers, but it seems to me that on grounds of equity, those officers who were born before 1-1-49 have the first claim for preferential treatment in this respect. The subject is under study in my Ministry and a decision will be taken shortly.

The guiding principle in national service enlistment policy should be absolutely equal and fair treatment for all persons belonging to the same category. Whether a boy is the son of a Prime Minister, or of a banker or a cobbler makes no difference to his service liability. A further ideal would be to observe an unchanging set of selection criteria for all time. Unfortunately, this is not always possible as the rate of our military build-up must change with changing circumstances. This has given rise to unavoidable disparity and unavoidable discontent and, as far as possible, we have tried to meet the legitimate grievances of those who have felt that they have been unfairly treated. The fact that in large measure these people have been victims of chance does not assuage their feelings, but I think it will be generally conceded that we have gone as far as we could

The improved terms and conditions of service which are outlined will be promulgated shortly in official orders and Gazette notifications. These will be supplemented by explanatory pamphlets. These improved terms are not ungenerous, but I do not think that we have been over-generous. Members of the Singapore Armed Forces lead a hard and strenuous life while training in peace time. In war time they risk their lives in the defence of our Republic. We should not do less than what we have to recompense them in the way of material award for themselves and security of livelihood for their wives and children.

Sir, I beg to move.

Question proposed.

4.24 p.m.

Mr Ng Kah Ting (Punggol): Sir, after having heard the Minister of Defence giving this House a very clear and vivid policy on enlistment, I find that he has taken up several points which I intended to raise under this amendment Bill, and this has now left me with very little ground indeed to cover. Nevertheless, I wish to proceed ahead. The main purpose of the Enlistment (Amendment) Bill seeks to repeal and re-enact section 12 of the Enlistment Act, 1970, in order to make those persons who are serving two years in full-time national service and who are above the rank of lance-corporal and those who have been selected for officer training, liable to serve a period of two and a half years. This is a correct move and I shall not be out of step to touch on some other aspects of the enlistment policy. But should I appear to digress from the main purpose of debating on the intention of the Bill whilst in the process of putting my views across by way of illustration, I think it merely serves to reinforce my views which I strongly hold. Sir, I do seek your indulgence and patience in this respect.

Just now, the Minister of Defence mentioned pay increases all round by way of basic pay as well as vocational allowance and other forms of monetary incentives. This, I think, would be most welcome to all members of the Singapore Armed Forces. In this connection, I had occasion at one time to table a question in the House for oral answer by the former Minister of Defence.

This Bill will enable the Singapore Armed Forces to be better equipped in its tremendous task of building up a credible defence capability and will benefit those university graduates who have been selected for officer training and who will now have to serve only two and a half years instead of three.

As I said just now, I would like to touch on some other aspects relating to enlistment policy. The Minister of Defence on 4th November in this House clarified certain points and remarked on what appeared in the newspapers prior to his speech on 4th November. The articles that were featured so prominently in the newspapers were so-called grouses and I do not know why they were published. Some of them were completely unfounded and untrue. For example, I remember reading in one of the papers an article captioned "S.A.F.T.I, chicken" which went on to state that the meat .of the chicken served in the Singapore Armed Forces Training Institute was as tough as rubber and that it could not be eaten. I would like to state h-ere that I know as a fact that this is not true. Such an article appears to me to be more than mischievous and I strongly urge the Minister of Defence to take serious note of this, because I am of the view that the authors of such erroneous and untrue statements appearing in certain responsible newspapers, which after all do not play a role in giving accurate news to the public, should be well aware of the fact that Singapore needs time to build up its own defence capability. I am not saying that we do not have problems. Even those countries with very well-equipped armies and military might also have problems of their own. To those writers who wrote to these newspapers, whether intentionally or unintentionally, I would suggest to them that they redirect their complaints to the Ministry of Defence. I am not trying to take on the role of the Defence Minister when I make this statement. What I mean is that the Ministry of Defence should set up a committee, though I understand that there is already a committee known as the Welfare Committee. The Minister may wish to consider appointing welfare officers in each unit so that any person or persons of any rank in a particular unit can go up to them if they have a personal problem or any other grievances to bring up.

