ENLISTMENT (AMENDMENT) BILL

1.38 pm

Order for Second Reading read.

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

During the 1988 Budget session, I informed Members that Mindef was planning changes to the law to do three things:

(a) to cut down the response time for mobilizing reservists;

(b) to make better use of telecommunications to mobilize them; and

(c) to requisition civil resources in the same way that we mobilize reservists. The amendments to the Enlistment Act and the Requisition of Resources Act, which I shall move later, give effect to these changes.

The Enlistment Act was promulgated almost 19 years ago. It provides for only a limited number of ways in which reservists can be mobilized. Mindef must either serve the order to report to the reservists individually in person, or it has to announce the order over the radio or television. The Act makes no provision for telephones or pagers to be used, or for codewords to be broadcast in place of the entire mobilization order.

The mobilization system can be improved to upgrade the operational readiness of the Armed Forces. In recent open mobilization exercises, over 98% of the reservists have reported to camp within six hours of the first announcement over television. But under the Act, the reservist is conclusively deemed to have knowledge of the order only 12 hours after its announcement over the air. The law should be tightened to reflect what is achievable on the ground. The amendments thus reduce the current statutory presumption of knowledge for open mobilization from 12 to six hours.

It is absurd not to use the excellent tele-communications network in Singapore to mobilize the SAF. Nearly every household in Singapore has a telephone. Last year the SAF conducted a pilot mobilization exercise using telephones. It was a success: 92% of the reservists responded when contacted. Often when the reservist himself was not at home, the call was taken by members of his family or household, who then relayed the orders to him. Family members know it is vital for reservists to report for service as soon as possible. This is as it should be.

We want to institutionalize this system. The proposed sections 29(2)(a) and (g) allow the SAF to mobilize reservists via the telephone. The reservist will have knowledge of the order immediately he receives it by telephone. This is like the existing position when the notice is served by hand to the reservist personally. The reservist is also deemed to have knowledge of the order when it is received by a member of his family or household who is at least 16 years old. The same presumption already applies when the notice is served to a family or household member by hand.

Besides the telephone, reservists can be contacted by other telecommunications means such as the pager, telex, facsimile, or Teleview. The proposed sections 29(2)(j) and (k) cover the use of these means.

Because telex and fax machines are mostly in the place of business or employment of the reservists, there may be times, for example, at night or on weekends, when the reservist will not be immediately aware of an order which has been transmitted to him through telex or fax. The proposed section 29(3)(f) therefore provides that the presumption of the reservist's knowledge of the order is rebuttable within the first six hours, when the order is transmitted by pager, telex, fax or other telecommunication device. In other words, although the reservist is presumed to have received the order immediately it is sent, within the first six hours this presumption can be rebutted, for example, if the reservist can prove that the office containing the fax machine was closed and unmanned. Only after six hours have passed will he be deemed conclusively to have received the order.

The proposed section 29(2)(i) provides that the order can also be served on the reservist by telephone at his workplace. Where it is received by a fellow employee who is above the age of 16 years, the same six hour limit will apply. This will enable Mindef to contact reservists during working hours, and not just in the evenings or on weekends.

Presently, families of reservists already relay mobilization orders to them. A natural network has evolved over the years, which has worked well. We want to encourage reservists to extend this network to their workplaces as well. A reservist's colleagues must realize that he defends not only their families but also their jobs. Often these colleagues are themselves reservists, or they are the wives or girlfriends of reservists. They understand this.

The amendments also look ahead. The Government intends to install an island-wide public warning or siren system within three years. Although this system will primarily be for civil defence purposes, warning the population of impending air raids, it will be an additional means of open mobilization. Section 29(2)(d) provides that audible signals will be given in the prescribed manner for open mobilization. Reservists will be told how to identify these signals.

Sir, I beg to move.

Question proposed.

Mr S. Chandra Das (Cheng San GRC): Mr Speaker, Sir, I rise to support the Enlistment (Amendment) Bill and also the subsequent Bill which the Minister will be moving the Requisition of Resources (Amendment) Bill.

