Enlistment and Other Matters (Amendment) Bill

Order for Second Reading read.

12.47 pm

The Senior Minister of State for Defence (Mr Heng Chee How) (for the Minister for Defence): Mr Speaker, Sir, on behalf of the Minister for Defence, I beg to move, "That the Bill be now read a Second time."

The Enlistment Act passed by Parliament in 1970 was a crucial piece of legislation that enabled Singapore to build up the Singapore Armed Forces (SAF) and Home Team. The Enlistment Act entrenched National Service (NS), first introduced in 1967. The Requisition of Resources Act passed by Parliament in 1985 provided for the requisition of essential civil resources from individuals, businesses and organisations when it is "necessary for the securing of the public safety and defence of the country; or for the maintenance of supplies and services essential to the life of the community; or for the conduct of exercises for any of the aforesaid purposes". Both the Enlistment Act and the Requisition of Resources Act have served Singapore well over the past five decades to build up our security forces to protect Singapore's sovereignty and to maintain law and order.

The main provisions of the Enlistment Act and the Requisition of Resources Act continue to be relevant and need no amendments. However, there is a need to amend the Acts to keep pace with a modernised, digitalised Singapore that is quite different from the Singapore 50 years ago. Hence, the amendments proposed formalise present practices as well as remove obsolete clauses. I will now go through the amendments in detail.

First, on the amendments to keep up with developments in digital technology, section 30 of the Enlistment Act – Orders and Notices.

First, the proposed amendments to section 30 of the Enlistment Act concerning orders and notices that are issued under the Enlistment Act. Under section 30 of the current Enlistment Act, orders and notices to NS or SAF personnel are served through various means, such as through telephone calls, radio or television broadcast and registered post.

Over the past two decades, notices and orders have also been served through electronic means. An Operationally Ready National Serviceman, or NSman for short, is now informed of his NS call-up activity via an SMS and in his NS Portal account. He can acknowledge the notice either by replying to the SMS directly, or by logging on to the NS Portal to do so. Should he fail to acknowledge the call-up notice which is sent to him electronically, he will receive another SMS reminder. And if he still fails to respond to that reminder, he is sent a hardcopy version of the notice via registered post.

Around 75% of our servicemen today acknowledge receipt of their notices and orders electronically by the first or second SMS and do not need to receive hardcopy reminders. As the practice of receiving notices and orders by electronic means is now well accepted and entrenched, the proposed amendments to section 30 will formalise this into the amended Enlistment Act.

As with the existing modes of service, such as telephone calls, radio or television broadcast and registered post, these electronic means of service come with the same deeming provisions, which presume Enlistment Act notices and orders are received and read within a fixed timeframe after delivery. Deeming provisions ensure that a recipient cannot feign ignorance of his NS obligations when notices and orders have been duly served.

Members may worry that recipients may receive many digital notifications, such as emails or SMSes, in the course of a normal day and could genuinely miss out on reading some of these electronic notifications from the Ministry of Defence (MINDEF), SAF or the Home Team.

Let me assure the House that we will put in multiple safeguards and be very fair to our NSmen.

First, we will continue today's practice of issuing orders and notices to individuals through various channels. Specifically, should individuals fail to respond to orders or notices issued by electronic means, MINDEF will follow on to serve them with notices or orders using existing modes of service, such as telephone calls or registered post. This ensures that we make every attempt and make every effort to have the orders and notices reach their intended recipient.

Second, MINDEF will also codify in subsidiary legislation the steps which we will take in serving orders and notices on individuals such that people will have the full assurance that their attention will be adequately brought to the obligations they need to fulfil for NS.

Third, as an added safeguard, we have proposed a new provision at section 30(2A), which requires consent to be given before orders and notices sent by electronic means can be presumed and deemed to have been received and read. Those who provide such consent can withdraw that consent at any time, should they choose to do so.

Next, I will move on to speak about section 41 of the Requisition of Resources Act under the section of orders, notices and requisitions.

Similar changes regarding the electronic delivery of orders, notices and requisitions will be made to section 41 of the Requisition of Resources Act. In the same way, NSmen are notified of their call-ups today, civil resource owners are currently also notified of the requisition of their resources via an SMS. Another SMS will be sent if there is no acknowledgement of the first SMS. If these two SMSes – the first one and the reminder – elicit no response, MINDEF will contact the civil resource owners via existing means of service, such as by telephone call or personal delivery of the hardcopy notice. This requisition system has been used during exercises and civil resource owners have responded well. Our amendments to section 41 of the Requisition of Resources Act will, therefore, similarly legislate the inclusion of electronic means of service.

