DEFENCE SCIENCE AND TECHNOLOGY AGENCY BILL

Order for Second Reading read.

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

Introduction

Sir, the Bill before this House seeks to establish a statutory board to be known as the Defence Science and Technology Agency. The new Agency is to be formed from the Defence Technology Group in the Ministry of Defence, together with parts of the Defence Administration Group in the Ministry dealing with science and technology. The Agency will be charged with the responsibility of providing the most cost-effective and appropriate leading-edge technology to the SAF.

Background

Sir, allow me to briefly trace the history of the Defence Technology Group and its roles in supporting the SAF since the beginning of the Republic of Singapore.

The Defence Technology Group had its origins in the Logistics Division of the Ministry of Interior and Defence, set up in 1966. Defence industries were set up in 1967 and research laboratories in 1972. MINDEF was the first Ministry to embrace IT with the set up of the Systems and Computer Organisation in 1979. Today, the Defence Technology Group is a smart defence equipment buyer as well as a leader in applying new technologies to defence applications. It performs a wide range of functions for MINDEF and the SAF, ranging from research and development to maintenance support, procurement to defence industry development. Under the prevailing system, the SAF concentrates on training and operations, while the Ministry of Defence provides the manpower and financial resources as well as the procurement and technological support.

Rationale for Statutory Board

Mr Speaker, Sir, I explained in Parliament in March last year the rationale for the formation of the statutory board, which I would like to reiterate this afternoon.

Technology has always been, and will continue to be critical to the SAF in the 21st century. Technology is advancing at a rapid rate. As new technology and systems emerge, existing ones become obsolete. To ensure that the SAF maintains and sharpens its technological edge, MINDEF needs to be able to respond more quickly and flexibly to technological change. Yet, it will be impractical for MINDEF to simply continue to expand its engineering talent pool. This will only distort the deployment of the national engineering resource. Instead of simply growing larger, we have to do things smarter. To transcend our manpower limitations, we need to effectively tap on external engineering expertise from either local or overseas organisations.

Sir, to meet these challenges, it is imperative that we find new ways of repositioning and re-organising ourselves. At present, the DTG in MINDEF undertakes the whole range of technology functions, from policy formulation to acquisition, maintenance and development. Although this structure was suitable for the build up of our capabilities in the past, it is not optimal and cannot provide the degree of nimbleness and flexibility that will be required in the future.

Therefore, MINDEF has decided to form a new statutory board to provide a more flexible and nimble framework to implement defence technology policies and plans. MINDEF will then be better able to concentrate on the core Ministry functions of policy, planning and resource allocation.

Formation of DSTA

The new Agency is to be formed by merging all the procurement and science and technology-related entities of the Ministry of Defence. It will serve as an agent of MINDEF and the SAF in achieving their scientific, technological and equipping goals. These entities have about 2,400 staff. The corporatised DSO National Laboratories, which has about 900 staff, will remain a corporate entity; but its supervision and control will be transferred from MINDEF to the new Agency.

The Ministry will retain responsibility for oversight and control of the new agency to ensure that the desired results are achieved. Key Provisions of the Bill

Sir, I now move on to the key aspects of the Bill.

Clause 5 of the Bill, read together with the First Schedule, provides for the constitution of the Board of Directors of the Agency. The Minister for Defence will appoint the Chairman and directors of the Board. The Chief Executive of the Agency will be appointed with the approval of the Minister, under clause 10.

Clause 6 sets out the mission and functions of the Agency. The Agency shall harness and exploit science and technology, and provide technological and engineering support, to meet the defence and national security needs of Singapore. Its broad functions are to advise the Ministry of Defence on all matters relating to defence science and technology, to provide defence science and technology services and facilities to MINDEF, and to promote and facilitate the development of defence technological capability in Singapore.

Clause 7 sets out the powers of the Agency. Among other things, the Agency will be empowered to form companies and participate in joint ventures.

Clauses 10 to 13 pertain to appointments of the Chief Executive, officers and employees of the Agency. Special provisions have been included to guarantee the Agency's continued operations, especially in times of emergency.

Clauses 14 to 21 are the financial provisions. The main source of funding for the Agency will be in the form of fees for services and functions performed.

Clauses 22 to 29 provide for the transfer of property, assets, liabilities and employees to the Agency. Property, assets and liabilities as may be determined by the Minister for Finance will be transferred to the Agency. A substantial number of MINDEF and SAF employees currently employed in MINDEF, the SAF, and in the DSO National Laboratories, will be transferred to the Agency. They will be transferred on terms not less favourable than what they were enjoying immediately before the transfer.

