ENLISTMENT (AMENDMENT) BILL

Order for Second Reading read. 12.45 pm

The Second Minister for Defence (Services) (BG Lee Hsien Loong): Mr Deputy Speaker, Sir, I beg to move, "That the Bill be now read a Second time."

The Enlistment Act, 1970, makes no specific provisions for reservists to serve more than 40 days per year. At present, if a reservist serves beyond his statutory 40-day liability, the law does not guarantee him the right to retain his civilian job or other job-related benefits, nor does it automatically entitle him to compensation should he be injured while performing his duties. It is up to the employer whether he wants to keep a place for the reservist in his firm, and up to the Armed Forces Council to exercise discretion and to grant the reservist fair compensation.

This Bill seeks to remedy the omission in the Enlistment Act and to guarantee the reservists' entitlement to such benefits. Under this amendment, a reservist serving beyond the 40-day limit will have the same status under the law as any other reservist who is serving within the 40-day limit.

The Bill will not, however, give Mindef the power to compel reservists to serve for more than 40 days per year. The Bill only gives formal status to reservists who have already agreed to extend their service. It is up to the reservists themselves to decide whether to volunteer to serve longer.

The Bill is necessary to cater for a small but critical group of reservists who often need to spend more than 40 days a year with the SAF. They are the key appointment holders (KAHs) and also those who are being groomed for key appointments. KAHs hold important posts in reserve units. They are battalion commanders, brigade principal staff officers, regimental sergeant majors. The SAF has about 100 KAHs - negligible compared to the total number of 200,000 reservists, but vital if the whole reservist army is to be properly officered, commanded and led.

KAHs cannot expect to spend just two or three weeks of in-camp training once a year, like rank and file reservists, and still fulfil their heavy responsibilities. Besides attending normal in-camp training together with their reserve units, they need to spend time running these units - planning training programmes, reconnoitering exercise areas, administering their reservist troops. At the same time, they must attend upgrading courses for their own education and improvement, so that in time they can be promoted to even more responsible positions.

These commitments are an essential and normal part of the duties of KAHs. They can often add up to 50 or 60 days a year, although a KAH would not expect to serve for so long every year. There are also a handful of KAHs who attend the Singapore Command and Staff College (SCSC) course every year, which means for them seven months of active duty. To restrict KAHs to 40 days a year because of an comission in the Enlistment Act is therefore clearly unsatisfactory.

The service beyond the statutory 40 days a year is voluntary. Mindef cannot arbitrarily take a reservist away from his civilian job to spend seven months attending SCSC. It can only do so with the prior knowledge and consent of the reservist and his employer. All reservists know that KAHs have to put in this extra time and effort. Those who are unable to make this commitment are not given key appointments. Those chosen to be KAHs are responsible, conscientious, dedicated individuals. Even now, in the absence of legislation, I know of some reservist formation commanders who spend one afternoon a week in camp, keeping their units trim and operational round the year. To be fair to these reservists, the arrangement has to be regularized. This is the intent of the Bill.

There is one other factor which determines whether a reservist KAH will spend all the time he needs on his reserve duties, and that is, the attitude of his employer. A reservist can only put in a wholehearted effort if he gets the backing and support of his employer. If he is worried that the employer will hold against him periods spent away from the company on reservist duties, it is bound to affect his morale and performance. Of particular concern will be the view of his immediate superior, for at the end of the year the superior will have a great say in deciding and judging how well the reservist has done in his civilian job.

Fortunately, in Mindef's experience, employers have generally been supportive of the key appointment holders scheme. It makes sense for them to do so. The training that the SAF will give these employees and the experience the reservists will acquire commanding their units will make them better leaders and managers. Outstanding reservists must have strong leadership abilities, which will also make them excellent company employees.

Many employers also see this as their way of being responsible corporate citizens, of playing their part in the Total Defence of Singapore. They have therefore planned their working schedules to cope with their employees' longer periods of absence, and they have continued to grant these employees staff and welfare benefits during their extended reserve service. Mindef appreciates the example set by these reservists' employers, and would encourage all other employers to do likewise.

Of course, there may still be a few reservists whose employers give them less than complete backing in their SAF duties. This problem will not be solved by legislation, but I think we can expect it to diminish with time. If the KAH scheme works, every year more and more successful reservists will rise to high positions in private companies and in Government departments. As employers themselves, they will have other reservists working under them, who will have to take time off for their SAF duties. We can then look forward to the understanding and support of these senior KAHs for the scheme.

For the last few years, Mindef has laid great stress on the operational role of reservists, both as soldiers and as commanders and staff officers. Public atti- tudes towards reservists have improved, and so have the attitudes of reservists towards their SAF duties. People now know that reservists are indeed front-line soldiers, and that a good male citizen has to be both a fighting fit reservist as well as a successful civilian. This Bill will help the SAF to progress further in this direction.