One thing strikes me most forcefully when I was fortunate enough to be a member of the parliamentary group that visited several of our defence establishments. It was at S.A.F.T.I, that we had the opportunity to come face to face with national servicemen who were university graduates. From my personal experience and my encounter with them, I felt that quite a good number of them simply had no heart to serve as responsible citizens. I cannot understand this attitude. I would have thought that, being university graduates with a higher level of intellect, they would have brought up more serious problems or issues than "We have not got our pay for the last six months!", or minor grievances about toilet paper and low water pressure. Problems of this sort could have been sorted out with their platoon or company commanders. I hope that the Minister of Defence will look into this also.

I know it is a fact that there are many other university graduates who have been going about their duties without the slightest signs of discontentment. In fact, they accept national service as a challenging task and more as a duty on their part as citizens of Singapore. To this group of people, I would like to pay my tribute publicly. However, to the other group of national servicemen whom I have mentioned earlier, I would suggest to the Minister of Defence that we should send these graduates for full combat training. When I say "full combat training", I think the Minister of State of Defence knows exactly what it is all about. It is, of course, a very tough course. Why I suggest this, Sir, is to get this lot of graduates to undergo such a course and reorientate their minds to come up to a level with their intellect. In other words, to give them the necessary brawn though they may possess the necessary intellect.

It has been pointed out also that the brunt of Singapore's survival will fall more heavily on people with brains. Therefore, I think people with a good brain but in a weak physical condition will be of no good to us, and full combat training for these people will certainly go a long way towards securing a better future for us.

Sir, I wanted to touch on the question of giving more scholarships to members of the Armed Forces who show special aptitudes in various categories of skills. But the Minister of Defence has very explicitly enlightened this House on how he is going to give such awards to enable them to render better service. On that note, I give my wholehearted support to this Bill.

4.38 p.m.

Dr Augustine H. H. Tan (Whampoa): Mr Govindasamy, Sir, I would just like to add a note here, that I disagree with what my colleague, the Member for Punggol, has suggested about using combat training to reorientate the attitude of some of the graduate national servicemen. I think we have to understand that these people have some legitimate grouses and the Minister of Defence has tried very hard to remedy some of them. I do not think we should at any stage give the impression that national service, or any part of it, is, or will be, used as a punitive device for any purpose. I think that will defeat the entire purpose of the programme. By all means, let us use exhortation and incentive, but do not let us use the stick for this purpose, because what we want ultimately is the correct attitude on the part of everybody in Singapore, whether graduates or non-graduates - namely, the willingness, the proper spirit to defend this republic of ours. Part of the attitude of these graduates lies in our very success in creating opportunities, which are so many, and for those who have just come out from the university, they are eager to get into industry, into Government and so on. They see all the promotion prospects and they work hard. In the meantime, since some of them have been held back by national service while their colleagues have had a faster start in industry, they feel that they have lost out in the process. I would appeal to Members of Parliament here not to think in terms of national service in this fashion, namely, to punish people or even to use punishment to reorientate people's attitudes.

4.41 p.m.

Mr Ng Kah Ting: Mr Govindasamy, Sir, I strongly beg to differ from the Member for Whampoa, but I would like to clarify. What I suggested was not a punitive measure - to punish anybody. National service, as the Minister of Defence has just now stated, should be applied equally to all. That is why I suggested that probably full combat training would do a lot of good to some of our graduates. After all, as has been admitted by the Member for Whampoa, graduates passing out from the university look forward to better prospects in jobs, etc. I myself served as a volunteer from 1960 to 1963, and in the People's Defence Force from 1966 till now, as have some Members of Parliament. Perhaps I would suggest to my colleague, the Member for Whampoa, to join the P.D.F, as a start.

4.42 p.m.

The Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister for Culture (Mr Fong Sip Chee): Mr Govindasamy, Sir, I did not intend to speak at this sitting of Parliament as I have not fully recovered from my recent illness. However, the Member for Whampoa has prompted me to add a few points in support of the Minister, but I would imagine this support will go directly to the Member for Punggol. When the Member for Punggol spoke on the subject, he spoke with authority. He is still actively serving in the People's Defence Force. He has tasted the so-called "S.A.F.T.I, chicken" and not the "S.A.F.T.I. chicken" in the other connotation of the word. He has tasted army food, slept, trained, laughed with and enjoyed the company of ordinary soldiers. It is not for me here to claim too much credit for myself, but I am afraid I have to mention one fact, that is, I myself am also involved in the training in the army. I have the advantage or disadvantage, the honour or dishonour, of leading some university graduates and undergraduates in training, some of whom might be students in the university at which the Member for Whampoa is lecturing.

I have spent sufficient time with these privates. All the grouses they raised to me were nothing new, nothing that we do not know of. We are just experiencing the teething troubles of building up our defence capability. There are a lot of problems that we have to solve, but certainly there are bigger problems for us to think about than to grumble about educational allowances and so on. Sir, I believe that if we pay a man $25 more for his educational allowance, that $25 does not make him shoot any better, run any faster or fight more courageously than an ordinary private. Some of them are reluctant leaders themselves. I do not agree that by merely giving them more money, they will make better soldiers. However, we have to recognise the additional years they spent in the university and their thinking capacity. Because of that, we feel that it is fair to pay them a little bit more than a private, a corporal or even an officer who is not a graduate.

But what disturbs me is that the word "leadership" to a graduate or an undergraduate has two meanings. I regard them as leadership potential, but they regard themselves as potential leadership. They are two different things, Sir. On the one hand, they claim to be potential leaders of the country. But when we call upon them to serve the nation, they say, "No." We all agree that national service is good. We all agree that it is necessary. But the question they ask is: who is to serve, when to serve, and where to serve? Who is to serve - preferably not they, the graduates. When to serve - preferably not until they get themselves firmly established in the commercial world, by which time it might be too late for them to be called up at all. And where to serve - preferably in the less vigorous of the three branches of national service.

Sir, I do not want to be misunderstood on what I speak here today, because I am not a university graduate. There is no question of what we call "sour grapes". But I would like to enlighten the House, firstly, on my own views on the matter and, secondly, on my experience in the Armed Forces. If the university graduates are not regarded as leadership potential or if they are not to be looked upon for leadership, where else can we look for leadership, be it for the country, in the business community, in the Government, or in the Armed Forces? If this is their attitude - just opt themselves out as far as Army leadership is concerned; but if they are put in as bank managers, they are all for it - then we must correct that attitude. They may not be conscious of it, but subconsciously they feel that way, Sir,If we do not regard the university as the incubator from which to tap our leadership, where else can we get them? Something must be wrong with our educational system. If we have to get our leadership from primary and secondary schools, because in the universities the graduates just opt out, where will that lead us, Sir?

I really regard them as the reluctant leadership. Surely they should feel that they have an obligation to discharge to the community, as I have said both inside and outside the House. The fact that they have undergone a course in the university and have graduated with a B.A, or B.Sc, degree, or better still a Master's degree or a Doctorate, shows that they have sufficient grey matter in them. But if they lack this grey matter, nobody is to be blamed. They should realise that the fact that they can go through all stages of education up to university level is only because as a community in Singapore we provide them' with the opportunity to do so. In my time, Sir, kindergarten education was `either not heard of or it was considered a luxury. But today you have to go through kindergarten, six years of primary school, then secondary school and the Higher School Certificate, and finally the university. If these persons were born in the Congo - I refer to the Congo only as a geographical entity and not as a republic or as a sovereign state - with a land area 50 times the size of Singapore and Malaysia put together, and with a population very much more than that of Singapore and Malaysia put together, and where there are only 23 secondary schools, a fact I gathered from a report - there is no chance for them to be graduates, or even have the advantage of a kindergarten or primary school education. They would be tilling the soil, cutting up banana plantains, or may be in even worse occupations.

So if a university graduate in Singapore should look at his responsibility to the community in the perspective that he is what he is today because the community has provided him with these ,opportunities, then there is no better way for him to discharge his obligation to the community than by doing national service. True, Sir, a graduate can get a better salary or establish a better economic standing in the commercial world, but if we were to run our Armed Forces with leadership material coming only from the primary schools, then these graduates having established themselves as millionaires or multi-millionaires, after some years of hard work, of course, might wake up one fine morning to find that their million dollars might be worth half a cent or might not be worth anything at all.

