SINGAPORE ARMED FORCES BILL

Order for Second Reading read.

4.18 p.m.

The Minister of State of Defence (Mr Wee Toon Boon): Mr Speaker, Sir, I beg to move, "That the Bill be now read a Second time."

For many years now, the disciplinary provisions under the law have been found increasingly anomalous, unsatisfactory and unworkable,. The disciplinary laws had diverse origins being scattered, as it were, in a number of enactments including the Singapore Army Act, the British Army Act, Queen's Regulations, and the People's Defence Force Act, a situation which made administration cumbersome, tedious and frustrating. What was even more unsatisfactory was the fact that the provisions in these enactments were, mainly, relevant to an army based on regular professional soldiers or a volunteer part-time army. They are, apart from being partly irrelevant to a large national service army such as ours, inadequate and inappropriate in the context of a unified force consisting of army, maritime and air commands which severally and collectively constitute the Singapore Armed Forces. For instance, to a professional soldier in a standing army to be discharged with ignominy from the army would be a grave form of punishment. But this would not deter some of the less responsible national servicemen who would, on the contrary, be quite happy to be discharged regardless of ignominy. For to them ignominy would be the way of escape from their military obligations to the nation. A major difficulty experienced has been in regard to the punishment of Senior Non-Commissioned Officers and Officers who, under present conditions, can only be tried summarily by an Officer of the rank of Brigadier. There is no such officer in the Singapore Armed Forces today, so that Senor NCOs and Officers either had to be court-martialled or else let off scot-free. I shall elaborate this further when I discuss the salient features of the Bill.

First and foremost, the Bill envisages a concept appropriate in the context of a unified force comprising the army, maritime and air commands which are brought under the centralised control of an Armed Forces Council, which is the overall authority under clauses 7 and 197 of the Bill, for all matters connected with the Armed Forces, except for the authority vested in the President for the formal establishment of the Singapore Armed Forces, vide clause 6.

The major portion of the Bill deals with all the various matters covering and connected with disciplinary measures including the mechanics of the administration thereof. Additional or revised military offences are introduced and some of the present military offences are extended, the prime purpose being to consolidate, streamline and telescope within one single enactment the usual military offences that are ordinarily found in military law enactments.

A major change brought about by the Bill is in respect of summary trials. There is now introduced a system of trial by disciplinary officers to replace the system of trial by Company Commanders, commanding officers and appropriate superior authority under the Singapore Army Act, 1965, where the only person who can be the appropriate superior authority is a Brigadier. Under the new system introduced in the Bill, there will be three types of disciplinary officers, namely, junior disciplinary officers, senior disciplinary officers, and superior commanders, and it further allows the appointment of any person commanding a command, a formation or any other person as a superior commander.

Under the Singapore Army Act. Company Commanders can only deal with offences committed by Other Ranks of the rank of corporal and below, whilst Commanding Officers are allowed to deal only with temporary warrant officers and those below that rank. Officers with the rank of Second Lieutenant to Captain and substantive warrant officers are dealt with by the appropriate superior authority, whilst officers above the rank of Captain cannot be dealt with summarily but only by a court-martial. This Bill, on the other hand, allows junior and senior disciplinary officers, that is, Company and Battalion Commanders respectively, to deal with Other Ranks of the rank of temporary warrant officers and below; and superior commanders, that is, Brigade Commanders, to deal with substantive warrant officers and above up to the rank of Major. Persons of the rank of Lieutenant-Colonel and above who could not previously be dealt with summarily can now be so dealt with by the Armed Forces Council.

Further, the powers of punishment of disciplinary officers have been increased, the main aim being to dispose of more cases expeditiously at unit level. Under the Bill, a junior disciplinary officer can award up to 10 days' detention to privates and recruits, a form of punishment which he could not award under the Singapore Army Act, under which the most severe punishment which a Company Commander could award to NCOs of the rank of Corporal and below was a reprimand, and to soldiers the minor punishment or restriction of privileges up to a maximum of seven days. The most severe punishment that a Commanding Officer could award previously was 28 days' detention and that too only to privates and recruits, and the most severe punishment that he could award to a substantive NCO was nothing more than a severe reprimand. This Bill does away with all these restrictions and allows senior disciplinary officers to award detentions of 40 days even to NCOs. The Bill also allows the superior commander to award detention to warrant officers, which he could not do under the Singapore Army Act, the most severe punishment under which being just a forfeiture of seniority of rank.

