REQUISITION OF RESOURCES BILL

Order for Second Reading read. 12.12 pm

The Minister of State for Defence and Trade and Industry (BG Lee Hsien Loong): Mr Deputy Speaker, Sir, on behalf of the Minister for Defence, I beg to move, "That the Bill be now read a Second time."

In a national emergency, we must mobilize all the resources at our disposal to combat the danger. We cannot afford to leave idle any equipment or facilities which can be useful in the struggle for national survival. Many of these resources can be found in the civil economy, in private hands: vehicles, aircraft, ships, hospitals, warehouses, even land. In peacetime, they are properly and productively employed for economic purposes. In an emergency, they must be requisitioned and committed to the areas of greatest national need. Hence, the requirement for this Bill.

A military threat would be the chief example of a national emergency, and in war the SAF would be the major user of requisitioned resources. This is especially so because of our National Service system, with the bulk of our strength in the reserves. Our reserve formations are fully equipped with a complete complement of weapons, ammunition, and military vehicles. These items are not used in peace-time training, but are kept in cold storage, in a high state of readiness, to await mobilization. Maintaining such emergency stores is expensive, but for military equipment and ammunition, there is no other way. However, the SAF also has a large requirement for civilian equipment: engineer plant like bulldozers and shovels for constructing fortifications and roads, and vehicles for carrying logistics supplies, ferrying troops or evacuating casualties. Ordinary trucks, buses and ambulances fulfil this role adequately. For such vehicles, it would be wasteful to keep a duplicate set of what private owners already possess. Far better to rely on requisition than on storage, provided requisitioning can be rapid and reliable.

However, war is not the only contingency, and the SAF is not the only user of civil resources. After a civil disaster, hospitals, ambulances, excavators, even buildings to house the homeless, may be needed for rescue operations. And of course in war, the SAF is only the military arm of the Total Defence effort. Civil defence and essential services will have to be carried out, under difficult conditions. This will require a broad range of resources. The state will not only need equipment and land, but will also have to call on undertakings and individuals to render services. For example, it would be of little use to requisition an aircraft without requisitioning also the services of its pilot and its crew. The Bill provides for all these requirements.

If the requisitioning process is to function well in a crisis, much work must be carried out in peacetime. Records must be kept of where the civil resources are, what condition they are in, who owns them, who operates them. These records have to be verified by periodic inspections of the resources. Equipment which is predesignated for a specific purpose may need to be modified to suit special requirements. For example, a bus which is meant to be used as an ambulance may need brackets installed in peacetime for mounting stretchers and drip sets.

The most important peacetime requirement, however, is to exercise the civil resource requisitioning system, iron out the bugs, and ensure that everyone involved knows exactly what he has to do. This is especially critical for equipment which has been earmarked for the SAF. We can mobilize our reservist soldiers, and equip them, within 30 hours using silent mobilization, and in less time using open mobilization. We must be able to mobilize resources as quickly as we can mobilize reservists. This means a very slick and well-oiled requisition process which is impossible if the process has not been exercised. To authorize these peacetime activities, legislation is needed now. It would not be feasible to depend on emergency legislation, introduced only after a crisis has broken out.

Resources and services requisitioned must, of course, be paid for, quickly and fairly. This is so both for peacetime exercises, and for wartime operations. The principle adopted in the Bill is that compensation will be according to market rates at the time of requisition. For vehicles, vessels and aircraft, this would be the prevailing rates of charter or hire, for buildings the rental value, for goods the purchase or sale price, for undertakings a reasonable remuneration, and for services of individuals their previous income. Such individuals shall be deemed Government servants and also receive disability payments for any injury or death sustained by them. If the resource is damaged or totally lost whilst it is under requisition, which is quite possible, especially in war, the damage or loss will also be compensated. In case the owner and the appointed Com- pensation Office disagree over the amount of compensation, the dispute will be referred to a Compensation Board set up to adjudicate the claims. The Board will have a Commissioner and Assistant Commissioner, who shall be persons qualified to be District Judges, plus two other members, and the decisions of the Board shall be final.

Requisition of resources cannot, however, be done willy-nilly. Clause 2 of the Bill specifies the circumstances under which requisitioning can take place. The Minister for Defence must be satisfied that it is necessary:

(a) for the securing of the public safety or the defence of the country, or

(b) for the maintenance of supplies and services essential to the life of the community, or

(c) for the conduct of exercises for any of the aforesaid purposes.

