ENLISTMENT (AMENDMENT) 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."

The Bill before this House seeks to amend the Enlistment Act as follows:

(a) to refine the reimbursement system for the loss of salary and wages when a person undergoes Operationally Ready National Service, or "ORNS";

(b) to allow certain offences under the Enlistment Act and regulations to be made compoundable;

(c) to appoint enlistment inspectors to investigate offences under the Act and regulations; and

(d) to make related amendments to the Singapore Armed Forces Act. Sir, I would like to highlight the major aspects of the Bill.

Clause 2 of the Bill allows a person performing Operationally Ready National Service to claim reimbursement for pay components that meet certain criteria. One of these pay components is bonuses.

Under the current law, an Operationally Ready National Serviceman (or ORNSman) cannot claim reimbursement for any pay component labelled "bonus" when he attends ORNS training.

Due to the increasing popularity of the flexi-wage policy in Singapore, there has been a rising trend among private sector employers to term more and more pay components of their employee's monthly salary as "bonus", or some other term. Such pay components, though termed as "bonuses", are essentially part of the monthly wages of the employees.

The amendment to the Enlistment Act allows the claim of bonuses, and any other types of pay components if they meet the following conditions:

(a) it is provided in the ORNSman's employment or service contract;

(b) it is received on a regular basis over a prescribed period of time;

(c) it is subject to CPF contributions under the Central Provident Fund Act; and

(d) it falls within the definition of "gains or profits from employment" under the Income Tax Act.

Clause 3 of the Bill seeks to make it more convenient for ORNSmen to receive their reimbursement claim. Under the present legislation, only the ORNSman is entitled to claim reimbursement for the loss of his civilian income. The ORNSman submits his claim through his employer.

MINDEF has a new scheme called the Payment Through Employers Scheme. This scheme aims to reduce paperwork and simplify procedures for ORNSmen and their employers when making a claim for loss of income resulting from ORNS training. Under this scheme, the employer will continue to pay his ORNSmen employees their monthly salary when the ORNSmen attend training. The employer then makes a consolidated claim to the designated authority to obtain reimbursement. This seamless system will result in the ORNSman not having to suffer any disruption in receiving his salary income. He will also not have to put in a claim for reimbursement for the loss of his civilian income to the designated authority through his employer.

The amendment to the Act will formally put in place this streamlined procedure, with employers given the right to opt for this scheme of direct payment to their ORNSmen employees.

Clause 4 of the Bill allows for the composition of certain offences under the Enlistment Act and regulations. Under the present legislation, those who commit offences under the Enlistment Act and regulations are prosecuted in the civil courts. The proposed amendments will allow the proper authority to compound certain offences under the Enlistment Act and its regulations. This will save the time and resources of the court and prosecution.

The amount of composition for offences under the Enlistment Act will be a maximum of $1,000. For offences under the Enlistment Regulations, the maximum will be $500.

Clause 4 of the Bill also allows the appointment of enlistment inspectors and sets out their powers. The Follow-up and Investigation Unit, or the IU, of the Central Manpower Base investigates offences committed under the Enlistment Act and its regulations. The IU needs to be equipped with the powers of arrest and investigations, similar to those found in the Criminal Procedure Code and the Evidence Act. As such, the IU was previously formed as an Auxiliary Police Force, or an APF. However, an APF can only operate within specifically identified areas. The IU, on the other hand, has to conduct investigations throughout Singapore. This is beyond the ambit of an APF.

This amendment allows the proper authority to appoint public officers as investigators to be known as enlistment inspectors. They will be empowered to investigate offences committed under the Enlistment Act and regulations. They also will have powers of search, seizure and arrest. These powers may be exercised anywhere in Singapore.

Clause 5 makes related amendments to the Singapore Armed Forces Act or the SAF Act. Servicemen, whether ORNSmen during their in-camp training or former regular servicemen during their service, who commit military offences, may be required to report for trial after they have finished their in-camp training or their regular service. Trial here means the court martial or a summary trial. Those who fail or refuse to report for such trials currently cannot be prosecuted for a military offence under the SAF Act because they are not subject to military law when the order to them to report is given.

At present, those persons who fail or refuse to report for trial may only be prosecuted in the civil courts under the Penal Code (section 174), that is, for the non-attendance in obedience to an order from a public servant. As the failure or refusal to report for trial is a disciplinary issue related to the SAF, MINDEF believes the SAF should be able to deal directly with such disobedience.

The amendments make it a military offence if an ORNSman or a former regular serviceman does not report for trial when ordered to do so by the competent authority. This will be so even though he is not subject to military law when the order to report for such trial is given.

Parliament is requested to approve the amendments.

Sir, I beg to move.

Question proposed.

Dr Ong Chit Chung (Bukit Timah): Sir, the GPC for Defence and Foreign Affairs supports this Bill. It is timely indeed to amend the Enlistment Act which was instituted in 1970.

Since then, generations of national servicemen have been trained to bear arms. National service is now very much part and parcel of the Singaporean way of life. With our experience over the years and cycles of training, both locally and overseas, we are now in a better position to redefine and fine-tune the procedures for enlistment and national service.

National servicemen and their employers would definitely welcome and embrace the streamlined and simplified method for claiming make-up pay. Such exemplary cut in red tape should be followed and emulated by other Government agencies.

In particular, all national servicemen would welcome the redefinition of civilian remuneration to include bonuses and any relevant pay components. This ensures that Operationally Ready National Servicemen will not lose out when they go for their in-camp training.

Sir, I also welcome the provision for compounding certain offences under the Enlistment Act. This will simplify the procedures, and save time and resources of the court and the personnel involved. I wish to ask the Minister for examples and categories of offences that will be compounded.

Sir, I agree that a national serviceman called up to answer charges and attend trial for alleged offences while he was subject to military law should not be entitled to claim reimbursement or compensation for loss of civilian remuneration. But if the national serviceman is subsequently acquitted, will he be eligible to claim for loss of civilian remuneration for the time he spent in attending military court?

Sir, I support the Bill.

Dr Tony Tan Keng Yam: Sir, I thank Dr Ong Chit Chung for his comments. He has raised two questions. The first question is: what are some examples and categories of offence that will be compounded? Sir, some examples of offences that will be compounded are:

(i) the failure of an ORNSman to notify the proper authority before he leaves Singapore;

(ii) the failure of an ORNSman to maintain contact with his unit; and

(iii) the failure of an exit permit holder to report to the proper authority within seven days of his return to Singapore.

Some categories of offences that will be compounded are:

(i) exit permit offences;

(ii) registration offences; and

(iii) offences relating to the disclosure of particulars by an NS registrant.

The second question asked by Dr Ong is: if an ORNSman is called up to answer charges and attend trial for alleged offences while he was subject to military law, will he be eligible to claim for loss of civilian remuneration for the time spent attending military court if he is acquitted? Sir, ORNSmen who are called up to perform national service are entitled to make a claim for the loss of civilian remuneration for the period of their call-up. When an ORNSman is called up to answer charges and attend trial, he is called up for the purposes of disciplinary proceedings and to answer the charge against him. He is not called up to perform national service. Therefore, whether the ORNSman is convicted or acquitted, he should not be entitled to claim for loss of civilian remuneration for the time spent attending the disciplinary proceedings.

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.