There are very good reasons for increasing the power of punishment of disciplinary officers. From what I have said above, hon. Members will see that extremely light punishments were meted out to NCOs, both regulars and national servicemen. This tended to give the impression that they were immune from serious punishments unless the case went up for a court-martial. There were some cases of indiscipline during the last few weeks before the national servicemen NCOs were due for release. These acts of indiscipline certainly warrant disciplinary action of a higher level than a reprimand at the unit level. Under this Bill, senior disciplinary officers will be able to award detention to NCOs, and superior commanders can award detention to warrant officers, measures which will certainly dispel any impression amongst the less responsible that they can get away lightly for their misdemeanours. Further, punishment for an offence which did not warrant a court-martial was inadequate. For instance, a soldier who absents himself without leave for 35 days could, as the law now stands, only be detained for a maximum of 28 days by his Commanding Officer. Clearly, this must be rectified and the Bill, therefore, now allows Commanding Officers to give up to 40 days' detention. A further reason is that the increase in punishment will allow cases to be dealt with more expeditiously. An example will illustrate this. Let us take a national serviceman NCO who is due to be released from national service in three days' time. He commits an offence which deserves something more than the punishment of a reprimand. Under the present law, detention of NCOs can only be awarded by a court-martial. The NCO in this case will have to be held back from release until a court-martial is held and he has served his punishment. Under the Bill, however, since detention can be given to NCOs by the Commanding Officers, such cases can be quickly dealt with by the Commanding Officer himself. Further, the increase in punishment will also allow more cases to be disposed of at unit level. It must not, however, be assumed that the offender has no safeguard. If in any case he feels that he is being wrongly punished and the punishment that the disciplinary officer is going to award is something more than a reprimand, he can elect to be tried by a subordinate military court.

To ensure that errors by disciplinary officers in dealing with cases are corrected and that any abuse of powers is checked, the Armed Forces Council has been given the power of review to enable it to quash the findings and sentences 0 disciplinary officers and to substitute new findings and sentences. For the information of hon. Members, I must point out that there is no such system of review under the Singapore Army Act. However, the power of review under section 115 of the British Army Act has been made use of. It is of interest to note, however, that the Armed Forces Council in reviewing a case can only award a lesser form of punishment. It cannot enhance the punishment already awarded. An enhanced punishment can only be awarded by a Military Court of Appeal.

I shall now discuss the system of military courts, including the Military Court of Appeal, introduced by this Bill. Under the present set-up there are three types of courts-martial, namely, general courts-martial, district courts-martial and field-general courts-martial. Officers can only be tried by general courts-martial and field-general courts-martial while other personnel can be tried by all three types of courts-martial. Further, whilst general courts-martial and field-general courts-martial can award death or any lesser punishment, the most severe punishment that district courts-martial can award, however, is two years' imprisonment. There is, as hon. Members will appreciate, no reason to have three types of courts-martial when two can serve the purpose just as well. We can do away with district courts-martial and have, instead, one court, that is, the general courts-martial to deal with all personnel irrespective of rank. This Bill, therefore, simplifies the military court system. The subordinate military courts shall consist of two types of courts-martial, namely, general courts-martial and the field-general courts-martial, both of which can deal with all servicemen irrespective of rank. However, a field-general courts-martial will only be convened when a unit of the Singapore Armed Forces to which the offender belongs is on active service. Each of these courts shall consist of not less than three officers.

The Bill establishes for the first time a Military Court of Appeal. No such court exists now and the only remedy that the aggrieved party has in such circumstances is to petition to the confirming authority against the findings and sentence. The Military Court of Appeal established by this Bill is, therefore, an important innovation; it can hear and determine appeals against decisions made by the subordinate military courts. There is, however, no appeal from the Military Court of Appeal whose powers are analogous to those of the Court of Criminal Appeal. The President of the Court shall either be a Judge of the High Court or a person qualified to be such. There are four other members, two of whom are to be legally qualified persons of at least five years' standing. The other two members will be officers of the Singapore Armed Forces of or above the rank of Captain.

The punishment which subordinate military courts can impose range from death to minor punishment. For non-military offences, a subordinate military court can impose the same punishment as a civil court. A new punishment, however, deserves mention. Subordinate military courts can, for certain offences, require a reservist to serve for a further period of service not exceeding 12 months. Provision is also made for the suspension of sentences and for the grant of a pardon by the President for an offender.

