MAIN AND DEVELOPMENT ESTIMATES OF SINGAPORE FOR THE - FINANCIAL YEAR 1ST APRIL, 1989 TO 31ST MARCH, 1990
The allowance was last revised in 1983. Before that it was about $90 a month. It is an allowance, not a salary. It is deliberately an allowance because if we have to pay national servicemen the economic opportunity cost of diverting them from the economy, the cash outlay for the Government will be very large. It will mean either taking money out of the 6% defence budget, out of training and equipment and ammunition, to put to salaries, or upping the defence budget from 6% maybe to 6(r)%. We cannot have it all ways - cut the defence budget, up salaries, and still have a better army. Of course, we watch the cost of living to make sure that there is no undue hardship on the soldiers. Inflation has been very low. The consumer price index has gone up by only 5% since 1983. Actually National Servicemen do not have to buy all of the things in the consumer price index. Food and accommodation are all provided for them. So MINDEF has an index which calculates just the basic items - lunch snack, bus concession stamps, and miscellaneous laundries and toiletries. I do not notice a dating allowance, but I will ask my officials to look it. Based on these essentials, allowance, basic items, overall the increase - the effect of inflation has been over - all these years is 5-6%. So we are not very far off. We do review the figures regularly, every year, in fact. Last year we reviewed it and we decided that the correction was small and we could delay it. This year, Mindef will review it again. If necessary we will make some adjustment. Although when we last revised the allowance, we deliberately made some over-correction so as to accommodate possible future inflation, it may be that some correction will be made this year. Let me take the other lesser items first before addressing the main subject of the Member for Cheng San GRC. Reservists, raised by Dr John Chen. Yes, it is important for employers to be supportive. Indeed, we can never do enough and more has to be done. The Government recognizes what a substantial inconvenience and sacrifice it is for somebody to remain a reservist for 13 years of his life. At the age of 18, doing full time NS for two years, he just cuts that out as one clean block. He is young, he is fit, he has no other commitments, he has not got kids or a wife yet, and he can put whole heart and soul to it. Five years later, he might be married. Ten years later, he has kids, he has got a job, he might be lecturing in the university or working in a factory. To pull out two to three weeks a year or a few days at a time many times a year, is not easy. It requires forbearance on the part of his employer, a supportive family, and Mindef to give as much notice as possible of its plans and intentions so that you do not get presented an overnight notice, except in extremis. We have tried our best to be accommodating. We set up ACCORD, a committee between Mindef and civilian organizations, to get some feedback on how to manage reservists and on our overall SAF PR posture. We can consider the suggestions which the Member has made, and we will implement them in due course. Secondly, women. The Member for Aljunied GRC has suggested that we call up women as a solution for our lack of national servicemen. It is a solution, but I think it is a last resort solution, because the cost is high. We can give them an allowance, like the men, but the cost to the economy of bringing in another, I suppose, 15,000-18,000 people a year is that number of people taken out of the workforce. If we assume that the person works for 40 years of his life and spend two years in Mindef is 5% of the workforce eaten up. We are very, very reluctant to do it because we would first prefer to make maximum use of the national servicemen whom we have, cut out the non-essentials, hive-off the parts which can be done by civilians; make our combat units trim, substitute fire power for soldiers. Only after we have done all that and still cannot cope, then we can consider women. Bringing women into the Army is quite different from bringing women in just to do some general purpose national service, be it nursing, teaching, or some other community work. If we bring women into the Army, it must be for a specific purpose. They must have a role. They cannot be standing around, waiting to be given instructions. They have to be trained for something. I can tell you quite frankly what the problem is. In peace-time they can be trained to do a lot of things; but many of these are jobs which in wartime we would not want to see any girls in. Because of these difficulties, very few countries have implemented national service for women. Only Israel. Partly out of desperation, but mostly for historical reasons. They did it from the beginning. But today they issue exemptions for women from doing national service as liberally as they possibly can, on the slightest excuse, because they have so many women that they do not know what to do with them. We do not want to be in that situation. We can avoid it by being selective, but that