Clauses 30 to 34 are general provisions. Clause 32 provides for the preservation of secrecy.

Conclusion

Mr Speaker, Sir, we have always recognised the role of technology as an important force multiplier to give the SAF the edge. It is vital that we be proactive and innovative in exploiting technology. The Bill before the House sets out the legislative framework to establish the Defence Science and Technology Agency. The Agency will be nimble to respond quickly to changes in technology, so that the SAF can continue to receive cost-effective technology support to help it maintain its strategic edge.

Sir, I beg to move.

Question proposed.

Dr Ong Chit Chung (Bukit Timah): Mr Speaker, Sir, the GPC for Defence and Foreign Affairs supports the establishment of the Defence Science and Technology Agency. However, we wish to raise some points of concern in this debate.

Sir, it is timely to establish the Defence Science and Technology Agency as the integrated body for defence R&D, technology, IT, communications, command, defence procurement, and land and estates matters.

It is no doubt the right move to put all under one roof, with an integrated management and command, with a central focus and direction. It will maximise, I am sure, the synergy, resources and impact.

With greater flexibility, it will be easier for the Agency to attract, nurture and retain the best talents, and enlarge the talent pool. Talent is the critical factor. With the right strategy and deployment, the R&D talent can tip the scale between victory and defeat.

Indeed, the Agency has a pivotal role in the defence of Singapore, especially in this technological and IT age. Defence research, development and related preparations will indeed decide the outcome of war.

Technology alters the course of war. The machine gun in the First World War, the tanks and aircrafts in the Second World War, and the precision guided missiles in the Gulf war changed the face of warfare. Next it will be the digital battlefield and cyber warfare. The Agency can therefore give the SAF the comparative advantage, the cutting edge in technology, communications and IT.

If the Agency does its job, we will win the war before the first shot is fired. Better still, such intensive and thorough preparations will deter any potential enemy from waging war against us. The strategy of deterrence is indeed our best bet.

This is in line with what Sun Tzu, the best known Asian strategist said 2,000 years ago, that the best strategy is to win without fighting, and to out-plan and out-manoeuvre the enemy.

Sir, I wish to raise two points for consideration and clarification.

First, the `no strike' clause which stated that "No employee of the Agency shall go on strike or instigate or initiate others to take part in or otherwise act in furtherance of any industrial action." I appreciate the sensitive nature of the work of this Agency, and that we must not and cannot afford strikes and disruption in such a critical area. I appeal to the Agency management not to use this clause as a fig leaf but to take it as a calling, as their special responsibility, to place an even higher premium and priority on good employee-management relationship. They should take care of the interests and welfare of all their employees.

I urge the Agency to put in place procedures for handling staff grievances and appeals and provide ample opportunities for staff dialogues and counselling.

May I also ask whether this prohibits the employees from joining the NTUC union or the general branch of the NTUC, not for industrial actions, but for welfare purposes and for the wide range of benefits of NTUC membership.

Sir, the second point is that the Agency will present its annual report to a committee, appointed by the Prime Minister, instead of to Parliament. This is indeed a special provision, necessitated again by the sensitive nature of its work. I hope the persons appointed to this committee will be thorough in their scrutiny and fearless in their enquiry, for the good of the country.

Sir, I support the Bill.

Mr R. Ravindran (Bukit Timah): Sir, I welcome the introduction of this Bill which will see the creation of the DSTA which has evolved out of the restructuring of the Ministry of Defence's Defence Technology Group. It will certainly become a one-stop Agency to advise MINDEF on key matters as laid out in the Bill.

Sir, I certainly endorse the statement of the GPC Chairman for Defence and Foreign Affairs on the pivotal role of technology, how it will help one to win wars.

Sir, I would like to urge the Deputy Prime Minister to consider the following matters in respect of the Bill. The first matter that I would like to raise is on the composition of the board of directors under clause 5(1). Sir, the First Schedule states that the persons who can be appointed must have public administration experience or be involved in the defence, science or technology field. Sir, I would urge the Minister to consider the scope of those who would qualify as I feel that it would be unduly restrictive if one was to restrict appointees to these two categories. With the Agency aiming to be nimble and something that would be similar to a corporatised agency, it will be appropriate if other individuals who may qualify should be considered and co-opted as directors of the board. Perhaps, some CEOs in the private sector who may be able to contribute good corporate practice or certain business practices can be incorporated as directors to the board. I would urge that the clause in the Schedule be amended to also include a clause to say that "any other individual whom the Minister deems appropriate or fit to serve as director".

