SINGAPORE ARMED FORCES (AMENDMENT) BILL

Sitting resumed at 4.05 pm

Column: 2197

[Mr Speaker in the Chair]

SINGAPORE ARMED FORCES (AMENDMENT) BILL: Order for Second Reading read.

The Minister for Defence (Mr Teo Chee Hean): 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 Singapore Armed Forces Act

Column: 2198

to increase the maximum quantum of fines that the Subordinate Military Court and SAF disciplinary officers may impose on servicemen found guilty of the charges against them.

The SAF is a military organisation where discipline is of utmost importance. The Singapore Armed Forces Act spells out the legal provisions that help uphold the level of discipline in the SAF. The Act applies to all members of the SAF, including regulars, full-time national servicemen and operationally-ready NSmen when they are called back for in-camp training or other activities. It does not apply to those who have yet to enlist for national service.

The Act provides for serious offenders to be dealt with by means of general court martial and less serious offenders to be dealt with by means of summary trials. It provides for a range of penalties for those found guilty of misconduct. These include discharge from service, detention, reduction in rank, forfeiture of seniority, fines and reprimand.

Even though the SAF is not facing any problem with its state of discipline, MINDEF actively conducts periodic reviews of the discipline framework. In its most recent review, MINDEF found the discipline provisions in the Singapore Armed Forces Act to be still relevant and appropriate, with the exception of the maximum fine quantum prescribed in the Act.

The maximum fine quantum in the Act was last amended 15 years ago in 1991. Since then, our environment has changed. There is a need to increase the maximum quantum to make the fines more effective, both as a deterrent and as a penalty. The effectiveness of the current fine quantum has declined over time when compared with current salaries and NS allowances, in particular the substantial increase in NS allowances instituted in

Column: 2199

2002. The NS allowances for ranks typically held by our full-time National Servicemen are: for a Recruit $350 a month, for a Third Sergeant $560 a month, and for a Second Lieutenant it is $870 a month. For Lieutenants it is $1,050 a month. These are the typical ranks and NS allowances of our full-time National Servicemen. NS allowances are thus substantially higher than Members of this House will have experienced during their own NS days.

The quantum of increase in maximum fines proposed in the Bill better reflects these current NS allowances and should be able to serve the needs of the SAF for at least the next five to 10 years. The maximum fines for the junior ranks are typically less than one month of their NS allowance if they appear before a Junior Disciplinary Officer and 1.3 months if they appear before a Senior Disciplinary Officer respectively. The maximum fines for the more senior ranks are typically 1.3 to two months of NS allowance to reflect the wider range of seriousness of the offences that they may be charged with.

Sir, I would like to highlight key aspects of the Bill.

Clauses 2 to 8 deal with the fine quantum for summary trials while clause 9 deals with the fine quantum for general court martial.

Clause 2 proposes an increase in the maximum fine that a Junior Disciplinary Officer can impose. The increase is from $100 to $300 for a soldier of the rank of Third Sergeant and below, and from $300 to $1,000 for a soldier of the rank of Second Sergeant and above.

Clause 3 deals with the maximum fine that a Senior Disciplinary Officer can impose. The maximum fine is proposed to go up from $150 to $500 for Third

Column: 2200

Sergeant and below, and from $500 to $1,500 for Second Sergeant and above.

Clause 4 proposes an increase in the maximum fines that a Superior Commander can impose, from $500 to $2,000 for Lieutenants and Warrant Officers, and from $1,000 to $3,000 for Captains and Majors.

Clauses 5 and 6 propose to increase the maximum fines that the Service Chiefs and the Chief of Defence Force can impose on Lieutenant-Colonels and Colonels from $1,500 to $6,000.

Clause 7 is a consequential amendment on the provision dealing with detention in default of fine.

Clause 8 proposes to increase from $1,500 to $10,000 the maximum fines that can be imposed on officers of the rank of Brigadier-General and above. A substantial increase in the maximum fines for this category is proposed as these are very senior officers for which a wider range of fines is appropriate to be commensurate with the wide range of seriousness of the offences that they may be charged with. They will be dealt with by a Senior Disciplinary Committee consisting of not less than three members of the Armed Forces Council.

Clause 9 proposes an increase in the maximum fines that the Subordinate Military Courts can impose. For officers, the maximum will increase from $2,000 to $10,000. For soldiers, it will be from $1,000 to $5,000. The maximum fine quantum of $10,000 is similar to the maximum fine quantum that can be imposed by our district courts. Presidents of the Subordinate Military Courts are legally qualified operationally ready NSmen who are serving or have served as magistrates or district judges.

Sir, the increase in the maximum fine quantum for summary trials does not

Column: 2201

mean that all servicemen will henceforth receive proportionately heavier fines. The fines will depend on the specific circumstances of each case. The higher maximum fine will allow for an appropriate level of punishment to be meted out based on the seriousness of the offences committed.