Similar to the Enlistment Act, safeguards will also be in place to ensure that we have made every effort and every attempt to reach the civil resource owners. In this vein, the deeming provisions for electronic means of service are only meant to be applied onto the few civil resource owners who fail to comply with their obligations and remain uncontactable despite multiple attempts to reach them through the whole variety of channels. Consent will also be sought from the civil resource owners before orders and notices sent by electronic means can be presumed and deemed to have been received and read by them. Those who provide such consent can also withdraw their consent at any time, should they choose to do so.

Sir, I move next to the amendments on clarifying existing policies on section 32 of Enlistment Act, which deals with Exit Permits.

Today, pre-enlistees from age 13 years and full-time National Servicemen (or NSFs) are required to possess a valid Exit Permit for any travel overseas that goes beyond three months' duration. For NSmen, the requirement is more relaxed in recognition of their higher likelihood of staying or working overseas for longer durations. NSmen will need to possess a valid Exit Permit for any travel overseas that exceeds a year.

There had been past offenders who have claimed that they were not liable for Exit Permit offences just because they had not received a Registration Notice for NS. So, in order to make clear the intent of the law as it stands, section 32 of the amended Enlistment Act will now state explicitly that all NS-liable persons from age 13 onwards must adhere to Exit Permit requirements even if they have not yet registered for NS or have not yet received their Registration Notice. The amendment will clarify our existing policy and legal position which is that Exit Permit offences are strict liability in nature, that is, a person cannot claim to not be liable simply because he claims to be ignorant of the law of his NS obligations.

We will make the relevant consequential amendments to section 52 of the Immigration Act, which empowers an immigration officer to act to prevent an NS-liable person from leaving Singapore, if that immigration officer has reason to believe that the individual does not possess an Exit Permit as required. This is to enable the immigration officer to inquire into this suspicion and require the person to produce for inspection the valid Exit Permit.

Next, I will touch on section 27 of the Enlistment Act which deals with unaccountable periods. The proposed amendment at section 27(2) of the Enlistment Act specifies the types of periods that do not count towards the fulfilment of an NSman's NS liability. The amendment will make clear the periods of time where the serviceman's absence from service will not count towards the fulfilment of his NS liabilities. This will include periods of absence due to disciplinary reasons, for example, local and overseas imprisonment or detention; pre-trial civil custody for offences that the serviceman is subsequently convicted of; and rescinded medical leave, such as when a serviceman is found to have abused his medical leave when he was actually fit for duty.

Finally, I will deal with the administrative amendments.

We will remove and update references within the Enlistment Act and Requisition of Resources Act that are now obsolete. For example, references to "telex" as a mode of service of orders or notices will be removed because we no longer use this means to send out notices and orders. We will also add references to the Singapore Police Force (SPF) and the Singapore Civil Defence Force (SCDF) where necessary, to account for the fact that our NSmen are also deployed to the SPF and SCDF. We will also update references in the offence provisions of the Requisition of Resources Act to align with other national legislation. These amendments are administrative updates that do not impact existing NS or civil resource requisition policies or obligations.

In conclusion, Sir, the Enlistment Act and Requisition of Resources Act have been in force since 1970 and 1985 respectively, and have served Singapore well. These amendments allow us to modernise and tidy up both the Enlistment Act and the Requisition of Resources Act. Sir, I beg to move.

Question proposed.

Mr Speaker: Mr Don Wee.

1.00 pm

Mr Don Wee: Mr Speaker, Sir, the Exercise SG Ready, which began yesterday, commemorates 40 years of Total Defence this year. National Service (NS) plays a critical role in reinforcing the Total Defence concept. Total Defence encourages the active involvement of all citizens in safeguarding the security and well-being of our nation. Enlistment into NS is a crucial aspect of the military component of Total Defence.

Since the National Service (Amendment) Bill was passed in March 1967, more than a million male Singaporeans and permanent residents have served NS. Enlistees can serve in the military, Police and the Singapore Civil Defence Force.

Conscription is an essential component of national security, providing rapid and robust responses to external and internal threats. NS also contributes to the creation of a national identity that cuts across ethnic races, social classes and religions, as well as bolstering social resilience against instabilities.

I support the Bill and I would like to seek clarifications on the following.

