NS Draft Laws revised...
-
Exit permit rule to apply from age 13 under new Bill
$2,000 fine proposed if boys go abroad for more than three months without permit
By Ken Kwek
Feb 14, 2006
The Straits Times
SINGAPOREAN boys and permanent residents aged 13 and older will need an exit permit if they travel abroad for more than three months.
This lowering of the age limit for the permit was proposed in Parliament yesterday.
Currently, only those who are older than 16 1/2 need to get the exit permit from the Ministry of Defence (Mindef) when they want to go abroad beyond three months.
This change is one of two key changes in the Enlistment Act put before Parliament. The other is to double the maximum fine to $10,000 for those who dodge the draft, an increase prompted by the Melvyn Tan episode.
Dr Teo Ho Pin, a member of the Government Parliamentary Committee (GPC) for Defence and Foreign Affairs, sees the exit permit change mainly as a reminder to those going for overseas study.
'It's to remind them that they have a duty to return to do national service,' Dr Teo, who is an MP for Holland-Bukit Panjang GRC, said last night.
So, families with young sons going on holidays abroad during a long weekend or the school holidays are not going to be affected by the change.
But those going abroad, say, on a student exchange programme that extends beyond three months or to study at a foreign institution will need to apply for an exit permit.
It can be done in person at Mindef's Central Manpower Base or on the Internet.
Those who fail to do so face a fine of up to $2,000. The same maximum fine will be imposed when the child remains outside Singapore for a period longer than that stated on the exit permit.
Each of the child's parents or legal guardians could also be fined up to $2,000.
Mr Sin Boon Ann, also a member of the GPC for Defence and Foreign Affairs, said the changes are 'timely and necessary'.
Said Mr Sin, an MP for Tampines GRC, last night: 'The Melvyn Tan episode highlighted the need to reinforce how seriously we regard national service.'
The Singapore-born pianist, now 49 and a British citizen, sparked a public outcry when he got a $3,000 fine last year for skipping national service.
He left Singapore to study music in Britain and did not return home for national service in 1977.
Last month, Defence Minister Teo Chee Hean told Parliament that stiffer punishments would be proposed against draft dodgers, including pressing for a jail term that is provided for under current legislation.
In explaining the new position, Mr Teo said the increased penalties are to send a strong signal that national service is critical to Singapore's survival.
About 700,000 Singapore men had served or are serving national service.
One of them is writer Ng Yi-Sheng, 25. He feels the changes are an overreaction.
'Increasing the punishment for draft-dodgers would make NS seem even more of a forced obligation,' he said.
However, Mr Kevin Loh, 29, who owns a cleaning company, disagrees. He favours the changes.
'National service is a key institution, and while those who are willing to serve have nothing to fear, it will be good to have a stronger deterrent for those who might want to escape their duty,' he said.
http://www.asiaone.com/st/st_20060214_371117.html -
They can do anything to net the draft dodgers, but it still makes no sense to me that those old enough to bear arms aren't considered old enough to vote.
-
the government can put up all the barriers they want, but if somebody is going to skip their NS liability no exit permit bullshit is going to stop them. the minister should come up with more concrete and credible ideas. taxpayers got to have their moneys worth for his $million salary.
-
As you say if ppl want to skip nothing will stop them, so what concrete and credible idea can you suggest? death penalty to those who dodge ns? or round up all the males when they are 13 or 14 years old and send them to some Pre-NS detention camp till they finish their NS?Originally posted by tohyi:the government can put up all the barriers they want, but if somebody is going to skip their NS liability no exit permit bullshit is going to stop them. the minister should come up with more concrete and credible ideas. taxpayers got to have their moneys worth for his $million salary.
We can only hope stiffer penalty will deter those who plan to dodge NS, but we cannot stop them unless we implement something extreme and if that happen i'm sure there will be even more ppl calling the goverment despotic undemocractic and whatever come to their mind. -
educate recruits on the real need for the national service policy. i dont recall anybody telling me why i had to sserve my national service. it was never discusssed in schools or even on the first day of enlistment. it was like some sort of a blind routine every guy had to follow. no double standards for white horses. it only creates contemp among parents and recruits. yes there were white horses issues back even 5-8 years ago. reduce the national service further to 1.5 years so that guys could get into the competetive job market lot more faster instead of having the current time wasting 2 years. thats more credible than silly exit permits for 13 year olds.Originally posted by strikefreedom:As you say if ppl want to skip nothing will stop them, so what concrete and credible idea can you suggest? death penalty to those who dodge ns? or round up all the males when they are 13 or 14 years old and send them to some Pre-NS detention camp till they finish their NS?