Sir, I would like to raise another issue under clause 11(2) which requires an employee to work for the DSTA when the Minister so orders. Sir, I am not sure that this is a provision worth inserting as it is no good trying to keep an employee whom you have tried to persuade to stay but refuses. So why keep a body if his soul is not in it? Sir, the courts have long hesitated to supervise such clauses as it is something very difficult to supervise and implement. Perhaps, the Minister may wish to delete the clause and try persuasion and provide incentives for such employees to stay.

Sir, another clause which is clause 11(4), prohibits strikes and industrial action. Naturally, some are concerned as to whether it is something that infringes the right of every worker in Singapore and whether we are compromising the rights of workers in Singapore. I would have been much happier if the mechanism on how workers' rights would be protected in the DSTA could have been spelt out either in the Bill itself or as a Schedule to the Bill so that employees within the DSTA can feel comforted that their grievances and problems can be heard by the management in the appropriate way and some resolution sought in the most appropriate way within the organisation. Sir, I look forward to the DSTA working out an arrangement, together with the involvement of the trade union movement, NTUC in Singapore to ensure that workers within the DSTA are adequately protected.

Sir, another issue that I would like to raise is on the question of accountability to Parliament. Sir, clause 19 recognises that the Minister dispenses money given by Parliament to DSTA. But nowhere in the Bill do I see any accountability to Parliament. The Bill requires under clause 30 the annual report of the DSTA to be given to the Minister for Defence and he, in turn, will hand it to a committee to be appointed by the Prime Minister. Who sits in this committee to be appointed by the Prime Minister is unclear and nowhere does it say that Members of Parliament will be represented in this committee. As Parliament dispenses funds to the Ministry of Defence and in turn they dispense this fund to the DSTA, I would urge that this committee to be appointed is one that takes into its ambit people from different fields who can supervise the work of DSTA and ensure that the funds of the DSTA are properly used and some of the research that is undertaken by the DSTA is appropriate to the needs of our defence forces. I would also urge the Minister to see whether there could be certain instances where the report of DSTA could be given to Parliament. Because in the United Kingdom there is an equivalent agency called the Defence Research Agency which indeed provides its report to Parliament on what exactly it does, not in specifics, but at least a broad picture of what exactly it does so that Members of Parliament can see what exactly this organisation is doing and in particular whether the fund and research that is being undertaken are appropriately and properly used. Sir, naturally, as the body that approves the money for DSTA, Parliament will be interested in ensuring that these funds are effectively and efficiently used.

Sir, another issue that I am concerned with is clause 32(3) which states that a ministerial certificate stating a matter to be secret will be deemed secret and cannot be disclosed to Parliament or any other person. Sir, I am a little uncomfortable, as I am always wary of the judge and jury being the same person. It may perhaps be appropriate if the secrecy of the matter is verified by a third party, perhaps even by a committee to be appointed by the Prime Minister under clause 32, which hopefully will not be one that is totally dominated by the Executive.

Sir, with those comments, I support the Bill.

Mr Thomas Thomas (Nominated Member): Mr Speaker, Sir, the strengthening of national security deserves the support of every Singaporean and I therefore support the strengthening of national security and what this Bill aims to achieve.

The difference that this Agency will make heavily depends on the quality and the motivation of people who work in this Agency. I support what the Minister said that you need to have talent and talent that can work smart. So in reviewing the Bill, I have looked at how this Agency tries to look at staff matters, the people who work for this Agency. I am glad that they spend more than one part devoted to staff matters and staff moving to this Agency from elsewhere were given an assurance that they would not lose out in terms of remuneration and recognition of service. As employees of a statutory board, I assume that they can be a trade union, they can get representation rights and these are positive things. However, there are some aspects of the provision that do not really give the right signal that people are valuable, can be trusted and can be treated as such.