Sir, I beg to move.

Question proposed.

Mr Leong Horn Kee (Thomson): Mr Deputy Speaker, Sir, the amendments proposed by the Minister are clear and there is an obvious need for them. Hence, I support these amendments especially, as the Minister has mentioned, when the need to extend the reservist training period is voluntary and not compulsory. However, I would like to seek from the Minister some clarification.

First, I would like to comment that I believe national service and reservist in-camp training have generally become quite accepted by the people and the employers. Every male citizen knows that, unless there are exceptional reasons, he has to undergo 2 to 2 1/2 years of national service and up to 40 days of reservist in-camp training. The proposed amendment now says that reservists can be liable for longer than the 40 days of in-camp training. There seems to be no upper limit on the yearly reservist training period. May I ask the Minister: why did he not set an upper limit in the amendments just as there is a clear 40-day limit in the original provision? Is it not sound to give a clear signal to reservists and employers, including foreign investors, the limit of such obligations for their male employees?

Secondly, I am pleased to hear from the Minister that the intention to extend the 40-day limit would be voluntary. May I ask the Minister for an assurance to this House that in future should there be a desire to extend the 40-day limit to the wider body of reservists, he will come back to this House to seek an amendment to section 14(1)(a) which specifies the days in which the reservist must go for in-camp training.

Lastly, may I ask the Minister whether his Ministry has considered giving enhanced compensation, whether in cash or in kind, to reservists who voluntarily go for longer than 40 days of in-camp training.

Mr Chew Heng Ching (Kaki Bukit): Sir, being a reservist myself, I feel compelled to speak on the Bill but I must admit that I have no pecuniary interest.

Our reservists have come a long way. It is about 17 years now since the first batch of our national servicemen graduated into the ranks of the reserve. While earlier batches of reservists underwent five annual in-camp training periods over a 10-year cycle, today's reservists perform no less than nine in-camp training over a 13-year cycle. From my personal experience, many reservists do come forward quite willingly to serve their in-camp training, for it is a good break away from their civilian work and an opportunity to meet with old friends from the same reserve unit. In practice, the 40-day limit, as stated in the Act, is seldom exceeded because most reserve units have at the very most three to four weeks of annual in-camp training per year and this includes two IPPTs. I must, however, inform the Minister that there are some reservists who express concern that the Bill before us today could be an attempt by Mindef to extend the normal in-camp training period beyond 40 days a year. Many wonder why the limit should be increased when the present 40-day limit is seldom exceeded. I am glad the Minister has now explained the purpose of this Bill, but nonetheless the Minister could allay the concern of these reservists that Mindef has no intention to extend the in-camp training period beyond 40 days limit and that there is no reason to do so at the moment.

Sir, reservists who hold key appointments in the reserve are usually also those who are doing well in their civilian life. They are either holding managerial or supervisory positions. Their time spent in the reserve is the time lost by their employers. They are as important to the defence and national security of Singapore as they are in the generation of wealth. But most employers, as the Minister has stated, quite understandably have placed national defence before wealth generation. Most employers have willingly released their men for their annual in-camp training. Notwithstanding this, I think Mindef could still minimize inconveniences and disruptions to reservists' civilian careers by planning carefully the in-camp training programme. The planning of training programme and unit administration could perhaps be carried out over week-ends, or a few evenings before the main troops move in. In that way, it will minimize inconveniences and disruptions to reservists in their civilian jobs.

I support the Bill, Sir.

Mr Deputy Speaker: Order. I suspend the Sitting now and will take the Chair again at 2.30 pm.

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.

Mr S. Chandra Das (Chong Boon): Mr Deputy Speaker, Sir, I rise to support the Enlistment (Amendment) Bill.

Sir, at the outset it must be pointed out that any extension of the present period of 40 days will indeed inconvenience both the reservists as well as the employers. But, Sir, I believe that this is a necessary inconvenience in the overall interest of the defence of Singapore. Although the number of key reservists, as mentioned by the Minister, is small, I think it is necessary for both Government as well as employers to appreciate and recognize the contributions of key reservists towards national defence. Although there is appreciation on the part of Government and enlightened employers, I feel much more need to be done. Open and generous recognition by employers of contributions of such reservists will boost morale and motivation of key appointment holders. Employers should take the lead to publicize the efforts and contributions of such key appointment holders in their in-house newsletters, for this will be clear testimony of commitment and recognition by top management of the contributions of such reservists. Besides recognition by top management will have the added effect of influencing other reservists to assume greater responsibilities in their own reservist appointments.