Sir, the Armed Forces are extremely vital to us and we have, I am told, about 55,000 active personnel, of which 35,000 are national servicemen. On the other hand, we also have a reserve strength of well over 200,000. Therefore, for every active serviceman, we have more than 3(r) reser- vists. Thus, the reservists form the backbone of our Armed Forces. In an emergency, they will form the bulk of our front-line troops.

Sir, 22 years since the enactment of the Enlistment Act, national service has trained many of our citizens to be good soldiers as well as good citizens. Many reservists have found that the skills they have acquired in their national service days to be useful in their civilian careers. Over the years, national service has already been accepted as a duty to the country. The acceptance is in no small measure due to Mindef's promotional efforts. We must also give credit to Mindef for the improvements made over the years to improve the effectiveness in mobilizing our reservists and civilian resources.

The Second Minister for Defence, on a visit to the Singapore Artillery Battalion, said that in the open mobilization on 15th April a record of 98.6% was achieved. This excellent performance can be attributed to the civic consciousness of the reservists. It can also be attributed to the success of Mindef's efforts to inculcate a sense of urgency and understanding that the defence of Singapore is important amongst our reservists.

Mobilization of civilian resources to support the mission of the Singapore Armed Forces is another logical step taken to maximize the use of our limited resources. During emergencies, about 3,500 vehicles will be rounded up for the use of the various Government agencies.

Sir, having achieved good results, credit must be given to Mindef for not resting on its laurels. The proposed Enlistment (Amendment) Bill and the Requisition of Resources (Amendment) Bill aim at cutting down response time for open mobilization from 12 hours to 6 hours. The method of notification has also been refined. Mindef must now set new challenging standards in order to continue making improvements. Therefore, I would consider this introduction as a very timely initiative by the Minister. Quicker mobilization is a logical improvement over the current system. I envisage the new system will take a few years to take root. It will require patient and sustained education of family members, employers and employees alike. Meanwhile, potential areas of difficulty in implementation must be recognized. The proposed provision under clause 29 (2) allows for the Minister to issue an order by transmitting it to a member of a household, employer and employee who apparently is above the age of 16. I believe this could give rise to a number of practical difficulties. First, there could be genuine mistakes in judging the age of a young recipient if the order. The amendment Bill does not stipulate the consequences if the recipient fails to convey the message to the reservist. Secondly, it is questionable whether an employer or employee will accept responsibility to convey the order to the reservists.

Sir, the Bill again does not stipulate the consequences if an employer or an employee wilfully or otherwise fails to pass the message to the reservists. There may be difficulties especially with reservists who are sole proprietors, particularly if the order is transmitted during office hours. These reservists typically spend most of their time away from their offices. The use of pagers may help but this is an area that requires closer examination.

The objectives of the two amendment Bills are sound. However, I would urge the Minister to closely examine the practical problems that I have outlined in the implementation of the new system.

Dr Ong Chit Chung (Bukit Batok): Mr Speaker, Sir, I rise to support this Bill.

We have come a long way since the introduction of national service in 1967. Over the years, national service and reservist training have become part and parcel of life in Singapore. Reservists do take their obligations seriously. Without their cooperation, it will not be possible to think about reducing the response time for open mobilization from 12 to 6 hours.

We must also commend the SAF for constantly improving its logistical and organizational structure for making it possible to mobilize, equip and put into the field a large number of reservists in such a short period of time. The efficient mobilization and operational readiness of the SAF will send to one and all the appropriate signal telling all not to disturb or "kacau" us, to leave us alone to pursue peace and prosperity.

Reservists, I believe, are prepared to play their part. They are mature, married with families and know what the score is. My point is that the system of mobilization must be fair and seen to be fair. For example, on the new provision for the use of telephones. How could we tell over the telephone whether the person is apparently 16 years and above? What happens if a foreign maid picks up the telephone? Are we to trust the foreign maid in the household to pass the message even though she might be above 16 years of age?