If the Minister is satisfied, he may then by order direct all or any provisions of Part Ill of the Bill, which is the part dealing with the Requisitioning of Property and Services, to come into operation. His order cannot be for more than seven days. Beyond that, the approval of the President, acting on the advice of the Cabinet, is required. In comparison, in Britain, the Secretary of State for Defence can order the requisitioning of vehicles and billeting for one month. In Israel, the Minister for Defence can order the mobilization of equipment up to 14 days. Our legislation is therefore more restrictive than the equivalent British and Israeli legislation.

In summary, the Bill authorizes the requisitioning of property and services, the payment of compensation, and the establishment of Compensation Boards to determine disputes. It also authorizes criminal sanctions and powers of arrest against individuals who fail to comply with the requirements of the Act. The maximum penalty provided is a fine of $10,000, or imprisonment for two years, or both.

However, these penalties are meant to be invoked only as a last resort, Fundamentally, requisition of resources depends on the willing cooperation of the people. If this is not forthcoming, then the Government might as well fall back on commandeering resources, which means for vehicles setting up road blocks and waylaying any suitable trucks or buses which happen to come by. This would be arbitrary, inequitable, and ineffective, which is why the Government is making a vigorous effort to publicize the Bill, to educate the public, and to seek the views of the wide range of people affected by its provisions: employers, owners, operators of resources, their views on the fairness of the compensation rules and the practicality of the mobilization procedures. Hence, the intention to refer the Bill to a Select Committee after the Second Reading.

Mr Deputy Speaker, Sir, we have made a success of our National Service system. People yield their sons, brothers, and husbands to the SAF, to put their lives at risk in the defence of the nation. There is no reason why they should not yield their vehicles, property, services, for the same cause, equally willingly. I have every confidence that Singaporeans will indeed do so.

Sir, I beg to move.

Question proposed, 12.22 pm

Mr Jeyaretnam: Mr Deputy Speaker, Sir, my Party has no quarrel with the principle of this Bill. We are second to none committed to the defence of Singapore.

An hon. Member: Hear, hear!

Mr Jeyaretnam: There has been no quarrel about that, no doubt about that, in spite of many attempts by the Ministers on the other side to try and make out that we are less than committed. There has been no doubt about that although the Minister of State sometime ago, in a patronizing manner, said that the Workers' Party would now appear to be agreed on the essentials of defence. May I say that there has never been any doubt about that. But that does not mean that we do not question the cost-effectiveness of the measures taken by the Government or the powers that the Government proposes to exercise, even when it comes to a question of defence of the country and it is to this that I wish to address myself, Mr Deputy Speaker, Sir.

This Bill does not, as I see it, make any distinction between a state of war in which the country is engaged and peacetime. May I know whether these provisions are intended to apply in a state of war? I should have thought that would not be necessary because the measures could be provided for by a special proclamation or order.

If this Bill is intended to apply in peacetime, I am a bit concerned about the powers that have been given. Sub-clause (2) of clause 2 of the Bill, Mr Deputy Speaker, Sir, gives the Minister - I take it, the Minister for Defence - power to bring into operation Part Ill of this Bill which relates to requisitioning of property and services and he may do that if it appears to him that,

'it is necessary for the securing of the public safety or the defence of the country or the maintenance of supplies and services essential to the life of the community or for the conduct of exercises for any of the aforesaid purposes.'

We agree that if it is essential for the life of the community that certain requisite things should be requisitioned, so be it.

But what we are concerned about is the sole discretion given to the Minister. I note what the Minister of State said that the Minister's order is subject to the President's sanction within seven days. The Minister of State said that the powers here are more limited than the powers in the United Kingdom legislation. Is he quite right on that? Because my understanding of the UK Act is that the Secretary of State for Defence is required immediately to report any order made by him to Parliament so that Parliament and the people of the country are informed of the need and the reasons for bringing the relevant Part into operation. What is more, that order will not continue for more than a month unless Parliament has, by resolution, agreed to its continuance for more than a month.

So you see, Mr Deputy Speaker, Sir, there the effective control is laid where it should be, with Parliament. And here in this Bill, I see no reference at all being made to Parliament. Should the people not be informed of the reason and need for the order? Should the people not be informed if there is a threat to their security? And what better place for them to be informed than in Parliament? So I would ask the Minister of State to say why it has been thought necessary to bypass Parliament in this very important operation, ie, the giving of drastic powers to the Minister. I should have thought that clause 2(3) should have read, "An order shall not be in force for a period exceeding 7 days (or 14 days) unless Parliament by resolution approves the continuance of that order." I would ask the Minister or the Government to give serious consideration to this. We, who believe in parliamentary democracy or we claim to believe in parliamentary democracy, must honour that belief and we must allow Parliament to be informed and, as I said before, it is not Parliament, it is the people who are informed.