Mr Deputy Speaker, Sir, whilst I agree with the Minister that this Bill should be seen as a demonstration of appreciation of work done by key reservists, I feel that this alone will be insufficient. I would urge the Government to be more generous by offering liberal incentives to key appointment holders. For example, key appointment holders could be given generous allowances during the stipulated period of training and possibly also be sponsored by the Singapore Armed Forces to membership of prestigious clubs in Singapore. I feel that this tangible form of appreciation would go a long way.

Sir, one other suggestion which I would like to make for the Minister's consideration is for SAF to dispel the idea that reservist training is indeed a holiday camp.

Although SAF has over the years encouraged employers to visit their officers during training, I feel there is room for improvement in this area. In particular, Sir, when key appointment holders are actively engaged in training exercise, top management of key reservists should be invited to visit the camp and see the relevant training.

Interaction by top management with key appointment holders in the field during exercise is bound to contribute to more understanding and, hence, foster greater rapport between key appointment holders and respective management.

Mr Deputy Speaker, Sir, I would urge top management and employers to take advantage of such opportunity to visit reservists during their training. It is not enough to visit sick employees in hospital. Time has come for company welfarism to be extended to reservists during in-camp training.

Mr Chiam See Tong: Mr Deputy Speaker, Sir, may I be allowed to join in this debate? I believe the majority of young men in Singapore today have come to recognize the necessity for defence, and I believe they cooperate with Mindef in doing their in-camp national service training. On the part of Mindef, I would urge them to do everything possible to minimize the disruption caused to these young men in their jobs. For this, I would like to recall what I read of an incident in Switzerland, a country which takes its defence very seriously and where most young people go for almost a lifetime of national service training. This shows the extent to which the authorities will go to accommodate just one of these young people in Switzerland. There was a bachelor and he was a farmer by choice. He preferred to stay in a place where there is quiet. He purchased for himself a few cows. He had to milk his own cows. The authorities, when calling him up for national service, took into account his type of work. They made sure that they would call him up at a season where there is minimal involvement with his livestock, milking and other jobs. So this is the extent that they would go to accommodate only one young man in getting him to do his national service. Well, I hope in Singapore we have this kind of concern, this kind of attitude, this kind of spirit for our young people.

As regards compensation of payment to these young people doing in-camp training. There is a group - I believe quite a sizeable group of young people - who prefer to work for themselves, who are blue collar workers skilled in some jobs, like welding. They do not like to take on a steady job but they prefer to be sub-contractors and are employed as independent contractors; in other words they are working for themselves and therefore they do not pay CPF. Sometimes the people who employ them for jobs do not keep records. Sometimes these young people go from person to person to get jobs. In fact, one of these type of workers had come to see me, saying he had a problem claiming his pay for one month's in-camp training. He could not get from his employer, or the person for whom he had probably done a job two months ago, to say how much he was paid. Meanwhile he had no work and that the person who employed him could not be found. In these kind of circumstances, I would urge Mindef just to accept a statutory declaration of a national serviceman because, as in this particular case, he really suffered hardship. He was earning $600-$700 a month when he was working and when he was called he could not substantiate his rate of pay. So he was only paid $90. Now, how can $90 be enough to pay for his HDB instalment and to maintain a wife and two kids? $90 certainly is not enough. So perhaps the SAF could do something for this type of national servicemen.

BG Lee Hsien Loong: Mr Deputy Speaker, Sir, let me respond to the points raised by the MPs. First, the Member for Thomson. He asked why there is no upper limit on voluntary service which is allowed by the Bill. The original Act specifies 40 days, the amendment does not specify a limit on voluntary service. The answer is that the service is voluntary. There is no compulsion. Mindef cannot force a person to serve in the SAF beyond 40 days. And if a person wishes to serve in the SAF more than 50, 60 days, or even six months, there is no reason for Mindef to say, "No. This is illegal, forbidden under the Act." Why should we draft the Act that way? Of course, neither would Mindef unreasonably impose on a reservist to serve six months each year, year after year. That simply cannot be done. So the upper limit is not statutory. The upper limit is set by what the reservist is able to contribute, and how his reservist duties fit in with his civil responsibility.

Secondly, the question of going from a voluntary extension of service to a compulsory extension of service. The Member asked if I will come back to this House to get permission to amend the Bill should we need to do that. The Member for Kaki Bukit also mentioned this. I should say that we have no intention of doing that. But should it become necessary, I will of course come back to this House because the Bill does not presently give Mindef discretion in calling people up more than 40 days a year compulsorily.