We can only hope stiffer penalty will deter those who plan to dodge NS, but we cannot stop them unless we implement something extreme and if that happen i'm sure there will be even more ppl calling the goverment despotic undemocractic and whatever come to their mind. -
You can educate but that doesn't mean ppl will listen. Just like we are taught commiting a crime is bad but how come ppl still commit? Anyone that have a slight history knowledge will understand why there a need to be able to defend the country on our own, don't tell me you don't understand that when you know what happen during Jap occupation in Singapore. Also some or most ppl heard of the word NS they will associate it as wah tough man or i am going to suffer. So even if they know or understand, some may still try to find a way to dodge it.Originally posted by tohyi:educate recruits on the real need for the national service policy. i dont recall anybody telling me why i had to sserve my national service. it was never discusssed in schools or even on the first day of enlistment. it was like some sort of a blind routine every guy had to follow. no double standards for white horses. it only creates contemp among parents and recruits. yes there were white horses issues back even 5-8 years ago. reduce the national service further to 1.5 years so that guys could get into the competetive job market lot more faster instead of having the current time wasting 2 years. thats more credible than silly exit permits for 13 year olds.
White horse black horse why should we give a damn? We serve not for the country but for the protection of our love one. If they want an easy way out that their problem. Keep comparing with one another lead to nothing but more unhappiness.
It already reduce to 2 years and if we reduce to 1.5 years, it not only going to be rush, it may not even be enough to train them up properly. Not sure if you have gone through, but for me i serve 2.5 years and i think 2 years is the bare minimun for us to gel up and learn what we are suppose to learn. By reducing further, it only reduce the capability of our fighting ability.
No doubt we lose out in competitiveness in the job market, but this can't be help nor compromise unless we are prepare to suffer any consequences if we get invaded. -
This looks like a "Soviet" way to control people which is a tremendous shame.
The age 13 is too young for a boy to choose whether he wants to make Singapore is home (he just completed PSLE for goodness sake!). This new law is like FORCING people to do NS.
This is alright if he is born in Singapore, what about those born in other countries then acquired Singapore Citizenship due to descent? The government knows that if they choose to leave, then they will lose their Singapore Citizenship by the age of 21 without the need to serve NS. This suggests that they are forcing people in this category to serve even though if they DO NOT WANT to make Singapore his home.
Very very shameful for a country that preaches democracy and stuff. -
"Be wary of the man who urges an action in which he himself incurs no risk."
quoted by Roman philosopher -
People like Melvin Tan left at such a young age because their parents encouraged or made the decision for them. We cannot have parents encouraging their children to give up Singapore citizenship to dodge NS and then return home to earn big bucks later. These parents should be made to know the consequences of such a decision may mean they will never see their children again unless they emigrated too.Originally posted by free thinker:This looks like a "Soviet" way to control people which is a tremendous shame.
The age 13 is too young for a boy to choose whether he wants to make Singapore is home (he just completed PSLE for goodness sake!). This new law is like FORCING people to do NS.
Why should we make it easy for Singaporeans to give up citizenship? And if they should do so, we must ensure they do not benefit more from Singapore than loyal citizens who remain. -
It is now NOT easy for male Singaporeans to give up their citizenship. Under the Singapore Constitution, any male who wants to renounce his citizenship must first discharge his NS liabilities under the Enlistment Act. That means that if you happen to be a Singapore-Born male, you need to serve NS before you can renounce your citizenship; if not, you will be stuck.Originally posted by oxford mushroom:People like Melvin Tan left at such a young age because their parents encouraged or made the decision for them. We cannot have parents encouraging their children to give up Singapore citizenship to dodge NS and then return home to earn big bucks later. These parents should be made to know the consequences of such a decision may mean they will never see their children again unless they emigrated too.
Why should we make it easy for Singaporeans to give up citizenship? And if they should do so, we must ensure they do not benefit more from Singapore than loyal citizens who remain.
But, if you happen to be born OVERSEAS but somehow acquired Singapore Citizenship due to DESCENT then it will be easier for you to renounce the citizenship.
If you manage to leave Singapore and remain outside with Citizenship of another country until you are 21 then it is very different. Under the Singapore Constitution, any male in this category has to take an OATH at the age of 21. Failing to do so will result in the Singapore Government depriving him of the Singapore Citizenship. In simple terms, if you do not take the OATH by 21... Then you will be out.
And those who managed to renounce their citizenship but decided to come back to Singapore does not automatically become a PR. The government may not even grant you the license to work in Singapore! So do not worry, they are not treated any better than you Singaporeans. -
That's exactly why the laws had to be revised..
-
[quote][quote]One of them is writer Ng Yi-Sheng, 25. He feels the changes are an overreaction.
'Increasing the punishment for draft-dodgers would make NS seem even more of a forced obligation,' he said.
However, Mr Kevin Loh, 29, who owns a cleaning company, disagrees. He favours the changes.
'National service is a key institution, and while those who are willing to serve have nothing to fear, it will be good to have a stronger deterrent for those who might want to escape their duty,' he said.
Are these real people?
-
dear oxford mushroomOriginally posted by oxford mushroom:That's exactly why the laws had to be revised..
Which law(s) are you refering to? The requirements for a Singapore-Born male to renounce his citizenship or what? Please elaborate.