I have some concerns on those provisions and I would like to express them. I am referring to clause 11(2) that empowers the Minister to compel an employee to carry on working even if he or she has tendered in her resignation as well as clause 11(4) which prohibits employees from going on strike or to take industrial action. When employees are unhappy, they normally express it by voicing out their complaints. In most places, when they are not heard, they leave. So we say that you either voice it or if it cannot be heard, you just leave and exit. This Bill puts restrictions on both. And I ask: is it really necessary? Are we sending the right signal? Is our existing law not adequate to handle differences that may arise between an Agency, or for that matter, any employer, and its employees? Someone who wants to leave and he is asked to carry on is an unhappy worker which will not contribute to morale and general work environment of the workplace. So why is he leaving? And if there was a union, he could articulate his concerns and aspirations of workers which can be addressed early, wisely and reduce the chance of a trade dispute arising.

Coming on to clause 11(4) on strikes and industrial action, I would like to say that strike is an ultimate weapon for the workers and the unions. Even if the workers call for a strike, the workers have a great probability that they might lose their jobs, they might lose their income and, in some countries, even their lives. Strikes are never a preferred option for trade unions. In Singapore, there had not been a strike since 1977 except for one during the last recession. Strikes, since they are not a preferred option, happen for various reasons. One of it is that it is actually an open manifestation of conflict and a total breakdown of consensus. It is an explosion of pent-up feelings. These feelings and bad blood get bottled up because procedures to handle disputes are inefficient or inadequate. I also accept that there may even be elements who might use strikes to promote their narrow interests and cause havoc. But are these possible in today's Singapore?

To show this question, I just want to review and talk about the laws that exist here. We have the Criminal Law (Temporary Provisions) Act and the Trade Disputes Act which prohibit strikes and lock-outs in water, electricity and gas services. It is these three areas which render service to the community and we are all dependent on them. But while the law prohibits a strike, it also prohibits lock-out. I ask why this Agency, which is so important to national interest, prohibits strikes but not lock-out. The Criminal Law (Temporary Provisions) Act and the Trade Disputes Act also provide for workers in essential services to give two weeks' notice before commencing a strike or industrial action. It has to be in pursuit of a trade dispute. It has to be employment related. And the Trade Unions Act actually says that the majority of union members who are involved have to give support for this industrial action and they have to show their support through a secret ballot. And during this period of two weeks' cooling-off period, efforts can be made to resolve the dispute and if the dispute is referred to the Industrial Arbitration Court, no strike or industrial action can take place. Strike, I say again, is an extreme measure taken only if pushed and there are no other options available.

The Industrial Relations Act in Singapore therefore has comprehensive provisions for collective bargaining, conciliation and arbitration of trade disputes. These provisions have given us industrial peace with justice. It has served us well. Why does the Agency not want to use the existing laws instead of imposing new and seemingly unnecessary restrictions on trade unions and workers?

The other point that I said is whether we are giving the right signals. The Singapore worker is widely broadcast as the number one workforce in the world and the Singapore trade union movement as a responsible one that is not afraid to put national interests before that of sectoral interest. Our legal system governing employment is ranked high by investors. We have a track record to show our responsibility as a movement and its workforce. Only last year, Singapore workers accepted a wage cut without any social unrest. I ask: in these provisions of the Bill, is the Government giving a different signal in its trust and faith in the Singapore workers and the Singapore unions? Is there enough confidence in our present legal system?

Finally, I would like to say the solution to ensure that we have got the right people, highly motivated people working for the Agency for the good of the country, is not by placing restrictions on people, but rather by putting in place procedures in which grievances can be handled quickly, effectively and smoothly, and you have processes and procedures to handle people's needs and aspirations. There will be differences. Any organisation will have differences but we must address them and resolve them fairly and justly. Singapore's proven way of treating people and workers fairly by giving them reasonable and good remuneration, listening to concerns, addressing them and involving them or using active citizenship, has worked in most places, and there is a track record to it. If you follow these tested methods, then I am sure that the Agency will have a highly motivated and committed workforce and in that case, there is no need to worry so much of trade disputes and industrial actions. This is a challenge for management and I urge the Minister to review and clarify these points.

Mr Gerard Ee (Nominated Member): Mr Speaker, Sir, I rise in support of the Bill.

I see the formation of the Agency as a consolidation of our resources in the defence industry. As maintaining a strong defence capability is crucial for Singapore's continuing peace and security, I am happy with its evolution and the successes that occasionally appear in the news media. Whilst the formation of such an Agency is a natural progression, I am filled with some unease. Perhaps, I have been watching too many science fiction movies that portray renegade defence agencies carrying out unethical experimentations and developments. Quite naturally, the work of a defence agency must generally be kept secret. Clause 32(3) provides the Minister with the power to certify any information as of a secret nature and as stated in the clause, such information or matter shall not be required to be disclosed to Parliament or any such person. There is no provision for a Committee to monitor the works of the Agency to ensure that it does not breach any universal ethical rule. Since defence development may involve ethical issues, such as the development of land mines, biological weapons, etc, I feel that it would be too much to keep it purely within the Ministry of Defence.

