Melvyn Tan Should Not Be Punished
-
Its simply unfair to even fine him.
He is already a British citizen. Why shld he be liable for NS? -
Do you guys know something? Singapore has trapped its males with the clause requiring them to bear arms before they are old enough to vote. If a person is old enough to be conscripted, he ought to be given the right to vote at the same time.
Imagine what would happen if we decided to abort male fetuses en masse one day. One batch of conscripts gone just like that.
-
So I sense another Melvyn in the makingOriginally posted by Salman:Its simply unfair to even fine him.
He is already a British citizen. Why shld he be liable for NS?
-
So now he's a foreign talent and not a local talent? Is he a quitter or a go-getter? Jeez, we're having a tough time putting labels on people aren't we?
-
he is none of the above. he is a faggot.Originally posted by Rexdriver:So now he's a foreign talent and not a local talent? Is he a quitter or a go-getter? Jeez, we're having a tough time putting labels on people aren't we? -
He needs to be punished, although not severely enough.
However, the opposition to Mervyn Tan has been successful in that he has been driven out. Now the government must change the law to ensure mandatory custodial sentences on NS dodgers. -
i have a cousin who evaded NS. now in Muar, Johor. but he cant play the piano. so he wont be coming back to SG at all, i guess.
-
It is a fundamental principle in our nation building that male upon attaining the age of 18 must serve NS even if he is the sire of a minister or pm. So any attempt to relax on this fundamental tenet will only undermine the existence of our nation.Originally posted by oxford mushroom:He needs to be punished, although not severely enough.
However, the opposition to Mervyn Tan has been successful in that he has been driven out. Now the government must change the law to ensure mandatory custodial sentences on NS dodgers.
Minister Teo Chee Hian must have realized that there has been a compromise in the instance of Mervyn and has intended to amend the law to toughen the punishment. When a government needs to be tough it should be tough especially when there is a perception that the elites are getting away from NS the easy eay.
When there is no need to be so tough, then try not to be so tough like suing people for some slightest innuendos spoken in the course of election. -
For once I fully agree with Salman
-
Actually, it is nothing to do with piano playing. Its just not right to punish him because he gave up his citizenship long ago.Originally posted by sinicker:i have a cousin who evaded NS. now in Muar, Johor. but he cant play the piano. so he wont be coming back to SG at all, i guess.
I believe the law is fair. If your cousin left Singapore at 12 years old like Melvyn, he may not be guilty at all. -
well in the first place is that $5k fine really much of a punishment?
That is spare change to him.
Also i believe when he left singpapore,he left at an age when he was already liable for NS (Giving up his citizenship does not = totally no NS already)If i am not wrong,the age when you give up your citizenship and is not liable for NS is different from the age when you left the country,then renounce your citizenship but is still liable for NS. -
If he is not guilty at all then why was he fined him $3,000 by your beloved govt?
Our sneaky Singapore constitution forbids male Singaporeans from renouncing their citizenship until they turn 21. Effectively this imposes the NS obligation on all of them, since enlistment is at age 18. Furthermore, Article 128 of the Singapore Constitution says that the government can disallow you from renouncing your citizenship unless you've finished your NS.
In other words, if you happen to born a male Singaporean, the laws effectively impose an NS obligation even if you had left Singapore at the age of 1 month. And if you do not then fulfill your NS obligation, then like Melvyn you become a criminal by default. -
Good advice for future parents.GIve birth abroad, and do not notify the embassy of your child's birth.When they reach 21, let him decide if he wants to claim nationality.Originally posted by lotus999:If he is not guilty at all then why was he fined him $3,000 by your beloved govt?
Our sneaky Singapore constitution forbids male Singaporeans from renouncing their citizenship until they turn 21. Effectively this imposes the NS obligation on all of them, since enlistment is at age 18. Furthermore, Article 128 of the Singapore Constitution says that the government can disallow you from renouncing your citizenship unless you've finished your NS.