Secondly, Mr Deputy Speaker, Sir, we come to the administration of this Act. Once the Minister brings Part Ill into operation, any person or persons named by him or by office to be the competent authority can exercise the powers given under Part III of this Bill. It says, "any person or persons by name or by office" may be appointed as the competent authority. There is no clarification in this Bill as to who this person or persons may be. In the UK Act, they are spelt out as to which person or persons may exercise the powers. Here, this is left at large. Is that satisfactory? I would ask that the person or persons who may exercise the powers be clearly spelt out in this Bill now so that we know who can exercise the powers and who cannot.

Finally, Mr Deputy Speaker, Sir, I do not understand why it is necessary, if it is in peacetime, for payment to be made cumbersome by persons having to make applications for payment to the Compensation Board. Again, since the UK Act has been referred to, may I ask the Minister of State whether he is not aware that in the United Kingdom, the practice is for payment to be made immediately at commercial rates. There should be no difficulty in determining what the rates are for hire of a vehicle, lorry, bus, have it whatever you want. So what is the difficulty about making payment at commercial rates? What is the need for the cumbersome procedure of a Compensation Board? I understand that in UK, the Compensation Board only comes into play during a time of war, and not in peacetime. I think, Mr Deputy Speaker, Sir, that in peacetime, if it is necessary that we should requisition chattels from our people, they should be paid immediately. I understood from the Minister of State that this order may even be made for exercise purposes, just to see how efficiently things can be mobilized. All the more reason that payment should not be made months later, but that payments should be made immediately. 12.30 pm

Mr Deputy Speaker: Are there any other Members who wish to speak before I call on the Minister of State to reply?

Dr Arthur Beng Kian Lam (Fengshan): Mr Deputy Speaker, Sir, I rise in support of the Requisition of Resources Bill.

The build-up of our citizens' army started in August 1967 with the first batch of 9,000 national servicemen. In the early years of the build-up of the Singapore Armed Forces, much effort was placed on formulating policies for the development of the Army, Navy and Air Force. There was heavy expenditure on capital investment, in buildings, acquisition of military hardware, and the training of a pioneer core of officers.

In 1968, our first Brigade of 3,000 men was formed. In 1972, our first Division of 10,000 men was formed. Today, we have already in force three Divisions to meet any threat to our security. The SAF Support Arms, the Artillery Armour and Engineers, and our Navy and Air Force are well established. We have a ready reserve force of 200,000 men with the hardware to equip each and every soldier. In 1982, Mindef carefully thought through the concept of Total Defence. In 1982, the Civil Defence HQ was set up and the training of civil defence volunteers was earnestly started. In 1984, the concept of Total Defence was introduced to the public and the message was well accepted by most Singaporeans. This is shown by the results of a Public Opinion Survey conducted by Mindef. 96% agreed that national service is necessary for our defence; 70% believed that the SAF is a modern fighting force; 74% agreed that Total Defence would discourage others from attacking us; and that 80% are very clear that they will stay in Singapore even if war breaks out.

It is thus a natural extension to our concept of Total Defence that we now have before this House the Requisition of Resources Bill. The introduction of this Bill is both timely and logical. It is timely because it is an excellent follow-up to the efforts to explain to the public the concept of Total Defence. Further, the 23,000 trained civil defence volunteers can now see that their training will be backed up with the hardware through civil resources mobilization should the need arise. It is timely because the public is now able to understand the need for this Bill because, in one way or another, they have been exposed to the message of Total Defence.

This Bill is logical because the initial years saw our defence build-up requiring heavy expenditure on purchasing military hardware such as guns, tanks, fighter aircraft and naval ships. These are the basic tools required by any modern Armed Force. Now that we have the basics and the trained men, we can complement this with the equipment and services available in the private sector, in the civilian sector. For example, lorries, buses, and trucks can be used to transport soldiers, medicine, food, and equipment. Heavy construction equipment such as cranes, bulldozers and excavators can be used not only by our army engineers but also by our civil defence volunteers for rescue work. Private hospitals and their equipment and staff can be used to nurse our injured.