Another salient feature of the Bill is the enlargement of the powers of search and investigation. Hitherto, under the Singapore Army Act, investigations have been done by officers appointed by the Commanding Officer and military policemen had powers to investigate only with the permission of the Commanding Officer. This Bill, however, removes the restrictions placed on the powers of investigation and search. There will be two categories of investigating officers: investigating officers authorised by a senior disciplinary officer or a superior commander to investigate specific offences and Military Policemen who may investigate all offences. This is necessary in a rapidly expanding force, many of whose units are commanded by young and inexperienced officers. Other important aspects of the Bill are the powers to set up Boards of Inquiry where there is a matter relating to the Singapore Armed Forces which would be desirable to investigate into; the emergency powers in clauses 191 and 192 which can be brought into operation only if the President so declares for securing the public safety or the defence of the Republic; reduction in rank for inefficiency of a member of the Singapore Armed Forces; and, last but not least, channels by which servicemen who are wronged in any matter may lodge complaints to seek a redress.

The amendments to the Enlistment Act effected through the Singapore Armed Forces Bill would enable an employer to recover from Government any amount that he has paid as makeup pay to a reservist or a person who is mobilised, by deductions from pay-roll tax, if the reservist is self-employed, he can claim make-up pay from monies to be provided by Parliament. However, if a reservist is convicted of a specified offence involving a breach of discipline and the court is satisfied on the evidence that the reservist has shown himself to be not responsive to discipline, the court may punish him under clause 114 (14) of the Bill by requiring him to serve a further period of service not exceeding 12 months. The reservist, if working under a contract of employ-merit, would be entitled to receive make-up pay from his employer during the further period of service, but the employer cannot deduct this from payroll tax. An employer would not be obliged to reinstate such a reservist in his civilian employment. Indeed an employer can, if he so wishes, dismiss such reservist from his employment at any time prior to the completion of such additional reserve service.

Hon. Members may look askance at these measures now introduced by the Bill as they are undoubtedly a departure from what may be considered to be accepted norms. But good and potent reasons exist to introduce these measures if our Army is not to degenerate into a rabble of indiscipline soldiers. There have been a number of incidents which do not credit the Singapore Armed Forces and which, if not curbed or deterred, can bring the Singapore Armed Forces into disrepute. One of a number of incidents that have taken place will convince hon. Members of the absolute necessity to adopt the strong measures proposed in the Bill. A number of reservist service officers were called up to attend a conversion course sometime in November last year. From the very start, these officers continuously carried out their training in an unwilling manner. Towards the end of the exercise, however, the reservists took it upon themselves to walk off from the exercise, without the permission of the instructors. They also hailed two lorries to transport them back to the Singapore Armed Forces Training Institute leaving their tools and equipment behind in the training area. Because of this, these officers had their training extended for one week, and this had a salutary effect as they showed that they were capable of carrying out their tasks as required of them. This particular incident is one which would call for the most severe form of punishment possible. Clearly, therefore, more stringent laws are necessary to deal with such situations. However exalted a soldier may consider his civilian occupation and standing, he is not outside the scope of military discipline once he is in uniform. The strong measures introduced in the Bill will deal appropriately with those predisposed to insolence, indifference and indiscipline which must not and cannot be tolerated. Discipline and order are sacrosanct in any army, and an army devoid of these qualities will not be able to serve the nation well and truly.

Before I conclude, I must point out that through this Bill an amendment is also made to the Finance Act to provide for a new definition of "payroll".

Hon. Members will see from what I have said so far that in concept and design the Bill is nothing more than an attempt to make good glaring deficiencies in the existing law and to encompass within the framework of one enactment the subject of military discipline in all its manifestations.

Mr Speaker, Sir, I beg to move,

Question proposed.

4.37 p.m.

Mr P. Selvadurai (Bukit Panjang): Mr Speaker, Sir, everybody knows that the Singapore Army Act and the People's Defence Force Act passed soon after independence in 1965 were temporary measures designed to meet an emergency situation. It was inevitable that a comprehensive code relating to a legal organisation, administration and discipline of the Armed Forces would see the light of day sooner or later. We should pay tribute to the Ministry of Defence for having completed the work of reorganisation of the Armed Forces and the drafting of its basic law within the shortest time of the Ministry's existence, particularly in the context of a society which did not have sound or organised martial traditions.