In other words, if you happen to born a male Singaporean, the laws effectively impose an NS obligation even if you had left Singapore at the age of 1 month. And if you do not then fulfill your NS obligation, then like Melvyn you become a criminal by default. -
Thats the problem, he was not allowed to renounce his citizenship even when he left Singapore long time ago and took up British citizenship.
Its the law that is not right, so they fined him only $5000. -
There's no absolute right or wrong to this issue. In the shoes of Melvyn, it's his dream to purpuse a goal or interest in his life to play music, which he has the tremedous talents for development at the time when he was called up for his NS. If he were to give up that dream of his and continue to serve the nation, he may not become wat he is now.
On the other hand, looking at hoslistic view, our country is bigger role to us to perform; every guy or man to be have to serve NS once in a life time at least, no doubt, it was wrong for him to avoide his duties for Singapore, but let's give a few cents worth for his courage to face his charge, other than we know one of his reason for his return is to see his old aged parents.
As we know Singapore has been importing many foreign talents, i do feel proud when we, as Singapoeans have developed our own local talents that is well known abroad. -
true.
maybe we should take salman's advice. how about a petition to ask the govt to give mervyn a credit note of $5000 plus interest?
-
For once, I agree with you.Originally posted by Salman:Thats the problem, he was not allowed to renounce his citizenship even when he left Singapore long time ago and took up British citizenship.
Its the law that is not right, so they fined him only $5000.
If he was allowed and he did not, then a offence was committed.The law looks like it was designed to hinder the individual's right to renounce his citizenship and migrate smoothlessly.
I call that subtle entrapment.
It's not an issue of patriotism, it's an issue of being free to choose your nation. -
we should also not restrict a person's right to migrate, in the legal wording of the Act.Originally posted by babymac13:There's no absolute right or wrong to this issue. In the shoes of Melvyn, it's his dream to purpuse a goal or interest in his life to play music, which he has the tremedous talents for development at the time when he was called up for his NS. If he were to give up that dream of his and continue to serve the nation, he may not become wat he is now.
On the other hand, looking at hoslistic view, our country is bigger role to us to perform; every guy or man to be have to serve NS once in a life time at least, no doubt, it was wrong for him to avoide his duties for Singapore, but let's give a few cents worth for his courage to face his charge, other than we know one of his reason for his return is to see his old aged parents.
As we know Singapore has been importing many foreign talents, i do feel proud when we, as Singapoeans have developed our own local talents that is well known abroad.
21 means that you have to serve if you want to renounce..what if you are a 3 yr old kid taken overseas?And you remain there all your life and you discover to your anger that when you come to Singapore for some business trip at the age of 30, then arrested by the police of a nation you never lived in nor had any business with 20 years ago, because your parents could not renounce your citizenship before you turned 21 even though the whole family has already migrated over and left Singapore behind.
If you can say this is fair, then I'm utterly speechless. -
who dares to says one cannot be a world renowned pianist after serving NS?
Jack Neo served his NS, JJ Lin served his NS, Sim Wong Hoo served his NS. -
meOriginally posted by Gordonator:who dares to says one cannot be a world renowned pianist after serving NS?
They are not world renowned pianistOriginally posted by Gordonator:Jack Neo served his NS, JJ Lin served his NS, Sim Wong Hoo served his NS. -
I nv say anything about migration neither about fairness, but i'm trying to give 2 perspective, one from purporters of Melvyn as well as the anti-supporters of Melvyn's action.Originally posted by LazerLordz:we should also not restrict a person's right to migrate, in the legal wording of the Act.
21 means that you have to serve if you want to renounce..what if you are a 3 yr old kid taken overseas?And you remain there all your life and you discover to your anger that when you come to Singapore for some business trip at the age of 30, then arrested by the police of a nation you never lived in nor had any business with 20 years ago, because your parents could not renounce your citizenship before you turned 21 even though the whole family has already migrated over and left Singapore behind.
If you can say this is fair, then I'm utterly speechless.