creates another problem. If we are selective, do you choose at random? Or do we choose the person who did best in school and is going to university, and is therefore going to incur the highest opportunity cost? And then, having taken in the best of the girls, do you then use them as clerks and storemen? How do we employ them to maximum advantage? I am not saying we will never do it, but it is a complicated matter. Let us take some years to think it over. Dr Ong asked about contract servicemen and pensionable servicemen and service status, and why we are strict about it. I do not have the precise data with me, but this is Mindef's general thinking. The SAF is an organization of young people, young soldiers. It also needs young officers. This must be. We can choose to be either a young army or an old army. In young army, people work, act, fight much more quickly; then, come the age of 40 or 45, they go on to other careers elsewhere. Or we can be an old army, in which case we have lots of very experienced people, but the cadence is quite different. Dr Ong has seen the SAF, and he has seen many others I am sure he knows that there is a difference between a young and an old army. The SAF wants to be a young one. That means we must make sure that people who are in the structure are in their prime, able to contribute their best. There is no sadder sight on earth than a commando who has passed his prime - hunched, pot-bellied, tired, no longer able to jump out of an aeroplane, but still wearing a red beret and a chestful of badges. It does not do us credit. So when we keep people in the Armed Forces, we must be sure that they have a role for as long as they are there. If they want to stay on for the entire career, until they are 55 or 60, or whatever the retirement age, not everybody can easily be fitted into the Armed Forces. Some can, because after they have finished being a commando trooper, they can be a section leader or platoon leader, and later on they can become a trainer or a parachutes jump instructor. I know some are aged well into their 40s, who can outrun many 18 year old national servicemen. But not all are like that. What do we do with those who are not? The answer is: when we bring people in, we bring them in on a contract: six years. You are young, the SAF is new to you, let's try each other out. After six years, we assess you. If we decided that you have the potential and you can fit into the SAF for the next 20 years of your life, for the rest of your career, then we offer you pensionable service. If not, we can offer you another six-year term. If when we offer you pensionable service, you cannot fit in for the rest of your career, and we may be doing you a disservice. You may be happy now. Later you will still be happy, but the SAF will no longer be happy and will stop promoting you. Later still, you will become unhappy because you are no longer getting promoted. And then we will part as enemies when we should have parted us friends. So when we offer pensionable service, we must be quite sure that the person has a place in the SAF for a long period of time. Therefore, we are stringent. One term, six years; two terms, another six years; if need be, another three-year term, if I remember my facts correctly. And any time during those three years, if you find another job, we will let you go. So that gives you some buffer period in which to make the transition to a fresh career. That is our philosophy. It is a hard one, but I think it is a better philosophy for keeping the organization young and trim, and combat-fit. Now, SAF scholars. This is one of the major strengths of the SAF. Although we have no martial tradition, and built up from scratch, we have infused into the organization talent, ability, dedication, built the team, as Dr Ong said just now, and generated a force which is formidable and commands respect. It did not start off like this. It started off with an SAF which was expanding rapidly from two battalions to three divisions, and Air Force, and a Navy. Resources were being poured in, and it was bursting at its seams and, quite frankly, having great difficulty managing, directing and marshalling all the new and unfamiliar activities. It is not just money, it is brain brain power. We knew this. Or rather Dr Goh Keng Swee, then the Defence Minister, knew this. We needed to harness the same vitality which SIA, EDB, and the economy benefited from, for the purposes of the SAF. Therefore, in 1971, we introduced the SAF Scholarship Scheme to plan, direct, and lead the growth of a key national institution. The Scheme has been a success, beyond all expectations. We have had 131 SAF scholars over the years. I have not calculated the cost but it is negligible. After the SAF Scholarship Scheme was introduced, we brought in other training awards to attract a wider group of good officers into the SAF. The contributions of these officers have transformed the SAF beyond recognition. If we had not done it, we would not have this SAF today, and we would not have the peace and tranquillity today, and we would not have some MPs say the SAF is too strong, let's have a smaller