Sir, the amendments to the maximum fine quantum will help to uphold the state of discipline in the SAF and to ensure that the SAF will continue to be a disciplined, professional and credible defence force.

Sir, I beg to move.

Question proposed.

4.41 pm

Mr Alexander Chan Meng Wah (Nominated Member): Mr Speaker, thank you for allowing me to speak on the Bill.

The amendments have proposed increasing the existing range of fines imposable by various levels of disciplinary officers for offences under the SAF Act, from the current $100 to $2,000 to the new range of $300 to $10,000. These are multiples of three to five times the current levels. In the light of the development of the SAF towards a third generation fighting force, the SAF will be staffed by more highly trained and educated soldiers at all levels. In fact, a 3G SAF is made possible only because Singapore has the right kind of human capital to undertake this kind of development.

Against this background, I can see the logic to keep up with the times and to increase the scale of fines for offences committed. However, I note that the quanta and multiples have increased for higher levels of disciplinary officers such as superior commanders, more so than for less senior ones such as Junior Disciplinary Officers. As the specific

Column: 2202

detailed schedule of offences for which the fines are used as punishment is not evident in the amendment, I have to ask if this then means that there has not been any change to the disciplinary responsibilities in spite of a more capable and responsible SAF organisation. Since we will find more SAF commanders and regular career commanders at the Junior Disciplinary Officer levels than at the senior levels, by virtue of promotional opportunities within the timeframe, the amendments proposed seem to give me the impression that we are not recognising the possibility for more disciplinary responsibilities for NS commanders. So, while this amendment proposes the wielding of a bigger financial stick, it is still the same stick

in the manner of speaking. While the changes proposed may reflect the effects of inflation of a time and perhaps some more financial burden on the offenders, it does not seem to go enough to reflect the increasing competence of our NS commanders.

I would like to suggest that the SAF provide more responsibility to lower level Disciplinary Officers, for example, by way of expanding upon the types of offences under their charge, in addition to just increasing the scale of fines relative to the existing scales. Also, if the Superior Commanders are given more powers, in terms of fines, detention, reduction of ranks and reversion of ranks, the number of cases going before the general court martial will be much reduced. Presently, there are probably too many court martial cases because of the lack of powers on the part of the Superior Commanders. This would then shift responsibility and accountability lower down and it should also have a concomitant effect of reducing workload at the higher level of disciplinary jurisdictions. Therefore, while I am in support of the direction and the quantum of increases to the fines, as proposed in this amendment, I also hope to see further amendments to the SAF

Column: 2203

Act to put more responsibility for discipline further down the organisation to NS and career commanders.

Mr Teo Chee Hean: Mr Speaker, Sir, I would like to thank Mr Alex Chan for making this point because it is indeed important that we give greater responsibility to our commanders, particularly our NS commanders, in the appropriate levels of the organisation. Many of our NS commanders are OCs and Platoon Commanders in the units. The Junior Disciplinary Officers are usually OCs in the units, officers commanding companies and batteries. The Senior Disciplinary Officers are usually Battalion Commanders, commanders of units. And indeed, one of the reasons why we wanted to put in place this increase in the quantum of fines is because the quantum of fines that can be imposed by Junior Disciplinary Officers is so low that if in a unit they want to bring a charge and a punishment against a particular soldier, the Junior Disciplinary Officer feels that the fines that he can impose are so low that they tend to escalate it up to the Senior Disciplinary Officer. So in this case, we do want to give the Junior Disciplinary Officer more ability to deal with the soldiers directly under his charge expeditiously and in the direct line of his command. So indeed, this is one of the objectives that we want to achieve.

And similarly, also, when we have increased the powers to fine of the Senior Disciplinary Officer, it avoids the Senior Disciplinary Officer having to escalate this particular charge to the Superior Commander who is usually the Brigade Commander. As for the types of offences that can be dealt with, the offences are specified in the Schedule of the SAF Act, and there are 28 such offences, if I remember correctly, which are triable by summary trials. All the offences in the SAF Act are triable by court martial, but

Column: 2204

these 28 offences are triable by summary trials, as specified in the Act. And all summary trials, whether they are JDOs, SDOs or Superior Commanders can try these 28 offences. So we do want to give more powers, more discretion, to the Junior Commanders so that they can exercise discipline and responsibility for discipline in the unit. But of course, just by giving them disciplinary power is not the only way of giving them more responsibility, as I distributed yesterday in the pamphlet, we do want to give them more responsibility, more scope to make decisions in the 3G SAF by widening the responsibilities that they have in other areas.

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. - [Mr Teo Chee Hean].

[Mr Speaker in the Chair]

The Chairman: The citation year "2005" will be changed to "2006", as indicated in the Order Paper Supplement.

Clauses 1 to 9 ordered to stand part of the Bill.

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