The use of pagers is a very good innovation. But those of us who carry pagers often know that we are always paged wrongly. Whenever we check, it is a wrong message. Somebody at the end of the line pressed the wrong button. So many of the messages could be sent to the wrong person and the appropriate person might not receive such messages. But the burden of proof in the provisions of this Bill lies with the reservists. Again, the introduction of the fax machine is a very good innovation and I think we have to advance with technology. But the Ministry should be aware that very often fax messages are misplaced. They might not be sent to the person quickly enough. There are so many fax messages passing through a fax machine, that the person at the end of the line manning the machine might not know which is of priority. So I think the Ministry of Defence must teach the reservists or the reservist's employers or office holders to sort out these messages. We must bear in mind that in the Pearl Harbour episode, intelligence messages were sent on time but they were misplaced. The clerk or the messenger thought that it was not important and they were not delivered.

Sir, my question is: is the system fair to the reservists who are willing to do their part? The burden of proof in this Bill lies almost completely on the reservists, Will the benefit of doubt be given to the reservists in some of the circumstances I men- tioned? Will there be adequate opportunities for review and appeal if the reservist felt that he has been mistreated in one way or another or when there is perceived misjudgment?

Sir, I support the Bill. 1.55 pm

Dr Lee Siew-Choh: ( In Mandarin): Mr Speaker, Sir, some people would like to listen to me speaking in Mandarin in Parliament. Today when the government and all strata of the people are emphasising the importance of the use of the mother tongue, it is only appropriate that I speak in the mother tongue here too.

Mr Speaker, Sir it is generally agreed that increasing control and regimentation of the people is one of the characteristic features of PAP rule in Singapore.

Our young men are required, by 18 years of age to register and enlist for National Service, and after completing their term of service, again be subjected to recall for reservist service annually. Just now the Minister has explained why they should respond the call-up quickly. Of course the Minister has got his own reasons. But what I would like to ask is: why should the reservist be required to answer the call-up so quickly and in double quick time, in 6 hours now instead of 12 hours as in the past.

Why the speed-up?

Has the response from the reservist not been prompt in the past, despite what he has said about the 98% response?

If that be the case, then it merely confirms one well-known fact, namely, that such emergency call-up exercises have been most unpopular, and that many of the reservists answer them most reluctantly.

The reservist is also deemed to have knowledge of the call-up order that is conveyed to him at his work-place through any means under various circumstances. And the Bill makes it plain that ignorance of the order will not be accepted as an excuse for failing to comply with the order.

Presently if the reservist fails to answer a call-up order, the authorities have to prove that the reservist has known of the call-up order before he can be punished according to law.

Now the situation is changed. If he hopes to escape punishment, the reservist will have to prove that he does not know of the call-up order.

Have the authorities found it difficult in the past to "conclusively presume" that a reservist is guilty of an offence if he reports late, or does not answer the call-up order? Is that why the burden of proof is now shifted on to the reservist?

It is no secret that most reservists are not happy with the mobilization exercises. They find them most inconvenient and do not see the need and purpose for such exercises.

That the reservists as well as the employers are also unhappy with their in-camp reservist service is also no secret.

Some reservists who work in Government departments or in the private sector and who receive fixed monthly salaries, may find such training a welcome change to their daily routines.

They receive make-up pay, suffer no loss in income, and could take the exercises even as holidays.

Not so the employer who may find that he is short-handed, and has to engage another person to do the work left undone as a result of the call-up of the reservist. How does he feel? Have the authorities ever given that a thought?

He is inconvenienced and out of pocket.

How will he make good his losses?

The situation is worse for the reservist who is self-employed. Some mention has been made on this earlier. If he is a self-employed professional, his work schedule will be disrupted. He loses some business opportunities. Make-up pay may not be able to compensate him for his loss in income during the call-up period. The same situation applies to the small contractor.

If he is a solo-proprietor in a small business, or is a daily-rated employee in a small business, he will suffer losses in income which he can ill-afford to suffer if the reservist in camp exercises should last more than 10 days. Make-up pay consists of only rank-pay which comes to a mere fraction of his normal income.

Here, I would like also to comment on some of the unreasonable provisions in the original Act, and which are now re-enacted in the present amendment Bill.