one. At the same time, from the individual's point of view, the SAF scholars have been given very heavy responsibilities at a very young age. We worry for them, and for the organization. Lieutenant-Colonels before the age of 30, Chiefs-of-Staff in their early 30s. We want to be young, but we were pushing the limits. Scholars moved into demanding jobs, much faster than in most other more mature organizations. For many, these jobs have been as heavy as they have been able to bear. For a few, heavier than they were able to take. So we have had to move them. But, overall, the organization has benefitted, and the officers have received an unparalleled exposure and challenge. It is now 18 since the first scholarship. Those students who will be awarded SAF scholarships this year might not have been born in 1971 when I and the first batch SAF Scholars went in. As the Members have pointed out, scholars have reached their mid-30s. This is a major transition point in their careers. We should take stock of what has happened and what we need to do. Let me put this, first, from the Government's perspective, then from the Mindef's perspective and then tell you specifically some of the things we intend to do. From the Government's perspective, top talent is a national resource, which must be properly managed. Dr Hu said this two weeks ago in his Budget speech. We must be able to deploy them anywhere we need them in the public sector, or even in the private sector, and not just within the narrow confines of the service which they belong to. The public sector contains jobs which are as challenging and as important as any you will find in the private sector. Top civil servants carry heavier responsiblities than any private sector executives. The Permanent Secretary of Mindef has a heavier load than any CEO of any private company. Mindef's turnover may only be $2 billion a year. There could be banks and other firms with bigger turnover. But the scope of responsibility, from manpower, to diplomacy, to intelligence, to operations, to overseeing the Armed Forces, to managing the technical arms is such that I do not think at any one time the Civil Service will ever have more than perhaps two (or three, if you are very lucky) potential permanent secretaries of defence of doing the whole job. Therefore, top civil servants have to be of equal calibre, if not more capable, than top bankers, lawyers, and industrialists, and must be properly paid. I say this as a starting point. Some people have asked me why we have so much talent in the public sector, and whether it is not better to have fewer, because we are hoarding the talent that the private sector does not have. My answer to them is always: do you prefer the Permanent Secretary to be more intelligent than the businessman, or the businessman to be running circles around the Permanent Secretary? I have no doubt which I prefer. The most able must be in the centre, holding the reins, and enabling the rest to do their own responsibilities, and to prosper. Mindef, and especially the SAF, has a disproportionate share of our national talent. We have gathered this share together, deliberately, because of our heavy emphasis on national defence. 131 scholars in the SAF,almost all of whom are still there, is probably as many as have gone into the Admin Service over the same period. The SAF offers highly attractive scholarships and training awards, and we have promoted and rewarded our officers well. We will continue to give the SAF a high national priority. But at the same time, we would also like to make use of some of this SAF talent elsewhere in the Civil Service. We will have to find ways to do this compatible with SAF needs. You cannot just denude and strip the outfit. But if a student knows that when he takes an SAF scholarship, he does not just go into one pyramid, but that pyramid, the SAF, is only the first stepping stone, and beyond that, the whole public sector is open to him, then, more will come into the SAF on scholarships and at the same we will have a better distribution of talent. That is the national perspective. From Mindef's point of view, SAF officers should be developed to their ultimate potential, unconstrained by the military hierarchy. Our top military job, the Chief of General Staff, is a three-star post, presently in Superscale Grade C1. Many ambitious and able young men may look at that and they say, "It is not high enough for me. I want to go much beyond that." We recognize that. We should not constrain them all to compete for this one job. They should be able to aspire to many jobs in the civil service. We will always treat SAF scholars as one of our most critical defence resources. We will continue to make sure that they are properly managed, groomed, posted, developed, and rewarded. Because of the additional burdens of military service, Mindef will continue to pay a premium to keep good officers in the SAF. The principle of paying the market rate will apply also to the SAF. Uniforms are onerous. The calls of duty are heavier. There is no overtime pay, but a lot of overtime work. We will make it worth people's while to come in and