Sir, it is my belief that there is a need to have a monitoring body, comprising at least the Prime Minister and two other Ministers from other Ministries, and in fact, it would be my preference to include an independent person, such as the President of the Republic of Singapore. The setting up of such a Committee is critical since defence matters, by nature, cannot be discussed openly without compromising the national interest. As pointed out earlier by Mr Ravindran, there is really a need for secrecy to be independently verified.

Mr Simon Tay: Mr Speaker, I share the recognition of the importance of science and technology to defence and I also think that it is important to see that there can be spin-offs from such research which may have value-added for development of Singapore's technology and economy.

Generally, I support the Bill. And if the Minister says that it is for flexibility, I also think that starting an Agency to deal with the subject matter is also worthy of support. My concern then is, like the others, more on the effects of creating such an agency quite independent of the Ministry and scrutiny of Parliament, and of the effects of the Bill before us.

My first point, Mr Speaker, is about something that I was a bit puzzled by and which perhaps the Minister can explain. Of the departments that are to be incorporated within the Agency, looking at clause 2, I notice that one of the Agencies is Lands and Estates. I am a little puzzled. Perhaps I do not understand the functions of this department why this should be part of our Defence Science and Technology Agency, rather than part of the Ministry.

Secondly, I return my concern to clause 6(3) of the Bill. Clause 6(3) permits the Agency to undertake certain functions as the Minister may assign. The Agency may undertake and, in so doing, the Agency shall be deemed to be fulfilling the purposes of this Act. This power to me is a little too wide and yet, at the same time, a little too loose. It may be too wide in the sense that in comparison with this, clause 6(2) constrains the Agency much more to the purposes that the Minister has explained. Even clause 6(2)(l), which is the general one, allows the Ministry to perform such other functions as are conferred on the Agency by any other written law. In clause 6(3), we go much more broader as "such other functions as the Minister himself may assign" and does not even say in writing. But yet, while the power is so wide, I do not understand why the Agency may take up such an instruction from the Minister rather than "shall". Perhaps, the Minister can clarify that as well.

A third point I share with many of the speakers before me is with regard to clause 11(2) and (4). I think I cannot improve on what Mr Thomas, the NMP, has said on clause 11(4) with regard to the impact on trade unions and labour law in Singapore. Let me then focus on clause 11(2). Here, as Members have said before me, this provision is for enforced employment. I would like to remind the Minister that Article 10 of the Constitution actually prohibits forced labour. If I may read Article 10:

"(1) No person shall be held in slavery.

(2) All forms of forced labour are prohibited, but Parliament may by law provide for compulsory service for national purposes."

I understand, of course, that the second part "Parliament may by law provide" is probably where we are coming to now. But I would like to ask the Minister to recognise that this should be a power that is exceptionally used. Why is it such an exception? It could be that this is an essential service such as police, fire protection and other matters. May I ask the Minister's assurance that this clause is in line with those other essential services. Because we are in a bit of conundrum here. If the service is so essential, why should it be under an Agency rather than directly under the Ministry?

My last point relates to the powers of the Agency to procure. Sir, as we know, powers to procure for defence mean large sums of money and we have all heard nightmare stories of procurement for research in other countries where the system had led to overpriced procurement of what seems to be everyday goods. I want to be reassured that the Agency will continue to follow Singapore's system of prudence and scrutiny. What then may I ask the Minister, would the changes be to Government procedures for tendering and accountability? What are the likely increased financial costs? The Bill says that we would likely incur some additional financial expenditure. We do not know how much. Particularly, may I ask the Minister whether Government will, even with the creation of the Agency, stay within the existing guidelines on our military expenditure as part of the GDP? In this regard, I too share a concern that the lack of accountability to Parliament and the Minister's powers to declare certain things to be a secret must be broadly shared by a Committee of Parliament such as the GPC or other Ministers.

Mr Hawazi Daipi (Sembawang): Sir, let me first declare that I am an employee of the National Trades Union Congress and my views reflect that of the NTUC.

The NTUC has had discussions with the Ministry of Defence and Ministry of Manpower on the Defence Science and Technology Agency Bill because it touches on the fundamental right of trade unions, ie, the right to strike.