In sumarisation, one's dream can only happen once, but it will not come back after u miss it. Such saying After this town, there's no more this hut.
Of cos, Country come before anything else. He admit his mistakes and shld be given some credit to him to accept his punishment regardless the sentence issue. -
Might have gotten too carried away..sorry.Originally posted by babymac13:I nv say anything about migration neither about fairness, but i'm trying to give 2 perspective, one from purporters of Melvyn as well as the anti-supporters of Melvyn's action.
In sumarisation, one's dream can only happen once, but it will not come back after u miss it. Such saying After this town, there's no more this hut.
Of cos, Country come before anything else. He admit his mistakes and shld be given some credit to him to accept his punishment regardless the sentence issue.
Well, right points you have there.
I think we should all move on too.. -
I think it is not the case of support or against Melvyn and certainly not the case of one's right to migrate.
For his case, up to his last and final call-up for NS, he was still a Singaporean and was served with the enlistment notice. Therefore, the conscription law applied to him there and then. But he choosen to ignore the call up. He broke the law- simple and clear cut.
A simple anology would be: A boy committed a crime and left the country before caught, came back many years later and was brought before the law. Simple and clear cut as this.
As for a child of 3 years old leaving Singapore, when he reaches a certain age, the govt will contact the parents for a security deposit and notification of the boy's NS liability upon reaching 18 (if he is still abroad). I believe there will be steps for Mindef to undertake if the parent or the child fails to response (like writing to them with first, second warnings etc). So it would not be the case where the child comes back 30 years later and being unaware that he broke the law.
It is also not the case where the govt wants to trap us and prevent us from migrating. I believe we are all free to migrate if we really want to migrate. No govt can stop us or scare us. To do so would not be the right style of any credible govt.
For Melvyn case, there are, indeed, many grey areas. The fine seems symbolic more than punitive. Even though the law seems more symbolic than punitive, it is signalling that this is not a loophole for people to exploit. I think the law is signalling that NS liability is important (even for Melvyn case, 30 years have lapsed).
When the govt reviews the law because of Melvyn case, what the govt is trying to do is to make the NS law more water-tight than it's existing.
Imagine, if the govt gives back Melvyn the $3000, says sorry because he is now a British citizen and he may go free. Will you see many rich Singaporeans rushing to exploit this loophole for their own benefit?
For all of you here who have served NS. Imagine, if the more our govt gives in to people like Melvyn, the more loopholes there will be for NS laibility. Those can run away- run, those can't run away- serve. Will you not be complaining then? Will you also not be demoralised and finding ways to escape?
I am not work for the govt or speaking for them. -
Unfair comparisms.Originally posted by Gordonator:who dares to says one cannot be a world renowned pianist after serving NS?
Jack Neo served his NS, JJ Lin served his NS, Sim Wong Hoo served his NS.
anyways how long do u all want to drag this issue on? Forgive and forget. -
Well, if they intend to migrate and give up citizenship, of course they won't come back what.Originally posted by pat33:I think it is not the case of support or against Melvyn and certainly not the case of one's right to migrate.
For his case, up to his last and final call up for NS, he was still a Singaporean and was served with the enlistment notice. Therefore, the conscription law applied to him there and then but he choosen to ignore the call up. He broke the law- simple and clear cut.
A simple anology would be: A boy committed a crime and left the country before caught, came back many years later and was brought before the law. Simple and clear cut as this.
As for a child of 3 years old leaving Singapore, when he reaches a certain age, the govt will contact the parent for security deposit and notification of NS liability upon the boy reaching 18 (if he is still abroad). I believe there will be steps for Mindef to undertake if the parent or the child fails to response (like writing to them with first, second warnings etc) So it would not be the case where the child comes back 30 years later and being unaware that he broke the law.
So isn't this the same as holding the kid hostage?By not letting him renounce his citizenship?If Melvyn Tan had been allowed to renounce his citizenship at anytime ,this hoo-ha would not have happened.If someone chooses to leave, who are we to stop him?