The amendments in section 30 on orders, notices, permits and appointments are necessary as communications today are predominantly digitalised via short message service (SMS), emails and electronic service platforms. I would like to ask the Minister for his assurance in securing these modes of communicating with our servicemen and regulars. What safeguards are in place to address concerns related to the acknowledgment or consent requirement for electronic service? How will individuals be informed and given the option to consent? How would the Ministry prevent or minimise the impact of potential digital attacks and fraudulent communications by criminals and hostile agents to undermine our defence forces?

Pertaining section 52 of the Immigration Act, how do the immigration officers determine if a person subject to the Enlistment Act has the required exit permit? Mr Speaker, Sir, in Mandarin.

(In Mandarin): [Please refer to Vernacular Speech.] I support the timely amendments in section 24, which explicitly allows persons who perform the listed services to claim reimbursement for remuneration derived from self-employment. I hope MINDEF and MHA can arrange for consultative sessions with the insurance practitioners, financial planners, property advisers, private hire drivers and platform workers to have a deeper understanding of their remuneration structures.

Mr Speaker: Mr Leong Mun Wai.

1.03 pm

Mr Leong Mun Wai (Non-Constituency Member): Mr Speaker, Sir, the Progress Singapore Party (PSP) welcomes the move by the Government to update the Enlistment Act.

While we have no quarrel with the updates proposed in the Bill, we note that the Bill does not make any amendments to the statutory length of liability to render full-time NS, as provided in section 12 of the Enlistment Act 1970.

Since Independence, our SAF, SPF and SCDF have become world-class institutions, and this success has come on the backs of generations of full-time NSmen (NSFs) who have given two or two-and-a-half years of their lives to serve the nation. This sacrifice in youth comes at significant cost to the individual. Therefore, the duration of full-time NS must be carefully calibrated and reviewed from time to time, based on our nation's defence needs.

Even after amendments made in section 4 of the Bill, the statutory full-time NS liability remains at up to two-and-a-half years for anyone promoted above the rank of Lance Corporal in the SAF or SCDF, or Special Constable 2 in the SPF, which, in practice, covers every enlistee.

The duration of full-time NS was last reduced from two-and-a-half years to two years in June 2004. At the time, Senior Minister Teo Chee Hean, who was then Minister for Defence, explained in a Ministerial Statement that this was possible because of the SAF's technological transformation to the Third Generation SAF and a 15% and 20% increase in the annual intake of NSFs over 10 years starting in 2006. Senior Minister Teo also told the House that MINDEF had concluded that the two years of NS duration will be able to be sustained over the long term even after this 10-year surge.

Thus, I would like to ask the Minister several questions.

One, are the considerations and conclusions made by Senior Minister Teo in June 2004 still valid?

Two, if yes, why has the Bill we are debating today not included an amendment to reduce the statutory length of full-time NS liability from two-and-a-half to two years, even though this has been the practice for 20 years, which is practically one generation?

Three, by retaining this provision in the Enlistment Act, does this mean the Government expects that the duration of full-time NS may be reverted to two-and-a-half years at some point in the future?

PSP calls on the Government to continue reviewing the duration of full-time NS based on operational needs, demographic changes and technological advancements. Where possible, without compromising on operational readiness, training standards and the ability of our uniformed services to achieve their mission, we would support further reductions in our dependence on large numbers of NSFs and further reductions in the duration of full-time National Service.

Sir, notwithstanding my clarifications, I support the Bill. For country, for people.

Mr Speaker: Mr Yip Hon Weng.

1.08 pm

Mr Yip Hon Weng (Yio Chu Kang): Mr Speaker, Sir, Singapore's NS is a cornerstone of our nation's security and identity. This Bill is a timely amendment of the Enlistment Act. It is to reflect the modern landscape of national service and voluntary service. Notwithstanding, I have several clarifications on the Bill.

First, Mr Speaker, Sir, on liability, ranks and the removal of part-time NS. The proposed changes to section 12 regarding liability to render full-time service, particularly in the SPF and SCDF, raise questions about service extension for specific ranks. We need to understand how these extensions align with the overall manpower needs of both agencies. This clarity is critical in ensuring effective and efficient operations and public service within the SPF and SCDF.

Furthermore, on the deletion of section 14(1)(b)(ii) relating to part-time NS, we require a clear understanding of the rationale behind this decision and its potential consequences. How does this decision align with the current defence strategies? How do we ensure the continued effectiveness of our NS framework?

