SINGAPORE ARMED FORCES (AMENDMENT) BILL

Order for Second Reading read. 3.00 pm

The Second Minister for Defence (Dr Lee Boon Yang): Mr Speaker, Sir, I beg to move, "That the Bill be now read a Second time."

The Bill seeks to amend the Singapore Armed Forces Act to recognise the establishment of the Corps of Warrant Officers, enact new disciplinary procedures for senior SAF officers, redefine the time limit for disciplinary action and, lastly, introduce a new bail system for military offenders.

In July 1992, the Singapore Armed Forces restructured its Non-Commissioned Officer Corps into the Corps of Warrant Officers and Corps of Specialists. It is part of the overall effort to improve their status, image, professionalism and career development and also to attract better qualified, better educated personnel into the SAF. This amendment is necessary to define the rank of Warrant Officer, spell out the procedures for the appointment of Warrant Officers by the Armed Forces Council and make provisions for their higher responsibilities and additional duties. Warrant Officers may be appointed to hold junior officer appointments in the SAF. They will have enhanced disciplinary responsibilities including the powers of investigating officers in cases where the offender is below the rank of Warrant Officer. Clause 5 of the Bill provides for a Warrant Officer holding the appointment of a Company Commander or its equivalent to be vested with the powers to deal with junior military offenders summarily.

The Bill also provides for a summary trial system for senior military officers in the rank of Lieutenant Colonel and above. At present, senior military officers of the rank of Lieutenant Colonel and above can only be tried summarily by the Armed Forces Council (AFC) which also serves as the Reviewing Authority for all disciplinary cases. The Bill seeks to resolve the apparent conflict between the judicial and reviewing responsibility of the Armed Forces Council. Although it is possible to refer every disciplinary case involving senior military officers to a subordinate military court, this might seem to be denying them an expeditious hearing that is currently available to other servicemen. Clauses 7, 8, 12 and 13 of the Bill provide that the Chief of Defence Force (CDF) will have jurisdiction to deal with Lieutenant Colonels summarily while Colonels and above will be dealt with by a Senior Disciplinary Committee (SDC) which will be a special committee of the Armed Forces Council. The SDC will have at least three members appointed by the Chairman of the AFC. The Senior Disciplinary Committee will basically have similar powers to those currently exercised by the Armed Forces Council in summary trials of senior officers.

The Bill also provides a time bar provision for the trial of any offence under the Armed Forces Act.

Currently, no disciplinary action can be taken against servicemen three years after the date of the offence itself or after the three years time bar. In some cases, particularly those arising from an audit, the offence itself is not discovered until after three years and the offender is not arrested until after this time. To enable disciplinary action to be taken in such cases, clause 20 of the Bill provides for the period of three years to run either from the date of the offence itself; or from the time the offence is reported to a disciplinary officer or a military policeman, whichever is later. A serviceman who claims trial in a subordinate military court will have his case adjourned to another date for hearing. And to remove any doubt as to when the three-year limitation ends, the Bill provides the limitation period to stop running once the servicemen is produced before a court martial.

Lastly, the Bill provides for a new bail system for military offenders, rectify anomalies in the Armed Forces' Council power and other nomenclature changes. The SAF Act provides for the bail provisions of the Singapore Criminal Procedure Code to apply to military offenders. At present, bail may be offered when a person subject to military law is arrested or detained or is brought before a military court, except for offences which are punishable with death or life imprisonment. These Criminal Procedure Code provisions are unsuitable in that they are designed to apply to proceedings in a civil and not military court. Clause 28 of this Bill provides for specially tailored provisions of bail to be offered to military offenders when they are arrested pending investigations or are brought before the subordinate military court. The provisions are modelled on the bail provisions existing in the Criminal Procedure Code.

At present, the Armed Forces Council can quash the decision of a disciplinary officer at a summary trial. It may order that a case be retried by the same or another disciplinary officer but it has no power to order a court martial. To remove this inconsistency, clause 15 of the Bill provides the Armed Forces Council with the power to refer the case to the Chief Military Posecutor if it considers that the case should be tried by a subordinate military court.