For instance: the order or notice left with a person "who is apparently above the age of 16 years" is considered valid.

What if the 16-year-old does not appreciate the importance or urgency of the order or notice? Or forgets to inform the reservist?

Would it then be fair and reasonable to blame and punish the reservist for not knowing about the order?

The Bill re-enacts Section 14 of the Enlistment Act. That is, a person who has completed his term of national service is still liable for reservist service of up to 40 days a year, and even for a longer period should the authorities so decide.

The young man's studies have already been disrupted for 2(r) years. He is now 2(r) years behind his contemporary who does not do national service, and is consequently 2(r) years behind in prospects of promotion or advancement in his chosen field of endeavour.

BG Lee Hsien Loong: Sir, on a point of Order. The Member has turned a debate on a correction to the Enlistment Act on a technical item into a general attack on the system of national service in Singapore. That is not the purpose of the Bill, and I submit it is out of order.

Mr Speaker: Yes I will have to direct the Member to confine his discussions to the Bill.

Dr Lee Siew-Choh: What I have said refers to what is exactly in this Bill. So I cannot be said to have gone out of the Bill. The Minister has emphasized certain aspects of it. I exphasize other aspects of it. That is all.

Mr Speaker: Can you confine yourself to the matter under the Bill?

Dr Lee Siew-Choh: Yes, I am following exactly what the Bill says. I go according to what the Bill says.

Mr Speaker: All right, you continue and I will see whether you are discussing within the context of the Bill.

Dr Lee Siew-Choh: ( In Mandarin): Just now I was talking about the NS disruption of 2(r) years which has also affected many female graduates causing them to miss the opportunities to team up with contemporary life partners, and as a result being unable or even becoming unwilling to get married until too late in years. Has the Government studied seriously and fully this aspect of the problem related to national service?

Mr Speaker: Order. It appears to me that you are deliberately straying.

Dr Lee Siew-Choh: Very slight digression.

Mr Speaker: I think there is a difference in what you consider as digression and what I consider as straying.

Dr Lee Siew-Choh: It is related to the Bill because they have been asked to go for 40 days of reservist service. And I am trying to tell the Minister that this period is just a bit too long. It says here, new section 14

(b): '(ii) for periods not exceeding in the aggregate 40 days annually.' I have not gone out of the Bill. Let me just resume, Sir.

(In Mandarin) This question is related to national service and is one of the causes for our women graduates not marrying early, thus resulting in the lopsided procreation pattern that our Prime Minister has always complained about. NS is a big contributory factor and this has been left ignored and uninvestigated by the Government.

Mr Speaker: Order. Dr Lee, I really must stress that you have to confine yourself to the matter under debate. I do not see how marriage and birth rates have got to do with the Bill.

Dr Lee Siew-Choh: This is by way of only -

Mr Speaker: I suggest that we have a lot of Members who wish to discuss this matter today and you should therefore confine yourself to the Bill.

Dr Lee Siew-Choh: I will try as far as possible.

Mr Speaker: You have to. I insist you have to, otherwise I will have to ask you to resume your seat.

Dr Lee Siew-Choh: I understand that.

(In Mandarin): Mr Speaker, Sir, I want to mention one important point. The times for NS and for annual reservist service must be reduced by half. This will not affect national defence.

Today the whole world is moving towards detente, not confrontation. The Soviet Union, China, and Vietnam which in the past had been pictured as potential threats to Singapore by the PAP government, all have enough internal difficulties of their own.

We have friends in ASEAN. Our relations with our immediate neighbours, Malaysia and Indonesia, have never been better. We even carry out joint military exercises with them.

In other words, at present there are no indications that we would go to war in the near and foreseeable future.

Why then do we need to emphasize so much on military discipline, training and preparedness? Must the PAP government continue to be befogged with the siege or garrison mentality? Must government continue to wear blinkers? And tilt at windmills like Don Quixote?

The freguent jingoistic boasts about preparing for war in order to have peace, the repeated emphasis on total defence, are totally unrealistic in the context of peace and stability in Singapore and S E Asia today.

Similarly mobilization exercises on food and water rationing on such a large scale involving a million people, can only inconvenience the people. Is all that really necessary?