Second, Mr Speaker, Sir, on the use of technology for the service of notices and orders. The amendments to section 30 allowing for the service of notices and orders through modern technological avenues like SMS, email and dedicated platforms are commendable steps towards modernisation and streamlined communications.

However, I seek further clarification on several aspects. First, how are these changes aligned with emerging advancements in technology to improve efficiency in communication, specifically in the context of NS and enlistment? Given rapid technological advancements, is the Bill sufficiently flexible to accommodate future innovations in communication technology?

Moreover, while embracing technology's benefits, we must remain mindful of potential challenges. Concerns regarding fake notices, potential misuse of artificial intelligence (AI) for manipulation and potential for abuse of these systems deserve careful consideration. We need to ensure that robust safeguards and clear guidelines are in place to prevent such issues and maintain the integrity of the communication process.

Third, Mr Speaker, Sir, as a committed SAF volunteer myself, I take a keen interest in the proposed enhancements to volunteer protection. I note the revisions set out in clause 13 of the Bill regarding references to volunteer service within the SAF's People's Defence Force and the Police Force Act's Special Constabulary. Can the Senior Minister of State explain how these changes translate into concrete safeguards for all SAF volunteers under the relevant sections of the Enlistment Act? Similarly, how does this impact the SPF's Volunteer Special Constabulary programme?

Specifically, can the Ministry provide elaboration on how these amendments ensure the welfare and rights of our diverse volunteer community? By ensuring all volunteers feel protected, valued and supported, we can continue to attract and retain dedicated individuals who bolster our nation's strength.

Fourth, Mr Speaker, Sir, I seek clarification regarding the Minister's broader powers to make regulations under the Enlistment Act. Flexibility is indeed critical in adapting to a changing environment. However, it is equally important to ensure that such power is not wielded in a vacuum. Robust Parliamentary oversight and public scrutiny are essential safeguards against potential misuse.

Therefore, I urge the Minister to address the proposed amendments to section 37 of the Act pursuant to clause 12 of the Bill and clarify the Minister's regulation-making powers. While increased flexibility must be justified in certain scenarios, we must ensure sufficient clarity and transparency in these regulations. Clear regulatory frameworks are the bedrock of effective implementation.

In conclusion, Mr Speaker, Sir, recent events like the Ukraine-Russia conflict and the Israel-Hamas war show us that war can erupt even in perceived peace times, fuelled by proxy wars, drone-strewn skies and non-state actors. Furthermore, the nature of warfare is no longer defined by clashing armies. In the silent trenches of the digital battlefield, foreign adversaries weaponise algorithms and misinformation, manipulating public opinion and sowing discord, paving the way for real-world conflict with every unseen click.

Recent self-radicalisation cases are also stark reminders that we must remain vigilant in ensuring security within our borders. We must remember that national security is not solely the responsibility of the military.

We commemorated Total Defence Day yesterday and are reminded that this is a shared endeavour, requiring the collective commitment of every citizen. I have highlighted several clarifications in my speech, namely:

First, aligning manpower needs with the extensions of specific ranks in SPF and SCDF. We also need to understand the rationale behind removing part-time NS and its consequences.

Second, having safeguards with technological advancements – mitigate potential risks like fake notices, AI misuse and abuse. We must ensure robust communication practices and integrity.

Next, enhancing volunteer protection – translate proposed changes into concrete safeguards for all SAF volunteers, ensuring their welfare, rights and continued contribution.

And lastly, having greater transparency in ministerial regulations – balance flexibility with clear frameworks, robust Parliamentary oversight and public scrutiny for effective implementation.

By addressing these concerns, and ensuring clarity and transparency, we can strengthen the Enlistment Act and build a future-proof NS framework. This framework will not only safeguard our nation through military might, but also through the unity and unwavering spirit of every Singaporean.

Therefore, I urge the House to carefully consider these points as we move forward with this important Bill. Let us work together to ensure that our National Service system remains effective, inclusive and responsive to the evolving needs of our nation. I support the Bill.

Mr Speaker: Mr Vikram Nair.

1.15 pm

Mr Vikram Nair (Sembawang): Mr Speaker, I support this Bill. Most of the amendments are done to update the Bill and to take into account developments in technology and it is naturally sensible to include these developments.

One area I would like to focus on is clause 9, which amends section 30 of the Enlistment Act to allow service of notices by SMS, email and an electronic service platform, which I understand is the NS Portal. It says these modes of service may only be used with the enlistee's express consent.