serve. We will ensure that SAF officers as a group are paid more than their contemporaries, both in the civil service and elsewhere. If that is what it takes to keep them because of the additional demands of the job, that is what we will do. Mindef also recognizes that challenging as SAF jobs are, many scholars would like to move on to other fields by their mid late 30s, after spending 12-18 years in the SAF. This is consistent, with the idea of the SAF being a young organization, and many people going on beyond that to another career. For officers who want to spend part of their careers outside the SAF, the Government will try to fit them into suitable jobs in the public sector, including the statutory boards. For several years we have had a Dual Career Scheme in which the SAF scholars can be taken into the Administrative Service, and be posted into other Ministries. Quite a number of people have done so. But we will go further to facilitate this shift. However, we do not want everybody to leave. Mindef hopes that some will stay on beyond their mid-30s, and find satisfaction in a lifetime career with the SAF. We will look after them, develop their careers, just in the same way as we will groom any other good officers who stay with us. The SAF is more than big enough to keep them busy. And very likely from among them, we will find suitable people who will man the very highest post in the SAF, namely, the service commanders, the CGS. Using this approach, here is what we will do. When civil service salaries are revised (I will be making the announcement on Friday), the SAF salaries will be revised in step. We will maintain our relative position and stay ahead. Promotions in the SAF depend on what we call the CEP, Currently Estimated Potential. That is the consensus judgment of the organization of how high an officer is likely to rise. While the SAF is more stable now, we do not intend to slow down promotions. In fact, we will promote a person to his CEP rank by the age of 40 or so. Those with the potential to be generals, will be at least Brigadier-General (BG) by then. At the same time, for the higher ranks, we will create more salary grades within each rank, to give flexibility in rewarding officers. Let me explain this. We have two ways in which to reward officers. Either high pay and low rank, or high rank and low pay. The result is the same. I can promote you and put more brass on your shoulder, or I can just give you the salary and keep the brass lighter. Singapore Army brass is very light. The British army has a star grade officer for every 600 or 700 soldiers. In the SAF, with about 100,000 troops, active and reserve, we should have about 130 generals. They may become cheap. Furthermore, in terms of our defence posture, it is better for us to keep a relatively low profile. Everybody knows that a Colonel in the SAF, that is something special. And if you are BG, something special-plus, I hope. Therefore, we should keep the rank structure more or less as it is, but create more salary grades within each rank. To reward them, we can raise their salaries, but we still call them Colonels or Brigadier Generals. The SAF offers post-graduate courses for officers who want to spend a year or two in mid-career on post-graduate programmes, whether it is a MPA course, MBA course or some other professional course. We have been generous in sending officers on scholarship. We will send more officers, around the eighth year of service, to prepare them for the next phase of their careers. The eighth year of service is about when their first bonds run, out and they are ready to start on a new bond. It is a convenient mid- point, because beyond that they are going into Staff jobs. They can benefit from courses and wider exposure. Scholarships are one area where the SAF can be very competitive with other employers. We will send an officer provided he is fit to go, in terms of both military competence and academic performance, and then comes back to serve in the SAF. Lastly, secondments. The SAF is just one part of the public sector. In principle, we are willing to second SAF officers out to other Government departments and statutory boards, not early in their career, but in their 30s. They can go out for a 2-year tour at a time, try out a non-military environment, develop different management and administrative skills, and then in due course decide whether they wish to stay in the SAF, work in the public service somewhere else, or make a clean break and leave for the private sector altogether. It is better that we allow all these channels, than for us to try to bottle them all up and keep people inside. The strength of the SAF depends as much on this core of talent as on F-16s and missile corvettes. It is absolutely necessary for the SAF to continue to induct four to six SAF scholars a year, and more in good years. At the same time, we will make a larger number of other scholarships and training awards. Of course, the cost to the economy of holding such a large proportion of talent in the SAF is not negligible. But unless we make this sacrifice, all our other achievements will be imperilled.