With the restructuring of the NCO Corps, the definition of servicemen will be expanded to include new terms such as enlisted personnel, ratings and airmen. The obsolete rank of "Corporal First Class" will be deleted. These changes are provided for by consequential amendments in the Bill.

Sir, I beg to move.

Question proposed.

Mr Bernard Chen (Brickworks GRC): Mr Speaker, Sir, the Bill provides considerable powers to the CDF and also to the Senior Disciplinary Committee to summarily try and punish relatively senior officers. When senior officers are tried by their peers, there could be opportunities for victimisation, especially when it relates to very senior officers. I wonder whether the Minister can enlighten the House as to whether there are any safeguards against such victimisation. For example, whether the offender has other recourses if he refuses to be tried by the CDF or, in the case of the Senior Disciplinary Committee, whether outside members, apart from military personnel, can be included in the Committee. I am not saying that this is happening but there may be cases where some people may be tempted to do so.

Dr Lee Boon Yang: Mr Speaker, Sir, let me reiterate that this amendment does not confer additional powers beyond what is already allowed in the SAF Act to conduct summary trial of senior SAF officers. All it does is that it enables the AFC to now delegate the power to summarily try Lieutenant Colonel to the Chief of Defence Force and for an officer of the rank of Colonel and above to be summarily tried by a Senior Discplinary Committee. Powers are already existing in the Act for these officers to be tried by summary proceedings.

As to whether there is safeguard against victimisation, let me assure the Chairman of the GPC for Defence and Foreign Affairs that all summary trials in the SAF are conducted fairly and equitably and that the serviceman who is being tried will be treated fairly and there are adequate safeguards to prevent victimisation. I also want to point out that only scheduled offences as listed in the Schedule to the SAF Act can be tried summarily.

There is also in existence another safeguard that during a summary trial, if the serviceman feels that he is not being treated fairly and that, in fact, the penalties that are going to be handed down by the officer sitting in summary judgment of him will be more than just a reprimand, the serviceman in every case can always opt to have his case referred to a full court martial, so that he will not be subject to victimsation by just one senior officer sitting in summary judgment against him.

On the point as to whether we could include an outside person in the Senior Disciplinary Committee that is appointed by the AFC to conduct summary proceedings against Colonels and above, I would like to point out that the SAF is a profession. Military discipline has to be administered by members of the military, by members of the profession. This is consistent with many other professions, for instance, accountants, lawyers, doctors, when it comes to professional misconduct, a peer group sits in judgment of the offender. Likewise with military officers, if they are going to be tried summarily, I think it should be done so by their fellow officers who are senior to them. To be able to conduct a summary trial against a military offender, the person conducting the trial should have some knowledge and background of military discipline and military code of conduct.

Let me give you an instance. There are many military offences which concern breach of professional standards such as offences like "conduct to the prejudice of good order or discipline" which must be taken in the military context. Or "behaviour in a manner unbecoming of a member of the Singapore Armed Forces", which again has to be taken in the context of the SAF. Therefore, only officers of the SAF who are more senior to the offender will have a proper background and knowledge of the context under which the offence took place and would be able to conduct a summary trial of the offender.

When it comes to the SDC, the SDC in fact can include a non-SAF officer because the Armed Forces Council includes the Permanent Secretaries of the Ministry of Defence. So when the Chairman appoints a Senior Disciplinary Committee to conduct a summary trial for a Colonel or a more senior officer, he could always include one of the Permanent Secretaries of the Ministry of Defence to be a member of the SDC. The Permanent Secretary (Defence), while he is an outsider as far as SAF is concerned, is also somebody who is very familiar with military conduct and military discipline, by nature of his work as a Permanent Secretary of the Ministry of Defence. So he will give valuable input as a non-serving member of the SAF and yet, at the same time, preserve the element of knowledge and experience in matters of military discipline.

Sir, I hope that clarifies the concerns about victimisation expressed by the Chairman of the GPC.

Question put, and agreed to.

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

The House immediately resolved itself into a Committee on the Bill. - [Dr Lee Boon Yang].

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