I think the set-up of the section is sensible and, in principle, if an enlistee agrees to accept service by any of these methods, it would be efficient for both MINDEF and the enlistee to communicate in this way.

MINDEF's current practice, as confirmed by Senior Minister of State Heng Chee How, already involves the use of these methods, except that if there is no express acknowledgement of receipt by the NSman, MINDEF then follows up with the conventional notice by registered post. This is because under the current legislation, MINDEF cannot assume notice has been received simply by sending an email or SMS.

I think there is some benefit with MINDEF's current method of sending a follow-up in the event the enlistee does not acknowledge an SMS or email and my concern is that with the change in legislation, MINDEF may stop doing this because it can simply assume that enlistees have received notice of the call-up from the deemed notice.

In general, while an enlistee may give consent to receiving notice by SMS or email, sometimes, life events catch up and the SMS numbers or email addresses may change. This is especially so if the person gives his consent, say, at the end of NS, but then goes on to study or work. It is likely that phone numbers and email addresses may change over time and they may overlook updating MINDEF of it. This would mean it is possible for that person to get charged for not attending a call-up because under the amended legislation, he could be deemed to have received notice when the SMS or email is sent to his last contact number even though the person did not, in fact, get the call-up notice.

I acknowledge that it is an individual's responsibility to update MINDEF on his latest contact details and to check these, but any penalty for not updating contact details should not be at the severity of getting charged for failing to attend the call-up.

Additionally, there are increasingly sophisticated spam filters in many email accounts that may block system-generated emails like call-up notices. So, even if the details are up to date, the notices may get accidentally filtered out.

The current practice of following up with the registered post is helpful because MINDEF knows for sure whether or not the person has actually received the notice.

I note that Senior Minister of State Heng Chee How has given significant assurances on this that MINDEF will continue its practice of following up with the conventional notice in the event the electronic call-up notice is not acknowledged for any reason. This is good and, in my view, important. It means that notwithstanding the change in legislation, the useful practice will continue.

Mr Speaker: Senior Minister of State Heng Chee How.

1.18 pm

Mr Heng Chee How: Mr Speaker, I thank Members for their strong support for the Bill. They recognise the importance of keeping our NS and civil resources requisition systems effective and up-to-date. This is to protect our country.

I will now address their specific points.

First, on amendments to section 30 of the Enlistment Act on orders and notices, which is on the acknowledgement and consent safeguards.

On orders and notices issued as referenced at section 30 of the Enlistment Act, and in reply to Mr Don Wee and Mr Vikram Nair, I state once again very clearly that every effort will be made to ensure that orders and notices issued through electronic means reach their intended recipient. Furthermore, I want to again emphasise that should recipients fail to respond to these electronic orders and notices, then we will use other existing modes of service, such as through telephone calls as well as registered post in order to mail them the hard copy.

Indeed, the whole intent of these amendments is to modernise the Act so that it includes means of communication that is used by everybody every day. It is just keeping up with the times. It is not the intention of this amendment to take away any sense of being properly informed in time. Rather, it is to enhance the convenience accorded to our NSmen, in being properly informed though means that most are very comfortable with. And as I mentioned earlier, 75% of NSmen already are acknowledging these orders and notices by replying to the SMS. These percentages, we think, will go up and this just formalises the lived reality. And as Mr Vikram Nair mentioned, that is the practice now and it will continue.

The proposed legislation also requires consent to be given before orders and notices sent by electronic means can be presumed and deemed to have been received and read. Those who provide such consent can withdraw their consent at any time should they choose to do so.

Individuals will be able to provide or withdraw such consent whenever they transact with MINDEF and SAF, such as through the NS Portal when they register for NS or when applying for an Exit Permit. Individuals will also be given the option to withdraw their consent at any time via the NS Portal.

Next, on securing electronic communications against digital attacks and fraud. With regard to security against digital attacks, scams and fraud, certainly, these efforts and improvements on the part of MINDEF and the SAF, and the Home Team, will be an ongoing affair and it will just keep improving over time as technology improves and as we come to know of different developments on the part of the criminal fraternity and how we can be one step ahead of them.

Sir, as an example, we no longer send clickable links in SMS notifications from MINDEF, because we have come to know that some malicious actors can use these links in order to con people. This is an example where we also have to move with the times. So, it is not just by modernising the channels, but also by keeping in touch very much with how these channels are being used or indeed, being misused to harm and cheat people, and then, we can actually overcome that as time goes on. It will be ceaseless effort and we are committed to doing that.