We, in the NTUC, do not like to see the abrogation of such a right. It is not that our unions are strike-happy or that the industrial relations situation in Singapore is so poor that unions do not threaten companies with industrial actions, they could not get management to settle disputes. In fact, we have had no strike since 1977 except for a brief one in 1986. But no strike does not mean no disputes. Because we have good relations with many employers, we had been able to settle these disputes mainly through bilateral negotiations. When we run into difficulties, we refer cases to the Ministry of Manpower for conciliation. Only rarely do cases reach the Industrial Arbitration Court.

In 1986, the NTUC sanctioned a strike at Hydril, makers of parts of oil rigs for two reasons. First, to punish the management for their anti-union actions. The company had set unrealistically high productivity targets and when workers, including those elected as union leaders, failed to reach the targets, they were sacked. Such anti-union actions, if unchecked, would undermine the credibility of the labour movement. The strike was over in two days. The management agreed to take back the Branch Treasurer and to compensate five other dismissed workers who later declined offers to return to their jobs. So it is crucial that we have the means to take strike actions if management were to adopt a decidedly anti-union stance in a labour strike. But strike action is not the objective of our unions.

In 1982, when Mr Ong Teng Cheong was Labour Minister, he got Parliament to amend the legislation to re-define the objectives of trade unions. Instead of having unions with such objectives as (1) imposing the restrictive conditions on the conduct of work, and (2) promoting or organising or financing of strikes or lock-outs, the new definition would give these as the objectives of our trade unions: (1) to promote good industrial relations between workmen and employers; (2) to promote the working conditions of workers or enhance the economic and social status; and (3) to raise productivity for the benefit of workers, employers and the nation's economy. One Opposition MP completely misread the situation. He thought the amendment would spell the death of trade unions. How wrong he was!

Today, we have far more members in trade unions than in 1982 and our trade unions are stronger and influential. Labour MPs in 1982 fully supported the re-definition of trade union objectives. As they put it, a strike is a means to an end and not an end in itself.

Sir, coming to the Bill before the House, we must ask these questions. What is the job of the DSTA? Who are to be posted there? Why does MINDEF wish to stipulate a no-strike clause? MINDEF is transforming its Defence Technology Group into a statutory board to be called the Defence Science and Technology Agency. This means staff working in the Agency would be like employees of any statutory board. They can join the union whereas as MINDEF personnel, they cannot. Through the DSTA, staff will operate in a statutory board environment. The work they do remains basically the same. It is defence-related, for example, logistics support, ensuring that our defence systems are fully operational at all times and providing technical support for the SAF in peacetime and in war.

The defence of our country is paramount. As such, we accept the no-strike clause for DSTA employees. A no-strike clause is not new in Singapore or even the more developed countries around the world. In 1967, the Government sought to amend the Criminal Law (Temporary Provisions) Act to ban strikes by workers engaged in the very essential services, namely, water, gas and electricity services. While conceding that the provision by itself would appear to be a drastic step in curtailing the rights of trade unions to go on strike, the Government said that it was necessary for it to ensure that the public was not held to ransom by a few irresponsible elements. The Government was referring to an illegal strike by public daily-rated cleansing workers earlier in the year. Labour MPs protested over the erosion of trade union rights. They argued that there was already a law to prevent workers from going on strike. If the Government felt that such action would be detrimental to the good of society, the Government could refer a dispute to arbitration and this would automatically make an industrial action illegal. After a spirited debate, the no-strike Bill was passed over strenuous objections by some labour MPs. But, in a spirit of democracy, union leaders had to persuade the ground to accept the will of Parliament.

Thirty-three years have passed. Since then, unions representing water, electricity and gas workers have secured better terms and conditions of service for their workers, despite not having the strike weapon to use as a last resort. All these years, water, electricity and gas supply has been flowing without interruption to our homes, our factories and workplaces. Where necessary, our water, electricity and gas workers have turned to the NTUC for help to resolving conflicts with the management and, with goodwill, problems have been resolved.

Sir, we need not be apologetic about giving up the right to strike for it is not a new idea and even adopted by unions in developed countries. Now, let us take a look at the situation in Britain. Let me quote what Sir Ken Jackson, General Secretary of the Amalgamated Engineering and Electrical Union (AEEU), had to say about industrial action. He said, "I want to see a strike-free future for British industry." As he told the congress of the United Kingdom Trades Union Congress (TUC) in September 1999, workers want to work, not strike, and there could be "no return to the bad old days". Well, Sir Ken, leader of 732,000-member union, could see his vision come true when the measures of the new Employment Relations Bill come into effect in the summer of this year. The Amalgamated Engineering and Electrical Union of the UK is a large and expanding union, and they are not alone in promising no-strike agreements to attract foreign investments to their country to create jobs for their workers.