No loyal Singaporean, I am sure, will challenge the rationale of this Bill. This Bill will mean an immense saving by the Government whilst still preparing for emergency. As stated by the Minister of State for Defence, instead of buying equipment and putting it in cold storage, we will have available in an emergency, Civilian equipment for military use. It is gratifying to note that this Bill has taken into careful consideration the inconvenience that will be caused to the civilian owners of these equipment.

In my speech during the debate on the President's Address, I mentioned that any efforts to marshal civil resources must take into account four factors:

(i) That the inconvenience to the civilian sector should be kept to a minimum;

(ii) That there should be minimum disruption of civilian operations in peace-time;

(iii) That financial compensation, where applicable, should be fair; and

(iv) That those asked to participate should be convinced of the importance of their contribution to the defence of our nation.

Mindef has taken all these factors into account. Owners will be given three months' advance notice of the mobilization exercise. These exercises will be held at night and on weekends so as not to disrupt normal working schedule. Financial compensation at market rates will be paid and a Compensation Board has been set up to settle only cases of dispute. Further, I must congratulate Mindef and the Feedback Unit of the Ministry of Community Development for organizing the discussion on this Bill on 7th and 8th of May for our grassroots leaders.

I have only three points which I would like Mindef to consider further:

(i) It may be a problem for the owner to deliver the vehicle to the mobilization centre and this problem deserves further study.

(ii) The Bill places the responsibility on the owner to keep the mobilization centre informed within seven days of changes in the initial information provided. I hope that the information required will not be of a complex or too technical nature. I hope that the Minister of State will comment on this. This may pose a problem to the smaller companies and less well-educated.

(iii) It is suggested in the Bill to pay compensation at the end of the emergency. May I suggest that payment be made at monthly intervals for items which can be easily computed, for example, rental of a vehicle? Payment for compensation due to damage, for example, will of course be computed only at the end of the emergency. This will not cause undue hardship to owners whose vehicles or other equipment may be mobilized for a long period, though I hope this situation will never arise.

Are we in Singapore alone in this idea of civil resources mobilization? The answer is a definite no. The Swiss, our model, have under their defence plans measures for requisition of civilian trucks and even horses, food, fuel and medical supplies. In Sweden's Total Defence plan of 1982-87, I quote, in relationship to transportation:

'It must be possible to utilize the total transport resources according to the demands of a crisis or a war situation.'

In the Falklands War, the British Ministry of Defence requisitioned a total of 45 merchant ships. The luxury liner, QE2 (Queen Elizabeth II), was converted into a troop carrier. Others were modified as mine hunter support ships, a hospital ship, ammunition ships, and water carriers, etc. Some merchant ships were eventually armed with small calibre weapons, and a number actually joined in the initial assault at considerable risk.

The United States, after World War 1, passed legislation to establish a programme for the construction of a new merchant fleet that should be capable of serving as military vessels in time of war or national emergency. This programme was embodied in the Merchant Marine Act of 1936, and is a basic policy under which the United States is operating today. Thus, we can see that civil resources mobilization is not a new concept. It is a logical concept which deserves our support.

In summary, I would like to congratulate Mindef on the timely introduction of this well-thought-through Bill. The fact that this Bill will now be referred to a Select Committee reflects the seriousness with which Mindef takes the opinions of the vehicle owners and the public. This Bill will have far-reaching consequences for our future security and, to be successful, it must have the full cooperation of all involved. I am confident that the Select Committee will carefully consider all views presented to the Committee.

12.41 pm

Mr Chiam See Tong: Mr Deputy Speaker, Sir, my Party has already stated our stand as regards defence. We believe in the defence of Singapore, and I share the views of my colleague, the Member for Anson, who speaks of the safeguards and I share his concern. I notice that this Bill can be used in peacetime. As much of the points have been covered by speakers, I will not dwell in them. The only thing is that perhaps it is used to cut down costs to keep the disruption down and other points that have been brought up.