Sir, I really do not see why these people should adopt such an attitude towards national service. As I have said, I did not intend to speak today, but having been provoked by the hon. Member, I have to give my views which I would like the House to share.

4.54 p.m.

Mr Teong Eng Siong (Sembawang): (In Mandarin): Mr Govindasamy, Sir, as the Minister has pointed out just now, this Bill expresses our stand on the question of national service the implementation of which has had satisfactory results. No one can doubt that national service is essential to an independent country. It is also a necessary obligation on the part of our citizens. For the last few years most of our citizens have responded well and fully supported and participated in national service. But there are a number of anomalies or defects in the system, and we must always seek to remedy them whenever we come across them.

I would like to raise four or five points here and I hope the Minister will explain them. The first point is this. I have received complaints from many parents whose one and only son has been called up for national service. The complaint is that their only son has a job which pays him $100 to $200 every month to support his family. In order to satisfy the requirements of the law, when he reaches the appropriate age group he has to be called up for full-time national service training.

Mr Govindasamy, Sir, of course the Minister realises that there is a large difference between the allowance a national serviceman gets and the salary he earns outside. Every month he only gets about $100 while in national service and deductions have to be made for food. So what he can take home is only a very meagre sum. I wonder whether the Minister can sympathetically consider allowing such boys to do part-time national service only. In this way we can, on the one hand, give him military training, and, on the other hand, we will not disrupt the livelihood of these families.

The second point I would like to raise is about those university graduates born in 1946 and who have already been called up for national service. I have received a complaint about such a case. The boy was called up and has so far done about six months' training. Last month the Minister announced a new policy to exempt those born before 1949 from full-time national service, and to allow them to do part-time national service. I would Jike to ask whether those graduates who were born in 1946 can be allowed to do part-time national service, rather than full-time.

The third point I would like to raise is this. Our Government has given the assurance that jobs would be found quickly for those who have completed two years' national service. But in point of fact I have received many complaints from these ex-servicemen in my meet-the-people sessions in Sembawang. The complaints are that they have waited for as long as three months and are still without jobs. Although we have a Director of Employment to allocate jobs and there are many commercial firms which require people to fill their vacancies, how is it that these ex-servicemen still have to wait for such a long time? Is it because the Director is inefficient? I would like the Minister to pay attention to these complaints.

The last point is in regard to requests from national servicemen to go on honeymoon. I understand that the Ministry gives them only three days for a honeymoon. I think this is rather inhuman. We should allow the husband and wife to enjoy a longer honeymoon. Three days is too short, I wonder if the Minister will consider this question sympathetically and grant these people who are getting married a longer leave, say, a week or two weeks; perhaps a month will be ideal.

5.00 p.m.

Dr Goh Keng Swee: Sir, may I reply to the points raised by Members in the reverse order in which they spoke?

First of all, the Member for Sembawang. As regards his point whether the only son, who is alleged to be able to earn quite easily between $100 and $200 a month, should not be exempted from full-time national service, much as I would like to oblige him, the answer is no. My advice is for the only son to work harder in the army so that he can raise himself to the rank of corporal, where his pay will be more than $200 a month, and in addition he will get board and lodging worth at least $80 to $90 a month. So he will be better off in the Army if he works hard.

As regards graduates born before 1st January, 1949, I have already dealt with the matter in my Second Reading speech. I do not have anything more to say.

Regarding jobs for reservists, the majority of them - I do not have the exact number - I think five or six thousand reservists who have left the army, more than 80 per cent of them have already found employment. Those who cannot find jobs after three months are usually those who are quite pernickety. They think they are worth more than what prospective employers value their services.

As regards extending the honeymoon period, my advice to national servicemen is to wait until they complete their national service.