Perhaps it is now time for Singapore to review its defence thinking. The Western powers are now being guided by a new concept of "reasonable sufficiency" and general disarmament. We should do the same.

Singapore is a small country of only 2.7 million people. Our best defence lies not in the heavy expenditure on armaments, most of which will soon be obsolete anyhow. Our best defence lies in friendly diplomacy with all countries and especially with our neighbours and ASEAN, together with an economic policy that promotes co-operation and mutual benefits, and avoids friction with our friends and neighbours.

Our defence posture should be one of low profile, as heavy expenditure and frequent emphasis on training for prepardness -

Mr Speaker: Order. Dr Lee, it appears to me that you are turning this debate into a debate on the need for national service.

Dr Lee Siew-Choh: No, Sir. I am talking about the training.

Mr Speaker: If you intend to continue in this vein, I will have to direct that you resume your seat. Do you intend to speak on this Bill or do you want to continue talking on the needs of national service?

Dr Lee Siew-Choh: I am just mentioning the difficulty of ---

Mr Speaker: It appears to me that you are trying to circumvent procedures. If you intend to continue this way, then I direct that you resume your seat.

Dr Lee Siew-Choh: I will just cut it short then. Sir, there is something which I would like to say but since you have said that I can't say it, then I will -

Mr Speaker: Is it pertaining to the Bill?

Dr Lee Siew-Choh: I just want to say these words, Sir.

Mr Speaker: All right.

Dr Lee Siew-Choh: ( In Mandarin): Sir, finally I must inform the Minister that I have also discussed the matter with a number of reservists. What I have said represents their views, views which they have no opportunity or are unwilling to publicly express.

I hope therefore that government will not dismiss what I have said as mere Opposition propaganda.

Of course our Singapore young men today do not have the same strong urge for democracy and freedom as the Peking youths. But who can be certain that they will forever not follow the footsteps of the Peking youths!

Mr Peh Chin Hua (Jalan Besar GRC): ( In Mandarin): Sir, I support the Bill. I was surprised to hear Dr Lee the NCMP's speech in Parliament. We are no longer a colony and we are not a part of Malaysia. Singapore is an independent country. Therefore, we must be prepared to defend our country and stand on our own two feet. For the recall of reservists we are to reduce the time from 12 to 6 hours. In this hi tech age what we talk about is speed. If we can raise the alertness of the reservists by having them to answer to the call of duty within a shorter span of 6 hours, these reservists will demonstrate their efficiency and alertness. Subsequently the mobilization exercise will be effective. In times of emergency, we require alertness and quick response on the part of the reservists. If we were to follow what Dr Lee has suggested just now that six hours is difficult to achieve and 12 hours is a waste of time, then when a national emergency befalls us when the whole country is razed to the ground we may still be looking for the reservists. He further mentioned about the self-employed professionals being inconvenienced in their business or in making money. But, as a Singaporean, I feel every Singaporean has the duty to defend the nation and we cannot put the duty simply on part of the armed forces to protect a small sector of the population who claim to be self-employed professionals. I think their thought is very selfish.

As to whether we should have compulsory national service with brief call-ups to defend our country, this is like the question of whether we to keep our money in our home or in the bank. We should definitely deposit it in the bank and for the sake of security. It is worth the while. Therefore, for the security of our money we have to spend the time, the inconvenience and the effort to go and queue up at the bank. Similarly, in the case of defence, if one should begrudge the small inconvenience of NS for 2(r) years and shorter reservist service thereafter with 6 hours call-ups and regard them as unnecessary, then it will be a sad state of affairs for the future of Singapore in the long run. Therefore, I do not agree with Dr Lee's view on this subject, but support the Bill.

Mr Goh Choon Kang (Braddell Heights): ( In Mandarin): Mr Speaker, Sir, I remember I was born in 1949. In 1967, when the National Service Act was first introduced I was among the third batch of young people being enlisted. Although I did not have the opportunity to receive full-time national service as I was assigned to a Special troupe, I realized the importance of national service as a citizen of Singapore. Ours is a small country. If we do not have national service, then we will have to maintain a large number of regular armed forces.