Perhaps there is one other point. This will probably be used with the intended mobilization exercise, as I have read in the papers, involving about 100,000 men. Check me if I have not read the papers correctly. This is a huge number. We can remember in the last War, there were something like 40,000 Japanese assault troops who came down the Peninsula to conquer both Peninsular Malaysia and Singapore. And 100,000 men in peacetime is a large number. I am sure the exercise will involve a fairly great amount of movement and attention and perhaps our Government should give an indication to our immediate neighbours that we have no hostile intentions; make it clear to them that this is only for our defence. We have to take into account their sensitivities. We do not want the signals to be read wrongly and matters may escalate and get out of hand if there should be extremist elements in the other countries. In this regard, perhaps when they are conducting the exercises, they could take this point into account and not blow it up into a high-key exercise, preparing as if war is coming tomorrow, and rather, if possible, to keep it down to a low-key exercise. 12.45 pm

Encik Yatiman Yusof: ( In Malay): Mr Deputy Speaker, Sir, before I rise to speak in support of the Requisition of Resources Bill, I wish to draw attention to the criticism levelled by the Member for Anson. The Member for Anson alleged that the question of payment of compensation posed a hardship. He also touched on the need of the public at large to be informed concerning the security of the nation. He quoted at length examples from Britain to prove that the Requisition of Resources Bill is imperfect, inadequate and therefore ought to be copied from Britain in its entirety.

Sir, I cannot understand the rationale that when the security of the nation is threatened, the public at large must be informed about the threat. Because informing the people about the threat in itself is tantamount to divulging the message to the enemy, and thus it will negate our capability to defend ourselves. Secondly, the question of payment of compensation had been spelt out by the Minister of State when he moved the Second Reading of the Bill; that payment will be effected as expeditiously and efficiently as possible.

Mr Deputy Speaker, Sir, defence and security of the nation is one of the important factors that determine whether a country can continue to survive or perish when it is faced with a major crisis, be it external or political threat. We have opted for the concept of total defence which is a combination of civil defence, social defence, psychological defence, economic defence and military defence. It is an exact approach and based on the principle that the defence of a country is a national responsibility which involves every citizen and every sector.

The Requisition of Resources Bill falls within the framework of this defence concept. It is an instrument to enable the logistic needs to be created and fulfilled in the event of a crisis or an emergency.

The measure to requisition resources, whether they are privately owned or owned by individuals, is not a new phenomenon in the world. The hon. Member for Fengshan has intimated that Britain, the United States, Sweden and Switzerland have already practised this concept. So as far as Singapore is concerned, this step is appropriate and not extraordinary and, in truth, at this point of time, it is relevant. Mr Deputy Speaker, Sir, West Germany passed a similar legislation in 1972 which empowered the Federal German Government to requisition vehicles for military purposes during an emergency.

Why is it necessary for us to implement such measures, Mr Deputy Speaker, Sir? It is unrealistic and unwise politically and economically to have such resources specifically and separately to be set aside for use in times of need. Particularly so when such resources cost a great deal of money and even more so when these resources are already at our disposal and can be used at any time by the public sector. So, by utilizing available resources, if the need arises, we can reduce expenditure for defence purposes and, at the same time, involve the people in defence on a wider scale.

In addition, there are a variety of other reasons why such measures are the best in mobilizing available resources for the defence of the country. Firstly, the requisitioning of resources will enable the Government to strike a balance between current requirements and available resources. My point is that we need not make use of all resources available except for our real needs.

Secondly, Singapore is well-known as one of the countries that possesses mature and complete transportation resources, logistic and communication resources. The management, operational and cost-wise, the utilization of such resources, including sea, land and air transportation resources, is a big waste if these resources are duplicated merely for the needs of the military. We should make use of the resources at our disposal efficiently and productively for the benefit of the State.

Thirdly, to develop these resources privately, besides being a waste, is untenable economically and creates political problems. It can give rise to suspicion. There is no need to arouse suspicion among neighbouring countries. I disagree with the Member for Potong Pasir who stated that the involvement of 100,000 people in such an exercise would reverberate in our neighbouring countries and consequently would arouse great suspicion. I think the figure is a small matter if the exercise is carried out meticulously and with care, without fanfare. So, by mobilizing available resources, we are at the same time bringing home to the ordinary people the message that in war, no civilian resources will be immune or safe from threat. Therefore, active defence must involve civilian resources and consonant with that, Singapore, as a small and compact State, cannot divorce civilian resources from military resources.

On that premise, I believe that in order to protect lives and the people of Singapore in an emergency, it is necessary for the Government to continue to have control over such resources, if needed. It is necessary to ensure that the people and the Armed Forces continue to obtain food and logistic supplies; ensure that work is carried out satisfactorily to repair ancillary facilities; ensure that direct support to the military is provided. Hence the necessity to have such a law. However, Mr Deputy Speaker, Sir, two matters are bothering me.

