ENLISTMENT (AMENDMENT) BILL

Column: 1746

ENLISTMENT (AMENDMENT) BILL: Order for Second Reading read.

4.15 pm

The Second Minister for Defence (Dr Ng Eng Hen): 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 to increase the maximum quantum of fines for Enlistment Act offences and to provide for the extension of Exit Permit controls to pre-enlistees aged 13 till 16 1/2.

Column: 1747

The Enlistment Act applies to all Singaporeans and Permanent Residents from age 16 1/2 to 40, or age 50 in the case of officers. The Act covers the registration and enlistment of those liable for National Service. It also covers the requirement to apply for Exit Permit or notify MINDEF when going overseas. Those who fail to comply with the provisions of the Enlistment Act are dealt with in the civil courts. On conviction, they are currently liable to face a jail sentence of up to three years, a fine of up to $5,000, or both.

In line with the recent review of the SAF Act, we have also reviewed the Enlistment Act to update the penalty regime. In addition, MINDEF is proposing amendments to effect changes to the exit control measures governing pre-enlistees so as to facilitate the application for biometric passports by pre-enlistees.

Review of penalty regime

Let me first deal with the penalty regime. As Minister Teo Chee Hean has said in his Ministerial Statement on 16th January this year, the case of Melvyn Tan had highlighted an inadequacy in the penalties imposed on NS defaulters, especially those who default for long periods. MINDEF has reviewed the current penalties and considered whether the three-year maximum jail sentence is adequate, whether we should specify a mandatory jail sentence and whether the maximum fine that can be imposed is adequate.

Our conclusion is that the maximum jail sentence of three years is adequate, as it is longer than the current full-time National Service duration of two years. Whether or not a particular offence merits the maximum punishment of three years' imprisonment would be a matter for the Courts to decide, based on the facts of each case. As for minimum mandatory

Column: 1748

jail sentence, we do not consider it necessary at this time, as the circumstances of the cases vary widely. However, as explained in the Ministerial Statement, MINDEF will be asking the public prosecutor to press for a jail sentence in serious cases of NS defaulters, and explain why we consider a jail sentence appropriate in a particular case. Serious cases include those who default on their full-time National Service responsibilities for two years or longer from the time they were required to register or enlist, or from the time their exit permits expired for those granted deferment, whichever is later. We believe that it is in the public interest that such NS defaulters face a jail sentence, unless there are mitigating circumstances.

I would like to provide some illustrations of what MINDEF considers to be sentences appropriate to the nature of the offence or commensurate with its gravity:

(1) Where the default period exceeds two years but the defaulter is young enough to serve his full-time and operationally-ready NS duties in full, MINDEF will press for a short jail sentence.

(2) Where the defaulter has reached an age when he cannot serve his full-time NS in a combat vocation or fulfil his operationally ready NS obligations in full, a longer jail sentence to reflect the period of NS he has evaded may be appropriate.

(3) Where the defaulter has reached an age when he cannot be called up for NS at all, a jail sentence up to the maximum of three years may be appropriate.

In all instances, we expect that the Court will take into account whatever aggravating or mitigating circumstances there may be in each case to determine the appropriate sentence.

Column: 1749

However, the maximum fine quantum has remained unchanged since December 1970, while salaries and wages have increased substantially over the years. It is therefore timely to update the maximum fine quantum in order to maintain the deterrent value of the fines. To this end, this amendment Bill seeks to raise the maximum fine quantum provided for under the Enlistment Act from the current $5,000 to $10,000. This is in line with the maximum fine quantum provided for in the amended Singapore Armed Forces Act.

Review of exit controls

Let me now move on to the amendments pertaining to exit controls, which are prompted by the impending switch to biometric passports.

Currently, pre-enlistees from age 11 till 16 1/2 are issued passports that are valid for only two years at a time. If they require passports of extended validity, ie, more than two years, their parents will have to furnish a bond as a guarantee that they will return to fulfil their NS obligations. The bond quantum is $75,000 or half the combined annual income of both parents, whichever is higher.

From age 16 1/2 till enlistment, the exit control is tighter. Passport validity is restricted to only one year at a time and those going overseas for three months or longer will have to apply for Exit Permits under the Enlistment Act. They are also required to furnish a bond of the same quantum as applicable to those below 16 1/2, ie, $75,000 or half the combined annual income of both parents, whichever is higher.