On the other hand, our nationals will then not be able to understand that the defence of a country is the duty of everyone. After the implementation of national service, then as citizens we would not only be able to spend about 2(r) years to carry out our duty to make some contribution to the defence of our country but also in the long run be a great help in lightening the heavy expenditure on our defence budget. Although I have been a part-time NS reservist having spent some 12 years in NS from when I was 18 to 30 years old. I have no regret at all and I feel that this is a duty that I should take up.

Dr Lee Siew-Choh rose --

Mr Speaker: Do you have a clarification?

Dr Lee Siew-Choh: Yes. I want to clarify because they have been barking at the wrong tree.

Mr Speaker: On what point?

Dr Lee Siew-Choh: They are saying that I do not want to protect my country and that I do not want to defend my country. Sir, can I speak in Mandarin?

Mr Speaker: All right.

Dr Lee Siew-Choh: ( In Mandarin): I agree that the defence of a country is everybody's duty but we should not spend all the time and all our money on only one aspect of it. We must be able to distrubute and share them well with all the people, not just with only a few people. We do not have to spend all our money and time or everybody's effort on only one thing. I hope the Government should be able to understand this, and strive more to give serious attention to this aspect. It will then receive the support of more people. Nobody is saying that we should not defend our country. We are not against defence. The question is not whether we should defend our country. Of course we should. We are just asking how much time do we want to spend on it, I say that we can reduce and shorten the time we spend on it?

BG Lee Hsien Loong: Mr Speaker, Sir, I shall first respond to the queries from Mr Das and Dr Ong briefly in English and then take the other points in Mandarin.

Mr Das asked several questions. First, how will we know the age of the person who answers the telephone? Dr Ong also asked this question. The answer is very simple. We will just ask him his age, his IC No. and his name, and if he cannot give us a reply, we presume that he will be less than 16 years old. It is a practical solution. It is the same arrangement we now use when we call on the household and the reservist is not at home. We give the notice to a member of his household, who signs for it and puts down his name and IC No. It has worked well. I see no reason why doing this by telephone should complicate matters.

Secondly, as to whether employers or employees will accept responsibility and whether they will be liable if they fail to pass on the message to the reservist, what we are looking is a solution where the reservist himself takes responsibility and makes arrangements with his employers or his colleagues at work, the same as they have done at home with their families, to pass messages on to him when they are received from Mindef. You can be sure that when the mobilization order arrives from Mindef through the fax, it is not going to come in the form of junk mail.

We have deliberately not prescribed any penalties on the family members or on the employers for failing to pass the message on to the reservist. We consider it the reservist's personal responsibility to make these arrangements. It has worked quite well. With open mobilization, for example, we issued each reservist with a sticker giving the codeword of his unit, in English as well as in Mandarin. We asked him to paste it on to his television set at home, so that his family see the codeword when he is not at home, they can recognize whether it is for their son's unit and, if need be, get going to contact their sons. I think the same arrangement can work with civil resources, and also in offices.

As for the use of fax and pagers, and whether the message will be acknowledged, this was foreseen. In the proposed section 29(2)(k) of the Bill there is a provision for acknowledgment of a message "by electronic or any other means to the effect that the order or notice has been received at that place."

Dr Ong asked about maids-what if the maid may receive a message and does not know what it is about. I have been informed that, technically speaking, maids are not members of the household. So the question does not arise. The message has to be left with a member of the household.

Is the system fair? It is as fair as the existing system, which nobody has complained is unworkable or unreasonable. The question is the onus of proof. Who is answerable? Who has to prove that he was reasonably unreachable when he did not respond to a mobilization notice? If we place the onus of proof on the SAF or Mindef, I suppose, in a way that is being more generous to the reservist. In practice it will be almost impossible for the SAF to track down each case and establish that the soldier did not come back when he could have done so, because the number of possible excuses is innumerable. By placing the burden of proof on the reservist, and requiring him to establish that he was not reachable, because he was on an offshore island, or was overseas, or his whole family was away for some family emergency and nobody was at home for two days, we have resolved the difficulty without in practice causing any injustice to any reservist. I think it is a workable arrangement. In extending the mobilization system to telecommunication means and in cutting back the duration of the notice from 12 to six hours, I do not think we should tamper with a principle which works. Now let me continue, Mr Speaker, in Mandarin.