Firstly, I seek elucidation from the Government concerning compensation. Although I understand from press reports that compensation will be made in accordance with market rates, and that such payments will be effected while the resources are being made use of during an exercise, I wish to seek an assurance from the Government that such payments will be made expeditiously without any dilly-dallying and that the interpretation of market prices will not be made arbitrarily.

My second point is that the utilization of such resources during an exercise will definitely disrupt business operations and the operational plans of the firms involved. I support the view expressed by the Member for Fengshan who stated earlier that such disruptions should be kept to the minimum.

On that note, Mr Deputy Speaker, Sir, I give my support to the Bill.

BG Lee Hsien Loong: Mr Deputy Speaker, Sir, let me first respond to the points raised by the Member for Fengshan. The first problem is whether there will be difficulties delivering vehicles and equipment to the SAF. I think there will be, but we still have to do it this way. Because it is much faster for us to depend on the person who owns the vehicle to bring it to us, to drive it to where we need it, than for us to despatch the right drivers to each of the individual vehicles scattered over many hundreds of car parks, vehicle parks, in Singapore, and take the vehicles from them. There are also other administrative requirements, like inspections, handing over procedures and so on, which have to be done together. So I think there will be some problems, getting people to learn how to bring their vehicles to the mobilization centres. And this is indeed the reason why we are planning to have exercises to test out the system.

Secondly, the Member raised the question of information requirements, and hoped that it will not be too onerous. We will keep the information requirements to the minimum. There are two basic sorts of information which we need in order to make the system work. First, information on people. Who owns it? Who drives it? Where can I get them? Do they have telephones? It is the same information which we keep for our reservists. We do it for several hundred thousand reservists. I think we can do it for several thousand pieces of equipment and several thousand owners.

The second sort of information requirement is specific to the types and particular characteristics of the equipment which we want to mobilize. For example, if we want to take over a hospital, we need to know how many beds are there, what facilities are in there, whether we can conduct particular types of operations, are there enough after-care facilities, storage facilities and so on. If we want to take over a bus, we need to know how big it is, how many stretchers can go in, what its speed is, what condition it is in. These are the basic minimum information requirements. Mindef, in implementing the Act, will be conscious not to impose onerous reporting requirements on the owners.

Thirdly, payment. This was mentioned by the Member for Fengshan and several other Members, the Member for Anson nd also the Member for Kampong Kembangan. We intend to pay promptly. Immediately after the vehicle/equipment is mobilized, we will pay. We will pay according to fair market rates. The Member for Anson may have perhaps read the Bill too hastily. But the Compensation Board is not meant to deal with the vast majority of cases where the market rate is easily determined and a settlement can be done immediately. The Compensation Boards are meant to deal with contentious cases where there are difficulties in determining a fair quantum of compensation. For the vast majority, we shall compensate immediately at fair commercial rates. The Member for Fengshan asked if we have requisitioned services, whether we can pay the people involved monthly. The Bill does not say so, but I think that is indeed how it will be implemented.

I have time for just one more point. So I will take the remark of the Member for Potong Pasir, which, strictly, is not on the requisition of resources. But since, Mr Deputy Speaker, Sir, you have indulged the question, perhaps you will indulge a reply. The Member for Potong Pasir asked whether I had said we would mobilize 100,000 men. I did not say that. I said 10,000 men. Zeros are very important. So we are indeed very conscious of keeping exercises on a reasonably low profile, of not alarming people unnecessarily, either within the nation or outside of the nation, and of giving adequate notice all round before exercises are carried out, especially for the first few exercises. I have given this reassurance many times, most recently in talking to the grassroots leaders. But for those who were not present and had not heard it, I say so again. We are very cautious not to upset anybody in our operations.

Mr Jeyaretnam: May I ask a clarification, Mr Deputy Speaker, Sir. It is about my misreading the Bill on the Compensation Board. I have not. My point is this. If it is specified that payment will be made according to commercial rates, that should be quite easy to determine and determined in advance. So I do not know why there should be any need to go to the Compensation Board in those cases.

BG Lee Hsien Loong: Mr Deputy Speaker, Sir, unfortunately things are not always as easy as they seem. If we take over a piece of equipment and it is damaged or destroyed, or something happens to it -

Mr Jeyaretnam: Hire.