We will also regularly conduct vulnerability assessments, penetration tests and audits on our IT systems, such as the NS Portal. These systems are also monitored 24/7 to quickly detect and neutralise any malicious activity.

Finally, we urge the public to promptly report any suspicious messages claiming to be from MINDEF or the SAF, or the Home Team. Individuals can also call or email the NS Call Centre to verify the authenticity of any SMS, email or message that they received purporting to be from MINDEF, SAF or the Home Team.

Next, accommodating future innovations in communications technology. Mr Yip Hon Weng also asked if the changes to section 30 of the Enlistment Act are sufficiently flexible to accommodate future innovations in communications technology. The answer is yes.

Should MINDEF begin utilising new technologies to issue orders or notices to individuals, then they would be covered in a newly proposed section 30(2)(n), or they can be prescribed by the Minister for Defence in subsidiary legislation under the new proposed section 30(2)(o).

Next, on amendments to section 32 of the Enlistment Act touching on Exit Permits. Mr Don Wee asked about the consequential amendment to section 52 of the Immigration Act and how immigration officers may determine if a person subject to the Enlistment Act has the required Exit Permit.

Actually, the immigration officer today, if he suspects anybody to not possess the right documents in order to enter or to exit Singapore, has already the powers to inquire. So, the amendment that we are proposing in this Bill is to make it clear because, just as we are making it clear who is liable for NS and to have an Exit Permit before leaving Singapore, we just want to make this consequential amendment in the Immigration Act.

If an immigration officer has reason to believe that the person requires an Exit Permit, for example if the person is a male citizen or Permanent Resident of NS-liable age and indicates that he is going to be overseas for a long time – for example, he is going to be overseas for a year – then the immigration officer may request to sight, to look at the person's Exit Permit or a relevant written exemption, in order to allow him to leave Singapore. This is for verification. It is not a new power, but this is just to make it very clear for all parties involved.

Next, on the administrative amendments, is a clarification on liability to serve full-time NS which is section 12 of the Enlistment Act.

In reply to Mr Yip Hon Weng, the amendments to section 12 do not impact the duration of full-time NS, which is maintained at two years for all NS-liable individuals regardless of rank. The amendments simply update the Enlistment Act to now include references to the SPF and SCDF, because NSFs are also sent over to the SPF and SCDF.

And for completeness in this revision exercise, we included the rank structures across the SPF and SCDF to correspond and commensurate with the equivalent in the SAF, for clarity again.

I note Mr Leong Mun Wai also spoke about this provision for a maximum duration of NS. I would like to address that point.

One of the things we often say about Singapore is that we have no natural resources. All we have is our people. That is always true. And at the same time, precisely because all we have is our people, then how we use their time is important and there must be a good purpose for asking our people to contribute their time to do things under the law as a requirement. And NS is an example of this.

The intent of that section to have been in the law in the first place is to define a maximum. By defining a maximum, what it does is this. It actually put it onto the Government to make sure that whatever you are doing, in order to require citizens to give off their time to defend this country, you work within this maximum period of up to two-and-a-half years. It does not say that you must use two-and-a-half years. And if through technology, better processes, productivity improvements, you can require less time from the people so that they can pursue other important priorities in their lives, then, you should do so. This was exactly why, as Mr Leong Mun Wai pointed out, in June 2004, the effective NS period was reduced from two-and-a-half years to two years, which is still the case today, notwithstanding that maximum.

The idea is very clear and by that very act of reducing it in 2004, the stance of the Government is also very clear, which is that we honour the sacrifice of our people in providing time to together defend this country. And we will not want to take any more time from them than what is necessary.

Senior Minister Teo Chee Hean at that time, the Defence Minister, had looked at the overall situation, the security situation, and determined that two years was appropriate. Mr Leong Mun Wai also asked whether or not this continual review of requirements will be something quite standard in the way in which MINDEF would look at the requirements of manpower, the answer will be yes.

We stand by this commitment to say that we thank our citizens for contributing their time to serve this country in NS. We commit to using their time the best way possible and not to require of them more than is necessary. And as part of this, we will constantly review requirements, processes, technologies, more productive methods.

Next, I move on to deletion of the Part-Time NS reference in section 14 of the Enlistment Act.