Thirdly, the question of enhanced compensation for key appointment holders. It is linked to the point made by the Member for Chong Boon, who suggested looking for different incentives, different generous tokens of appreciation for key appointment holders so that they will know that they are important key digits in society. Mindef has done what we can to give them recognition, to make sure that when it comes to National Day Awards, key appointment holders are also not forgotten, to make sure that when we have a club, like the Temasek Society, for senior officers of the SAF, we treat senior reservists on par with active serving officers. I am not sure that the solution here is further allowances or grants from the Government because the reservists you are talking about are already senior civilians, receiving substantial remuneration from their civilian jobs. What they need is not additional cash incentive to serve the SAF but the social support and encouragement which will allow them to spend many hours, many evenings, weekends and long periods away from their job, knowing that others appreciate this as doing their duty and not shirking their responsibility in civilian life. The Government can do this to some extent, but a lot more, of course, must be done by the civilian employers.

The Member for Kaki Bukit asked whether we could minimize inconvenience to reservists when they come back for in-camp training. Yes, we try to do that. We try to make sure that every minute of a reservist's time in in-camp training is well spent. In fact, I think we have gone to the point that many reservists will tell you, although perhaps not in public, that they wish there was a bit more spare time and free time when they are on in-camp training, because they are rushed from point to point without a pause, from the moment they report to the moment they are de-kitted and sent marching back out of the camp. So we do make sure that when a person is back with us, we use him to the fullest. To us time is money and time is training time and operational readiness.

The Member for Chong Boon asked us to impress upon reservists that SAF reservist training is not a holiday camp. I am not sure what is the best way to do this. Perhaps the best way would be if any employers are under that misapprehension, for me to extend an open invita- tion to them to come and participate in some of the reservist training, particularly on the basic combat training course (BCTC) which is conducted in SAFTI. It is only two days. We can run it over a weekend, if necessary. And if you have been through the experience, you will know that this is not a holiday. And I think all the reservists do know that it is not a holiday. Word has got around that before you come in for BCTC, better get fit. There is no time to start getting fit once you have reported, drawn your rifle and are at the starting line for this training course.

I come to the Member for Potong Pasir. He mentioned minimizing disruption in jobs. I have already replied to this. Perhaps I should say in addition that it is important also for the reservists to minimize disruption in the reservist unit training which he is bound to do. In other words, it is not just a matter of convenience to the single reservist whether or not he comes back at a time which fits him but also a matter of whether, by being absent, a reservist actually hinders the training and the entire series of activities which his team, his platoon or his battalion needs to go through. If the reservist is a battalion commander and absents himself, it is not just in-camp training which is disrupted. All 800 or 900 soldiers in his battalion will have their training affected and their entire in-camp period wasted if the battalion commander is not there to take them through their paces. Therefore, we need to balance the two.

The Member produced a picturesque story about the Swiss farmer by choice who preferred the quiet of a farm, - presumably not MacDonald's farm - who was called up only when the cows did not need to be milked. I have no doubt that this was true. But let me respond with another Swiss story. This was a banker, risen high in his civilian career, similarly successful as a reservist, who was in Singapore negotiating a loan. And midway through the negotiations, he said, "Excuse me, can we break off the business? I have to go back to Switzerland to do my in-camp training." He went back to Switzerland, completed his in-camp training, flew back to Singapore and settled the loan. I would suggest that Singaporeans should follow the banker rather than the farmer. There are very few chicken farms in Singapore!

Let me come to the question of the self-employed blue collar worker, eg, a welder or an independent contractor who, alas, did not keep records of his earnings, neither has he paid CPF, and therefore is unable to earn his make-up pay. The question is whether should he make a statutory declaration that he earns $700 per month, Mindef will pay him the make-up pay corresponding to this sum. I would go one better than that. We do not need a statutory declaration, because a statutory declaration may get you into trouble with the Comptroller of Income Tax. If a person is earning $700 per month and has declared that income, we will accept his income tax returns as conclusive proof that he has earned the money, and we will pay him the make-up pay. Of course, if he did not pay the income tax but is about to make a statutory declaration that he did earn the money, then I am sure Mr Hsu Tse-Kwang would like to have a word with him.

Perhaps the Member can let me know his name, rank and identity card number right now. I suspect, however, that he is fictitious, because the Member also mentioned that he earns only $90 per month as a reservist. As far as I know, not a single reservist in Singapore earns $90 per month. We revised national service allowances, I think, three years ago, before the last General Elections when the Member was elected.

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. - [BG Lee Hsien Loong].

Bill considered in Committee.

[Mr Deputy Speaker in the Chair]

Clause 1 -

The Chairman: The citation year will be changed to "1987".

Clause 1 ordered to stand part of the Bill.

Clauses 2 and 3 ordered to stand part of the Bill. Bill reported without amendment; read a Third time and passed.