In view of the introduction of the biometric passport later this year, MINDEF has reviewed the exit control regime for

Column: 1750

pre-enlistees. One of the features of the biometric passport is that its validity period is encoded in its chip in the passport, and in accordance with international requirements, cannot be changed once it is issued. Thus, unlike the current passports, the biometric passport cannot be extended by stamping, and would have to be replaced on expiry.

What this means is that if we continue with the current passport control regime of restricted validity to one or two years, pre-enlistees will have to apply for new passports every one to two years at some cost and inconvenience to them.

To reduce costs for pre-enlistees, MINDEF has decided to allow pre-enlistees to have passports of the normal full validity period. However, as exit controls are still necessary to deter potential NS defaulters and to serve as a strong psychological reminder of their NS obligation, MINDEF will require pre-enlistees aged 13 to 16 1/2 to apply for Exit Permits if they intend to be away from Singapore for three months or more. Those who require Exit Permits of two years or more will be required to furnish a bond. This is similar to the current arrangement where a bond is required if the pre-enlistee requires a passport validity of more than two years. There will be no change to the Exit Permit and bonding requirements for pre-enlistees aged 16 1/2 till enlistment.

As Exit Permits are required only for long trips of three months or more, the majority of pre-enlistees will not be affected by this. In fact, the majority of pre-enlistees will benefit from the new exit control regime, as they will be relieved of passport controls, and given the full passport validity of five years.

Currently, pre-enlistees from age 11 till 16 1/2 are not covered under the Enlistment Act. Therefore, to effect the

Column: 1751

changes that I have just mentioned, pre-enlistees aged 13 to 16 1/2 have to be brought under the ambit of the Enlistment Act. They will, however, not be subject to other provisions in the Enlistment Act. The penalty regime for Exit Permit offences for those aged 13 to 16 1/2 will be only a fine of up to $2,000, with no custodial sentences. They will, however, be subject to heavier penalties should they continue to be in breach of the Enlistment Act after that age.

We also recognise that some young pre-enlistees may not be sufficiently mature to understand their obligations under the Enlistment Act, or that their parents or guardians may have been instrumental in making decisions affecting such pre-enlistees which resulted in contravention of the Enlistment Act. We will thus be introducing a new offence in the Enlistment Act under which parents and guardians can be made liable for the Exit Permit offences of their children or wards of ages 13 to 16 1/2 so that the penalty can be imposed on their parents or guardians when the circumstances warrant it. The penalty regime for the offence will also be a fine of up to $2,000.

Key aspects of Enlistment (Amendment) Bill

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

Clauses 2 and 4 propose to increase the maximum fines that may be imposed by the court for Enlistment Act offences from $5,000 to $10,000. The higher maximum fine will allow for an appropriate level of punishment to be meted out based on the seriousness of the offence committed.

Clause 3 proposes to extend the requirement for Exit Permit to pre-enlistees aged 13 to 16 1/2. A pre-enlistee who contravenes this requirement shall be liable, on conviction, to a penalty of a fine

Column: 1752

not exceeding $2,000. Clause 3 also makes each parent, guardian or person having custody of a pre-enlistee aged 13 to 16 1/2 accountable for the pre-enlistee’s Exit Permit offence. Those found guilty of the offence shall be liable on conviction to a fine not exceeding $2,000.

The amendments to the Enlistment Act will ensure that the penalty regime for NS defaulters remains effective. It will also allow MINDEF to effect changes to the Exit Permit requirements governing pre-enlistees, so that they would not be inconvenienced when the biometric passport is introduced. Together, these measures will help to deter potential NS defaulters and ensure that those who default on their NS responsibilities are adequately punished under the law.

Sir, I beg to move.

Question proposed.

Dr Ong Chit Chung (Jurong): Mr Speaker, Sir, in amending the Enlistment Act, we should ask what is its origin. On independence in 1965, our fledgling nation had had to start the SAF from scratch. As Singapore citizens, it is our duty and obligation to defend our own country. Our survival depends on it. There is no other way.

The Enlistment Act is therefore a necessity, as Singapore is a small country with limited manpower and resources. Some people call us "The little red dot". So be it. In the context of defence, population constraints mean that we cannot afford a standing armed force of regular officers and men. Even if we tried, there would not be sufficient numbers nor quality to form a modern regular force. Hence, the conscript SAF based on National Service.