BG Lee Hsien Loong: Or if we hire it, there are a myriad ways in which we may interpret the damage, we may question the responsibility, and we may doubt the amount which is due to be paid. Those of you who are in the insurance business and have to work these compensation claims will know the complexity. That is why we have found it necessary to establish compensation boards. It is not to deal with the vast majority of cases where we will pay market rates, as we pay reservists market rates when they come in.

Mr Jeyaretnam: They can be determined in advance.

BG Lee Hsien Loong: Sir, I think I have answered the question.

Mr Deputy Speaker: Order. It is 1.00 pm now. The Sitting is suspended until 2.30 pm this afternoon.

Sitting accordingly suspended at 1.00 pm until 2.30 pm. Sitting resumed at 2.30 pm

[Mr Deputy Speaker in the Chair]

Debate resumed.

BG Lee Hsien Loong: Mr Deputy Speaker, Sir, we were discussing compensation when we adjourned for lunch. I would like to make a few supplementary remarks here on compensation.

Firstly, compensation rates will be at market rates, will be the commercial rates of rental, of purchase, or of hire, as the case may be. The details are in the Bill. The rates will be pre-determined and will be gazetted. This is to facilitate speedy payment and settlement after exercises and after real requisitions for operations. After the requisition is over, the Compensation Office will make an immediate offer of compensation to the owners of the resource. And if the owner accepts this offer, which, as I have stated, will be based on market rates, the matter is settled there and then. Only if the owner does not accept this offer, as in the case of damage, destruction or other complications, will the compensation be referred to a Compensation Board. We have really taken all possible steps to make compensation as smooth and as efficient as possible.

May I now go on to the subject of disruption, raised by the Member for Kampong Kembangan. He suggested that Mindef should take whatever measures possible to minimize the disruption to the owners of vehicles by exercises in peacetime. Mindef is really very aware of this and has taken considerable precaution to plan its exercises and to keep disruption to a minimum. Let me enumerate what we will be doing.

First of all, we will mostly be exercising the mobilization of vehicles and vessels in peacetime, and not all the complete range of civil resources will be required. Secondly, not all the resources will be mobilized at once, just as we do not mobilize 100,000 reservists at once. Neither do we intend to mobilize all of the lorries, or all the bulldozers or excavators or hospitals which are available in Singapore at the same time. Thirdly, the exercises will not be conducted extremely frequently. We do not expect a particular piece of equipment to be called up more than about every other year, although, of course, the owner will have to keep in touch with us more frequently in order that we may maintain our links and keep our records updated. And we will probably have to inspect the equipment more frequently than every other year. Fourthly, for the beginning few exercises, advance notice of three months will be given of the exercises, so that adjustments can be made and owners can prepare their schedules to accommodate the exercise. Later on, we will not do this, because we need also to test out the system to see how it works when no notice is given. But for the beginning, ample advance notice will be given. Fifthly, of course, compensation will be given. I have already discussed this. There is no need to go into further details here.

I come now to the comments of the Member for Anson. I note that he prefaces them by stating his general support for the defence of Singapore, and these comments were supported by the Member for Potong Pasir. I presume, therefore, that this is more than a generality or a platitude and, in fact, the Opposition Members not only support defence in the abstract, but support specific measures which we have taken to guarantee our defence. Specifically, the measure of National Service for all male citizens at the age of 18 in the Armed Forces, as distinct from national service for male citizens to do community service or social work. I presume that this is the case. I do not know if it has always been so.

His other point is that the Bill makes no distinction between peacetime and a state of war. Once upon a time, in the days of yore and chivalry, when nations went to war, they declared war on one another. Nowadays, most nations which go to war are technically at peace with one another, except for the Middle-east where Israel and most of the Arab countries are, in fact, in a state of war. In the rest of the world, people go to war and shed blood without declarations of war. There was no declaration of war in Vietnam. There was no declaration of war in the Falklands. So to base our requisition of resources firmly on the requirement for a declaration of a state of war is to live perhaps in cloud-cuckooland. Supposing somebody attacks us without making such a declaration, if we follow this line of argument, I think we would perhaps be at a loss as to how to react.

Mr Jeyaretnam: On a point of clarification, Mr Deputy Speaker.

Mr Deputy Speaker: Are you giving way, BG Lee?

BG Lee Hsien Loong: No, I am not giving way.

Mr Deputy Speaker: He is not giving way.

BG Lee Hsien Loong: Thirdly, the question of the competent authority which was raised by the Member for Anson. This is a detail which we will be discussing in the Select Committee. However, it is sufficient to note here that, in fact, this is not arbitrary, neither nebulous. The competent authority will be gazetted by the Minister under clause 4(1) of the Bill.