Sir, I am concerned with Part IV of the Bill. While Part IV of the Bill lays clown an attractive procedure for the summary trial of offences by disciplinary officers, clause 65 of the Bill typifies the basic human problem that we face in Singapore, whether in civilian or military life and the problem of trained human beings fighting shy of making unpleasant decisions. It would be interesting to see if the Armed Forces would set new standards which would not fail to be humane for their civilian counterparts to emulate.

Sir, the performance of the judicial function is not an easy one. It calls for qualities of total human breeding and responsibility which few humans are blessed with at the best of times. We are now calling for these very qualities from the men of the Armed Forces, and we must hope that the traditions that they do establish would help to mould the Armed Forces into a civilised force worthy of the fair name of Singapore. We have the beginnings of military jurisprudence, and it is essential that we build up expertise in this field from among the ranks of the officers of the Armed Forces within the shortest possible time.

4.40 p.m.

Mr Ng Kah Ting (Punggol): Mr. Speaker, Sir, I rise to give my support to this Bill. I am glad to note that one of the objects of this Bill is to establish a unified force called the Singapore Armed Forces consisting of military, maritime and air commands. This Bill is definitely an improvement of the Singapore Army Act, 1965, and the People's Defence Force Act, which my colleague, the Member for Bukit Panjang, has just pointed out that these Acts were temporary measures designed to meet an emergency situation. I Xho1e-heartedly agree with what the Member has just mentioned. I also note that this Bill will provide for the establishment, administration, maintenance and discipline of the Singapore Armed Forces. In other words, all the three sectors of the Singapore Armed Forces, i.e. the military, the maritime and air commands, will now come directly under this Bill.

Sir, whilst I do not wish to go into the Bill in detail, I would like to touch on some of the points raised by the Minister of State of Defence pertaining to discipline. I am quite surprised to note that the various breaches of discipline committed by the rank and file could only be dealt with by certain categories of officers at certain levels under the two previous Acts. But now, with the establishment of the Singapore Armed Forces Council, it is noted that radical changes have been made and introduced in this Bill which will empower officers like company commanders, battalion commanders, brigade commanders to deal with acts of indiscipline committed by the rank and file of the Singapore Armed Forces. I cannot disagree with the Minister of State of Defence when he enumerated the various types of offences for which nothing much could be done in the case of senior officers, and that for certain offences there is the need for a Brigadier to mete out punishment. But since the Singapore Armed Forces do not have the rank of Brigadier at the moment except Colonels and below, I think this Singapore Armed Forces Bill would streamline the entire Force and will empower the various commanders at various unit levels to look into and mete out punishment that is proper to the severity of a breach of discipline.

Just now the Minister of State mentioned an instance when some of our N.C.O. national servicemen simply walked out during an exercise without any permission. Sir, this is one of the many examples which the Minister of State has brought to light in this House. I am even more surprised to learn why these culprits who have breached military discipline could not be more severely dealt with. I hope that with the establishment of this Council much improvement can be seen in the running of the Singapore Armed Forces.

4.46 p.m.

Mr Hwang Soo Jin (Jalan Kayu): Sir, I am pleased to see that clause 196 provides for the mode of complaint by servicemen. It seems to me that the average national serviceman is not aware that this is one area where he can sound out his grievances. More often than not he feels that he has been wronged but does not know how to go about it to complain to his superior officers. This clause sets down the procedure how to go about it. I hope that, in the implementation of this Bill, the particular provision under clause 196 is brought to the attention of all national service recruits, and that preferably each recruit is given some guidance and explanation in the particular language in which he is conversant with.

Mr Wee Toon Boon: Sir, with regard to the observations made by the Member for Jalan Kayu, procedures have, in fact, been laid down for any national serviceman to raise any grievances through the proper channels. All national servicemen have been acquainted with these procedures, and I believe that many of them are fully aware of them. However, special classes have been conducted for this purpose and, of course, if need be, arrangements can be made to publicise these procedures. However, the Member's suggestion will be looked into, and proper measures will be taken to implement them.

With regard to the comments made by the Members for Bukit Panjang and Punggol who have expressed their support of the Bill, may I say that it is due to the deficiencies in the present law that it has become necessary to introduce this Bill in order that adequate punishment can be meted out to those who are disinclined to discipline.

Question put, and agreed to.

Bill accordingly read a Second time and committee to a Committee of the whole House.

The House immediately resolved itself into a Committee on the Bill.-[Mr Wee Toon Boon].

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