Sir, having established the critical need for National Service, we must take it upon ourselves to implement National

Column: 1753

Service fairly and impartially. We have to bear in mind two fundamental principles.

The first principle, the universality of service, ie, National Service should be applied across-the-board to all male Singapore citizens within a certain age group. No one should be exempted, except on stringent and objective medical grounds.

The second principle is that of equality of treatment and sacrifice. Whether one is a hawker's son, a taxi driver's son or a tycoon's son, all of us have to go through National Service. All go through the same training, all are treated equally. This is the principle we hold close to our heart. We go through the same route march and we run up Peng Kang Hill together.

With this background perspective, I support the raising of the maximum fine quantum under the Enlistment Act from $5,000 to $10,000. Bearing in mind that we have about 100 unresolved cases of National Service defaulters a year, it is the right step forward to further deter would-be defaulters. It is also measured and fair, as there are no compulsory jail sentences. Custodial sentences, if appropriate in the circumstances, are left to the discretion of the courts to decide.

Sir, I also support the extension of the Exit Permit control to pre-enlistees aged 13 to 16 1/2 years old. This, I believe, is a consequential change, as National Service has been shortened to two years and the deferment policy for further studies has been revamped. Indeed, the clear-cut and uniform deferment policy is much welcomed. It is fair and it is seen to be fair by all. Its simplicity is its virtue. In my mind, it underlines the two fundamental principles of National Service which I mentioned earlier, ie, the universality of service and equality of treatment and sacrifice.

Column: 1754

But doubling the fine is not the complete picture or answer. It fails to answer nor provide a solution to the question why Singaporeans or some Singaporeans abscond from National Service. It is more important for us as a nation and as a society to cultivate in our young a love for the country, to imbue in them the virtues of patriotism, honour, loyalty and commitment. If they have these, they will feel so ashamed to run away from National Service. They will not do it. It will never cross their minds. They will be honour-bound and duty-bound to do their part for our country, and this is what National Service is all about. The Government and society at large should therefore give even greater emphasis to National Education and Total Defence. May I, therefore, ask what would MINDEF and the Government do in this direction?

Sir, loyalty to nation and commitment to National Service would then be so pervasive that it would be a natural thing

for all young and able-bodied male Singaporeans to bear arms and defend our own country. There will be no two ways about it.

Sir, I support the amendment.

4.30 pm

Dr Ng Eng Hen: Sir, let me thank Dr Ong Chit Chung for his full support of the Bill.

He has supported the spirit of our amendments, endorsed the increase in fines, backed the signals that we are sending to Singaporeans in terms of emphasising our NS liability. Sir, I agree with him fully that this is part of the picture. Penalties are adequate, but each time we have to impose a penalty that is allowed by this Act on someone, in a sense it is a failure on our part to convince everyone of the need for NS. And he is absolutely right because we are

Column: 1755

a small nation, we depend on a conscript NS army.

He has made the point that if we can move further and convince every Singaporean, every male liable Singaporean, liable to do NS, that not to fulfil those liabilities, one should feel ashamed and therefore, everyone will do it. That will be the ideal state. I agree with him. How do we do this?

For MINDEF and SAF, let me assure him and the House that we do not depend on the law to increase the buy-in for National Service. That will be the wrong approach. We have to make those two years that we put our sons through worthwhile. That is why in the debate in this House, we said that NS can only be for critical needs - critical for security and the nation's survival. Yes, there are nation-building elements in NS but we should only have the right to call up our sons to fulfil a critical security need.

Second, we must make sure that their time is adequately spent, that training is realistic, that our young men can understand why they are doing it and how they can be effective. It must be not a tokenistic exercise where you just spend your time in NS. We strive to reach the point where every family says, "I understand why NS is needed and I am proud to do it", I think we are getting there.

For the parents in this House who have been through passing-out parades, I think you understand what I mean. To see your sons in the parade square with great pride and cheering with gusto, the camaraderie, for them to be transformed from boys to men, stirs our hearts and our feelings. And with time, this will be a national trait where we find that NS is no longer a sacrifice but a privilege.

Question put, and agreed to.

Column: 1756

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 Ng Eng Hen].

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