The Member for Stamford has passed some very scathing remarks about graduates in the army. I am afraid 1 completely disagree with nearly all he `has said about graduates and undergraduates. He may not be aware of the fact that the number of graduates who become officers is much larger than that of non-graduates. In fact, as of now, there are something like 150 graduates who are officers in combat units. I do not think this reflects a lackadaisical, unpatriotic or negative attitude towards national service and towards national leadership. The vast majority of graduates take national service seriously and responsibly, and have responded very well to the challenge of army life. There are a few black sheep in any flock, but that is to be expected. We must remember that in doing national service, graduates, as against non-graduates, are at a disadvantage in two respects. First, they lose more in the army than when compared to what they could have earned outside the army. Secondly, it is only graduates who were born before 1st January, 1949, who have been called up, in this respect, we may say that the graduates have been discriminated against. But it was necessary for us at that time to get a large number of officer material and we had to do this. I think the graduates have a genuine grievance when they are called up for national service, and I think it is best that we face up to it and try to redress the situation and adjust the position as best we can. To make a sweeping condemnation, as the Member for Stamford did, is quite unhelpful, unjust and unfair.

I entirely agree with the Member for Whampoa that we must not use national service as a means of punishing people. I am sure the Member for Punggol agrees with me that this was not his intention when he said that we should do away with the distinction between service officers and combat officers. In fact, this category of service officers is rather special. It was created to meet the special needs of a year or two ago when there was a great shortage of staff officers both in the field units, in the Ministry and in the logistics bases. They had to be turned out in large numbers and in a great hurry. I think it is bad to have two classes of officers, one service and one combat, with the service officer being at a disadvantage in the sense that he is rather an inferior sort of individual. I intend to discontinue the practice of training service officers. In future all officers in the army will do full combat training, and if they are required to do staff duties, there will be special courses for them to attend in order to acquire the necessary skills.

As regards grievances, all soldiers in all armies have grievances, whether in Singapore, in Britain, in America or any other places. I suspect even the Chinese Communist Army soldiers have grievances. This is rather odd because it is unlike the navy and the air force. Soldiers belly-ache, soldiers gripe. When we meet them we must always bear in mind that this is in the nature of things, like the sun rising in the east and setting in the west. You give them a hearing and that helps and makes them feel better for it. Occasionally troubles come out in the open and if they could be remedied, of course, one remedies them.

Now, the water pressure in the - Singapore Armed Forces Training Institute is low. I suspect this is because the P.U.B, has installed a rather small diameter pipe. Until larger pipes go to that part of Singapore, the soldiers will always be short of water. Too bad for them! But that is the way it is.

The Member for Punggol has suggested that we appoint welfare officers in the units to listen to grievances. Actually, listening to the grievances of soldiers is the job for the commanding officer, of a platoon, company or battalion. A good commander will always listen to his soldiers' troubles and tales of woe and tries to help them out as best he can. I do not think we need any special arrangements about this. This is the responsibility of the platoon commander or the company commander.

As regards newspaper criticisms, I have been 11 years in the political game and my epidermis is quite thick. Nothing any newspaper says about me or the Government or the P.A.P, bothers me in the least. I think the Member for Punggol need not be so sensitive to newspaper criticisms about S.A.F.T.I, chickens or, for that matter, about any other aspects. Newspapers are free to say what they like. This is a democracy.

Mr Ng Kah Ting: Is it true?

Dr Goh Keng Swee: If they give wrong information, it is open to the aggrieved party to correct it. As far as I know, they have always been quite reasonable in printing another person's version. So on newspaper criticisms, may I recommend a "thick epidermis"? Of course, there are legal restrictions on what newspapers can write on military affairs. First, they cannot be party to soldiers breaking the Queens regulations. 1 have forgotten the number of the regulation, but it forbids soldiers bringing their grievances into the open and we have had to introduce subsidiary legislation to tell the newspapers they cannot do it, nor can they print sensitive information on military affairs. Subject to these two restrictions, the newspapers are free to say what they like, and good luck to them.

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. ---[Dr Goh Keng Swee].

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

Mr N. Govindasamy: Order. I think this is a convenient time to have a suspension. I suspend this sitting now and will take the Chair again at five minutes to Six o'clock.

Sitting accordingly suspended at 5.13 p.m, until 5.55 p.m. Sitting resumed at 5.55 p.m.