A growing number of unions in Britain have signed partnership agreements with companies since 1997 when the TUC produced a document entitled "Partners for Progress" and endorsed the Labour Party's initiative of creating a union partnership with industry.

In the United States, the Iron Workers Local 17 signed a no-strike clause with the Construction Employers' Association. When the contract expired in May 1991, the union and the employers' group extended the pact. When the union went on strike, the employers took it to court for violating the no-strike clause.

Eastern Airlines and the union representing its flight attendants told an American court in 1991 that they had reached an agreement that would prevent a strike over a three-year period.

In 1998, General Motors told Wall Street investors that the United Auto Workers (UAW) had given a no-strike pledge before a new national contract was signed. On its part, the union said that it had agreed to ban strikes at three plants, in return for a company pledge not to shut down or sell the plants for 16 months.

So the unions in the West have agreed to give up the right to strike - for job security. While we may think that Arthur Scargill of the coal miners union is a typical British trade unionist, the fact of the matter is that many union leaders in Britain had for many years gone to Japan and other countries to promise no-strike agreements in order to persuade investors to come to Britain and to create jobs for British workers.

Sir, having said that, I would like to amplify what my colleagues have said earlier, and more so for me as an employee of the National Trades Union Congress, that we must emphatically call upon the management of DSTA to be fair to our workers now that they have to forgo the right to strike. In the case of DSTA, we are giving up the right to strike for an even more important reason, our national security. One may say that the workers at DSTA are non-combat personnel, but their jobs are no less important to the defence of Singapore for they provide logistical support for the SAF.

Sir, we should always remind ourselves about our vulnerability and we must never compromise on our national security. I am sure Singaporeans have not forgotten that not too long ago, we were referred to as a "little red dot". We must give our SAF and our NSmen full confidence that they can call on every resource without disruption and interruption to defend this "little red dot" on the map.

Who are the people in DSTA who will be able to join the union? The majority are non-uniformed SAF personnel who are responsible for logistics support for the SAF. There are 1,112 of them. There are 440 civilians - engineers engaged in research and maintenance work and a small number in the clerical grades. Then there are 137 military staff.

There is much work ahead of us. The NTUC will have to sell trade unionism to those eligible for membership. I am quite glad that my GPC Chairman has called upon the management to encourage workers to join the union. We will have to do the work to sell trade unionism to these workers. We cannot take for granted that since they can join a union, those deployed to DSTA will want to become union members, but we hope that the majority of those eligible for membership will sign up. We are confident that the DSTA will throw up some good union leaders. More importantly, we will need to help the DSTA union to work out a machinery to deal with labour-management relations. In our discussions with MINDEF, we have been assured that the DSTA management will accord full recognition to the union and extend full cooperation in resolving work related problems. Let us hope that we can get DSTA unionised as quickly as possible.

Under the law, unions representing statutory board employees have to be house unions. I understand that among the civilian staff, there are about 40 who are members of the Amalgamated Union of Public Employees (AUPE) before they were posted to MINDEF. They have been allowed to keep their union membership. Now they have to trade their AUPE membership for that of a house union. I am sure AUPE will accept this "loss" as it will be a "gain" to the new union.

In forming house unions, the NTUC has its own set of criteria. First, there should be a sufficiently large base of a house union to be viable. Second, there should be effective leaders. And, thirdly, labour-management relations must be good. In the case of DSTA, the first criterion should be met if they are able to persuade the majority of employees to be union members. We are confident that DSTA's staff would throw up effective trade union leaders, who will be a credit not only to their members but also to the labour movement as a whole. As for labour-management relations, we take MINDEF's word that DSTA's management would work with the labour movement for the benefit of the workers and the DSTA.

Sir, I support the Bill before the House notwithstanding the no-strike provision.

Dr Tony Tan Keng Yam: Sir, I thank the Members for their comments and their perceptive suggestions regarding the DSTA Bill.