(In Mandarin) Mr Speaker, Sir, having heard Dr Lee's speech I was rather surprised because I remember that just a few months ago when we were in this House talking about national service, total defence and the defence of our country and various other topics, Dr Lee expressed his support for national service and took a stand different from that of previous years. Today it seems that he has changed his stand again. I believe, of course, it is not his personal stand but the stand of Barisan Sosialis in the past and now that of the Workers Party.

We must be clear that we are talking about the defence of the country, and the duty of every citizen to the country, not just 2(r) years full tiem NS but also for about 13 more years as a reservist thereafter. This is the duty of every male citizen. To say that we do not want national service, amounts to saying we do not want to defend our country.

Dr Lee Siew-Choh: ( In Mandarin): Sir, a point of clarification. Again the Minister says the same thing as the other two speakers. Just now the Minister has said that we are against national service. In the whole speech that I made, can he pick out any passage which says that I am against national service? What I am against is the exercise of stricter and tighter control over our national servicemen and reservist. What I suggest is that the Government should relax a bit, and what I stress is in connection with this aspect only. This is entirely different from what he is saying now.

BG Lee Hsien Loong: ( In Mandarin): Mr Speaker, Sir, Dr Lee's talk was equivocal and sophistic. On the one hand, he supports national service, on the other hand he is against mobilization exercises, against yearly recall of reservists for exercise, and against training the units to upgrade their defence capability and standard. Therefore, we can understand his true intention from his own words. Although he pays lip service to NS, in truth we can only conclude that he has no good intentions about our national service.

The Bill is introduced today mainly for two purposes. One is to reduce the time necessary for the recall of reservists. The Act at present provides for 12 hours but our past few years' experience have proved that since Singapore is a compact small country, and distances are short, it is possible to use pubblic communication media to recall one whole unit of reservists back to camp in six hours. Therefore, we should adjust the provisions of the Act to match the actual standard that we are able to achieve, that is to recall back to camp within 6 hours. Our Armed Forces are very strict, and ought to be. Otherwise if they are lax in discipline, and cannot make it in a short time, then they will certainly lose on the battle field. In fact, we not only require every soldier to return to camp within six hours, but also, require them to start off immediately to camp as soon as he has received the order. Even if he returns to camp in 6 hours, but we know that after he had received the notice, perhaps in the first hour, he did not respond immediately by proceeding to camp, we can still charge him. Therefore the 6 hours is only the limit, not a proper time of response.

The second purpose is to mobilize the reservists by means of modern telephone, fax and sophisticated electronic communication means. In the past, the means of communication was rather crude and simple. The first method was by broadcasting the whole order over radio and television, together with the names of the units. You could not use secret codes to identify the unit which is called in. Now we want to change the method by using just one secret code so that that only particular unit which is recalled will know.

The second means of communication is by telefaxing. In the past, we could not do that. We sent soldiers to every household to look for the reservist. That was very time-consuming. To get the whole unit to be back would take 10 to 12 hours or even more. Now by means of telephone communication we can reduce the time to six hours. This time is not fixed by the Government, but is in keeping with the requirement of the situation. It depends how quickly the enemy will come. If in an emergency, the reservist were to take the attitude that the enemy will only come in six hours or more, then decide to enjoy the company with their girlfriends in the meantime, I think he need not go home anymore, because there will be no more home for him. Therefore, in an emergency, the speedier the better. We have tried it out and found it feasible. We have come to know that six hours is an achievable feat to mobilize a unit. There is no problem. Therefore, now we are introducing this Bill to amend the existing Act. If in future after trying out for some time we find that we can reduce the time and raise the standard further, we will come back again to this House to discuss on it further. Thank you, Mr Speaker.

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; reported without amendment; read a Third time and passed.