I come finally to the Member for Anson's substantive point, which has to do with Parliament and why we have not followed the British all the way in requiring that the Minister report to Parliament at the expiry of the period of the requisition order. Let me explain the position. There are two reasons. First, we follow our Constitution. The Constitution of Singapore states unambiguously - this is Article 24 (2) - that:

'Cabinet shall have the general direction and control of the Government and shall be collectively responsible to [Government].'

Mr Jeyaretnam: Responsible to Parliament.

BG Lee Hsien Loong: I am sorry. "Collectively responsible to Parliament."

Mr Jeyaretnam: Thank you.

BG Lee Hsien Loong: This is, of course, unlike the situation in the United Kingdom where they do not have a written constitution. In pursuance of this clause, we have made a system that the Minister shall decide and the Cabinet shall recommend to the President to endorse.

Mr Jeyaretnam: How are they made responsible to Parliament?

BG Lee Hsien Loong: The Cabinet is collectively responsible to Parliament. The second point, which perhaps was overlooked by the Member for Anson when he pursued this line of argument, is that the British practice is not so straightforward as was presented in his speech. The British have a complex, partially unwritten system of government, and what was explained to us was just one facet. There are at least two other facets which are highly relevant here, which I should point out. One, there is recent British legislation in which Secretaries of State have been delegated such powers without requirement to refer to Parliament. I refer specifically to the Civil Aviation Act of the United Kingdom of 1982. If I may quote from section 62(l)(b) of the Act:

'In time of war, whether actual or imminent, or of great national emergency, the Secretary of State may by order provide for taking possession of and using for the purposes of Her Majesty's naval, military or air forces any aerodrome or any aircraft, machinery, plant, material or things found therein or thereon ...'.

And this is without the requirement of reporting to Parliament. So British practice is not so straightforward.

Secondly, the British also have unwritten rules. In particular, there are certain prerogatives of the Crown. And the Queen, by Order in Council, may order the requisition of resources without reference to Parliament. In fact, it was by such means that ships were mobilized in the Falklands war and committed to the battle, and not by parliamentary statute or resolution. So British practice is not straight-forward. We do not blindly follow anybody else's practice. I think we have a Bill which serves our purposes. The details will be discussed in the Select Committee.

Mr Jeyaretnam: Two points of clarification, Mr Deputy Speaker, Sir. First of all, I was not saying that these powers should not be exercised in peacetime. What I want to know is: will separate provision be made in a case where Singapore is at war? Of course, I accept that we do not always have declarations of war. But the Singapore Government must be able to recognize when there is an actual state of war in progress, whether it is declared or not. That is the point I was making, whether these provisions are meant for that situation or are they only intended for peace-time exercises. I should have thought that was quite clear.

Secondly, these powers that have been incorporated in this Bill have been taken from the British Army Act and the Air Force Act. And it is in those Acts that you find that the Minister has to report immediately to Parliament once he brings these powers into operation and it is in there that you find that Parliament must approve the continuance of these orders beyond the month. So will you please try and answer my points?

BG Lee Hsien Loong: Mr Deputy Speaker, Sir, the Bill indeed provides for a case in which the security of the Republic is endangered. Indeed, clause 2 of the Bill specifies that the Minister for Defence must, as one of the pre-conditions for invoking Part Ill, be satisfied "that it is necessary for the securing of the public safety or the defence of the country." I think that is quite clear. "Defence of the country" means there is indeed a threat to national security.

As for the British Army Act, Sir, it is necessary to seethe problem in its totality. The British Army Act does not provide for requisition of land, of services, of aircraft, of ships. It provides for requisitioning of vehicles and -

Mr Jeyaretnam: Billets.

BG Lee Hsien Loong: And billets. That is all. And we have legislation because our requirements are extensive and our legislation is based not only on the British Army Act but on all the rest of the legislation which we have found relevant to this purpose - British, Hong Kong and elsewhere.

Mr Jeyaretnam: You should report back to Parliament.

BG Lee Hsien Loong: Mr Deputy Speaker, Sir, I think I have made my point.

Question put, and agreed to.

Bill accordingly read a Second time.

Resolved,

That the Requisition of Resources Bill be committed to a Select Committee consisting of Mr Speaker as Chairman and seven members to be nominated by the Committee of Selection. - [BG Lee Hsien Loong].