SINGAPORE ARMED FORCES (AMENDMENT) BILL

Order for Second Reading read. 2.56 p.m.

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

There is always the possibility that ex-servicemen, whether regular or national service, may divulge protected defence information. As such persons have ceased to be subject to military law except during the time they are actually performing reservist training and they cannot be tried by a military court for such offences. It is now intended that a subordinate military court will have jurisdiction to try such persons for the offence of divulging protected information. For this purpose, such persons are to be regarded as continuing to be subject to military law in respect of unauthorised disclosure of protected defence information. The provisions of the Act relating to the arrest, detention in custody, investigation of offences, trial and punishment by the subordinate military court in connection with such offences and execution of any sentence passed shall apply to them.

Presently, persons subject to military law who are accused of murder or culpable homicide not amounting to murder or with an offence under section 121 and 121A of the Penal Code may be tried by a subordinate military court, the President of which must be a Judge of the Supreme Court appointed by the Chief Justice. Where an accused is to be found guilty of a charge for which the punishment is death, the decision of the subordinate military court must be unanimous. Other than those presently listed in the Act, there are offences carrying the death penalty; for example, certain offences under the Misuse of Drugs Act, 1973, which may be committed by persons subject to military law and be tried by the subordinate military court. It is necessary that the Act be amended to provide for the President of the court martial trying such other offences carrying the death penalty to be a Supreme Court Judge appointed by the Chief Justice and for a decision of such a court martial to be unanimous.

Under the Misuse of Drugs Act, 1973, a certificate relating to a controlled drug signed by a Government Chemist is admissible as evidence in proceedings. He need not appear in court to testify to his signature. It will be considered as prima facie evidence of all matters contained in it. A provision is now made to give a Singapore Armed Forces Pharmacist or Chemist the same legal standing. Under the Misuse of Drugs Act, 1973, a person who has been required to provide a specimen of his urine for a urine test has the right to apply for a second test of his urine specimen. This is to ensure that the accused is not convicted due to any error in the handling or analysis of his urine sample. It is intended that the right to apply for a second urine test should also be accorded to SAF personnel and power is given to the Armed Forces Council to set aside the conviction and sentence if, as a result of the second test, it is found that there is no controlled drug in the urine specimen. The power to set aside a conviction and sentence is necessary as drug offences in the SAF are dealt with and concluded very swiftly. This is in the interest of soldiers who otherwise would have to remain in detention for weeks or months on end.

When a person subject to military law is convicted of a non-military offence other than murder, culpable homicide, rape and the Penal Code offence under section 121 (Waging War Against The Government) or section 121A (Offences Against The President's Person), a subordinate military court is given the power to pass the sentence provided for the non-military offence. In addition to or in lieu of such punishment, the court may impose military punishment, for example, discharge with ignominy, reduction in rank or forfeiture of military decoration or military award. Such an additional power of punishment is necessary when dealing with military personnel in the context of the Singapore Armed Forces.

In the civil court, when a person is officially informed that he may be prosecuted for an offence, he is requested to mention any fact that he intends to rely in his defence so that it may be written down. This procedure is also to be made available to a person subject to military law. The law also provides that adverse inferences may be drawn if he fails to mention any such fact. This is similarly to be incorporated.

The authority to write-off any public stores and public monies is conferred on the Minister for Finance and accordingly all cases relating to public stores or public monies have to be referred to the Ministry of Finance. In the Singapore Armed Forces, cases of loss, damage or destruction of public property may be dealt with by way of summary trial, court martial or Boards of Inquiry. Under these procedures, the Armed Forces Council may issue an order to recover total or part value of the lost, damaged or destroyed property. When part recovery of the value is made, the unrecovered portion has to be written off and the matter has to be referred to the Ministry of Finance for its authority for the write-off. As the request for the authority to write off is made on the basis of a decision of the Armed Forces Council, the authority is given as a matter of formality. Accordingly for administrative expediency and to relieve the Ministry of Finance of the responsibility in authorising write-off in respect of matters on which they have very little say, the power is now to be given to the Armed Forces Council to write off the value of public stores and public monies under the charge of the SAF which are lost, damaged or destroyed.

Pensions, gratuities or other allowances granted to military personnel are paid out of the Consolidated Fund and, except for the purpose of satisfying a debt due to the Government or a court order for the payment of maintenance of the serviceman's wife or children, they are not assignable or transferable or liable to be attached to satisfy. a debt or claim. The provisions appear in the Singapore Army Pensions Scheme Regulations, 1971 which have since been revoked and replaced by the Singapore Armed Forces Pensions Regulations, 1978. It is more appropriate for these provisions to appear in the Act and therefore a new section has been introduced.

Sir, I beg to move.

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.