Let me start off with comments regarding clause 11(4), the no-strike clause, which has been commented on by Dr Ong Chit Chung, Mr Ravindran, Mr Thomas Thomas and Mr Hawazi Daipi, and also the DSTA and the unions. Let me first say that DSTA's staff will be allowed to join unions. However, our national defence is of paramount importance to the survival and prosperity of our nation and, in this area, there cannot be any compromise. In times of tension, the DSTA, being the agency in charge of logistics, equipment acquisition and technical improvisation functions, is an integral part of MINDEF and the SAF. Currently, such functions are undertaken by non-uniformed personnel in the defence technology group in MINDEF who are not permitted to join unions. The move to legislate such personnel over to DSTA is to allow for organisational flexibility to cope with fast paced technological advances in the field of defence science. The jobs these staff perform and the criticality of these functions have not changed. The DSTA and the effectiveness of our national defence cannot be subjected to compromise by industrial action, particularly in times of tension and war and, for these reasons, the no-strike clause 11(4) is necessary.

Sir, MINDEF, in drawing up this clause, also looked to see whether we could achieve the same effect under other legislation, eg, the Emergency Essential Powers Act. However, the Emergency Essential Powers Act only covers specific groups of persons, and the DSTA staff would have to be included in the subsidiary legislation of this Act through a presidential proclamation. We have some concerns in regulating DSTA's staff through this particular Act. First, the essential regulations are intended for use only during national emergencies. It may alarm the public and bring about undesirable attention to the fact that Singapore is technically in a state of emergency and that the other articles of subsidiary legislation could be brought to bear at any time. Second, the existing essential regulations were passed between October 1964 and July 1996, and would seem extremely odd after a lapse of some 23 years to pass another set of essential regulations, arousing undesirable public attention and scrutiny of the regulations. Also, passing a set of essential regulations now might send the wrong signal to external parties and create unnecessary political and diplomatic difficulties.

Sir, the provisions currently in the Enlistment Act providing for exigencies of service have served MINDEF well over the years in ensuring that our national defence readiness is not compromised. It will be prudent to continue this practice through the inclusion of an equivalent provision in the DSTA Act.

Sir, I move to the other clause which has also been commented by many Members including Dr Ong, Mr Ravindran, Mr Gerard Ee and Mr Simon Tay and this is why the DSTA will not have to submit its annual report to Parliament. By its nature, the business of defence has to be conducted under a cloak of secrecy. This includes the work that DTG is doing now. The change to a statutory board does not remove the requirement for secrecy, and secrecy has to be maintained for many of the details of the activities and finances of DSTA. In the Bill, to provide an external check, the DSTA annual report will be submitted to a committee appointed by the Prime Minister.

Sir, let me move on to the other points which have been raised by the other Members of Parliament. One is on clause 11(2) which is to require employees to work, a point raised by Mr Ravindran, Mr Thomas and Mr Simon Tay. MINDEF and DSTA know that the last thing we want is to compel an unwilling employee to work because if an employee does not want to work, then obviously you are not likely to get much useful service out of him. But in certain circumstances, for the purposes of DSTA, where it is essential and necessary for DSTA to require the person to work, we must have that provision.

Mr Simon Tay also asked about the Lands and Estates Organisation and why it comes under the DSTA. The ambit of the DSTA is a very large one. It includes not only science and technology but also providing logistics support to the SAF, and the Lands and Estates Organisation is required to be included in the DSTA for such purposes.

With regard to the procurement powers of DSTA, a point raised by Mr Simon Tay, we will make sure that DSTA exercises its powers well and gets the best value for money spent in our defence effort. I would like to assure the House that even with the setting up of DSTA, we will continue to abide by the present guidelines we have for our defence expenditure, and that is not to exceed 6% of our GDP.

Sir, some MPs also raised a point about secrecy and whether it is necessary to have another body in order to restrain the powers of the Minister for Defence with regard to matters regarding DSTA. Sir, many matters of defence, by their nature cannot be revealed publicly, and in such areas it is not possible to have another external body to supervise such matters in the DSTA.

Sir, I think I have dealt with all the matters brought up by the Members of Parliament. I just want to end by reassuring the Members, particularly Mr Hawazi Daipi, who speaks on behalf of the trade unions, that we are very conscious about the need to look after the interests of the workers in DSTA. I am confident that the DSTA management will take this heavy responsibility with its full import and discharge it fully. If they do not, Members can be sure that the Ministry of Defence will compel them to do so.

One last point I missed is the suggestion by Mr Simon Tay with regard to the formation of a board of directors and that we should look for a wider representation. I think that is a good suggestion and we will take that into account.

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 Tony Tan Keng Yam].

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