As for deleting the reference to Part-Time NS at section 14(1)(b)(ii) of the Enlistment Act, actually there are no practical consequences because the clause is obsolete. Why? Because Part-Time NS itself ceased in 1972. So, we are just taking out something that is obsolete.

Next, on self-employed NSmen and Make-Up Pay (MUP) under section 24 of the Enlistment Act, let me thank Mr Don Wee for his support for the amendment to section 24 of the Enlistment Act to explicitly allow for self-employed NSmen, just like employed NSmen, to claim remuneration for losses in their civilian income, or Make-Up Pay (MUP), when they attend Operationally Ready National Service (ORNS) activities.

For most self-employed NSmen, with their consent, the income data is retrieved from IRAS and their MUP is automatically re-calculated based on the average monthly trade income in their latest income Notice of Assessment. Self-employed NSmen can also choose to submit supporting documents to appeal for a different MUP amount, because of their individual circumstances, if they believe that the amount automatically calculated for them is incorrect or not fair to them. They can submit their documents and then, each case will be carefully looked into. We want to ensure fairness.

Next, on voluntary service in Part 6 of the Enlistment Act.

Mr Yip Hon Weng asked about the amendments to Part 6 of the Enlistment Act, where references to voluntary service in the People's Defence Force of the SAF and the Special Constabulary of the SPF are being removed. The proposed amendments are administrative. There will be no change to the current statutory protections that are already accorded to these voluntary services under the respective Acts, such as the SAF Act, the Police Force Act and Civil Defence Act.

For SAF volunteers, we are removing mention of the People's Defence Force because it is also obsolete.

For SPF and SCDF volunteer ex-NSmen, section 68A of the Police Force Act and section 9A of the Civil Defence Act already accord them the same protections as Part 6 of the Enlistment Act. So, there is a duplication and, as a result, we are just taking out the duplication and having that deleted.

Once again, at this point, I just want to reiterate on behalf of MINDEF, SAF as well as the Home Team our heartfelt thanks to all our NS officers, NSFs, NSmen, through all these generations, our volunteers, for their selfless contributions, for their devotion to the defence of this country. Their efforts are invaluable in continuing to build a strong SAF, SPF and SCDF so that, together, we can protect Singapore against threats and stand ready in all kinds of crisis scenarios.

Next, on the Minister's regulation-making powers under section 37 of the Enlistment Act.

Mr Yip Hon Weng asked about the amendments to section 37 of the Enlistment Act, as well as to clarify the Minister's powers to make regulations under the Enlistment Act and how we would guard against the potential misuse of such powers. He says not to have the power to regulate in a vacuum. Indeed, it will not be acting in a vacuum. The amendment to section 37 of the Enlistment Act simply clarifies the language that any reference to the term "prescribe" in the Act means that it can be prescribed via the Regulations made by the Minister for Defence. This is already the case actually. The Minister for Defence has the power to make the Regulations. So, this clarifies the language of what is the meaning of "prescribe".

As Members know, the Regulations are subsidiary legislation and subsidiary legislation must conform to and cannot fall outside of the scope of the overriding primary legislation, and the Enlistment Act is the primary legislation in this case. So, when you make Regulations pursuant to this Act, it must keep within the scope of the mother Act. And all amendments at the Act level will need to go through the relevant parliamentary processes, where they will be subject to parliamentary oversight and public scrutiny. And even when amendments to Regulations are made, then they will also be published in the Government Gazette. Therefore, it is fully transparent to the public. And where there are queries, again, this can be debated.

Mr Speaker, in closing, I would like to conclude by thanking the Members who have spoken and all Members of this House once again for their support of the Bill. The Enlistment Act and the Requisition of Resources Act have served Singapore well. The proposed amendments will ensure that our NS and civil resources requisition systems keep up with the times and remain effective and up-to-date. Mr Speaker, I beg to move.

Mr Speaker: Are there any Members who have clarifications for the Minister? I do not see any.

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 Heng Chee How.]

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

Mr Speaker: Our Sitting today is very efficient. Deputy Prime Minister and Minister for Finance is due to give his Budget Statement at 3.30 pm. So, we do have some time and we will all have a longer break.

Order. I propose to take a break now. I suspend the Sitting and I will take the Chair at 3.30 pm.

Sitting accordingly suspended

at 1.36 pm until 3.30 pm.

Sitting resumed at 3.30 pm.

[Mr Speaker in the Chair]