Cheers. -
i'd suggest for 1 year.. 2 years i can get 2 degrees on part time basis already.Originally posted by tohyi:educate recruits on the real need for the national service policy. i dont recall anybody telling me why i had to sserve my national service. it was never discusssed in schools or even on the first day of enlistment. it was like some sort of a blind routine every guy had to follow. no double standards for white horses. it only creates contemp among parents and recruits. yes there were white horses issues back even 5-8 years ago. reduce the national service further to 1.5 years so that guys could get into the competetive job market lot more faster instead of having the current time wasting 2 years. thats more credible than silly exit permits for 13 year olds.
-
End of the day, if you have not lived here for a majority of your life from 1 to 21, this law is a law that compels you to serve for a nation you have no fucking idea of and it is a law that is too broad-based, just like the tar brushing that occurs on a daily basis.
If citizens want to leave, you have to let them go.This nation strives to be a democratic republic, not a carbon-copy of Stalag 13.You do not keep/force people who do not wish to stay on.
With the age of renouncing still at 21, this law for the 13 year old simply shows the lack in legal relevance.Talk about over-reaction and pandering to the masses who choose to stand in "righteous" rage so that we can be seen to be slightly reactionary as a state and not always pre-emptive.
It's a whole load of bull anyway. -
No doubt we lose out in competitiveness in the job market, but this can't be help nor compromise unless we are prepare to suffer any consequences if we get invaded.
pls dont bullshit. are u saying we are prepared now if we are invaded?
ANS is NO!
and, when you dont have bread and butter for a living....i bet being invaded would be the last thing on yr mind...
r u someone from upstairs?
always using lungs to talk! -
As you pointed out, it is now not easy for males Singaporeans to renounce citizenship. If the lowering of the age requirement for exit permits has this effect, then this revision in the law is necessary indeed. As for Singaporeans who acquired citizenship by descent but do not intend to be Singaporeans, I think it is only right that they be deprived of citizenship.Originally posted by free thinker:dear oxford mushroom
Which law(s) are you refering to? The requirements for a Singapore-Born male to renounce his citizenship or what? Please elaborate.
Cheers.
I think you are talking about children of foreigners who became Singaporeans and although the law does not require them to serve NS, their children have to. That is the price the parents have agreed to pay to be Singaporeans. If they are not prepared to have their children serve NS like everyone else, perhaps they should consider emigrating to Australia instead. -
Dear oxford mushroomOriginally posted by oxford mushroom:As you pointed out, it is now not easy for males Singaporeans to renounce citizenship. If the lowering of the age requirement for exit permits has this effect, then this revision in the law is necessary indeed. As for Singaporeans who acquired citizenship by descent but do not intend to be Singaporeans, I think it is only right that they be deprived of citizenship.
I think you are talking about children of foreigners who became Singaporeans and although the law does not require them to serve NS, their children have to. That is the price the parents have agreed to pay to be Singaporeans. If they are not prepared to have their children serve NS like everyone else, perhaps they should consider emigrating to Australia instead.
Children of foreigners who became Singaporeans should still be allowed to choose whether they want to serve NS or not... This is especially so if they are born outside Singapore and acquired citizenship of that country. What do you think about that?
Cheers -
The new exit permit rule do serve its purpose by pre-empting potential NS dodger at the earliest stage possible.
National Service is MANDATORY in Singapore. The revision of the voting right to the age of 18 is nonsensical. If it is mandatory, why vote?
-
I am afraid you are wrong. Those people who had to put aside their aspirations for two years to defend their country deserve a say as to who gets to govern it. The age at which they can renounce their citizenship may not necessarily have to change.Originally posted by TooFree:National Service is MANDATORY in Singapore. The revision of the voting right to the age of 18 is nonsensical. If it is mandatory, why vote?
If I am newly-drafted, it is only natural that I want to have a say in the way I want my country governed. Because the whole thing was done without consent. I just happened to be born a citizen so I am subjected to the draft like it or not. -
Cousult your friendly English dictionary for the word MANDATORY.Originally posted by iveco:I am afraid you are wrong. Those people who had to put aside their aspirations for two years to defend their country deserve a say as to who gets to govern it. The age at which they can renounce their citizenship may not necessarily have to change.
If I am newly-drafted, it is only natural that I want to have a say in the way I want my country governed. Because the whole thing was done without consent. I just happened to be born a citizen so I am subjected to the draft like it or not.
I coming to believe that the lowering of the voting age to 18 only benefits NS Dodgers and not about how they want their country to be governed. -
Yes I would agree if he happens to be a Singapore-Born male. What happens if he is born OVERSEAS and clearly does not want to make Singapore his home? Then that would be extremly unfair isn't it?Originally posted by TooFree:The new exit permit rule do serve its purpose by pre-empting potential NS dodger at the earliest stage possible.
National Service is MANDATORY in Singapore. The revision of the voting right to the age of 18 is nonsensical. If it is mandatory, why vote?
*FYI, any person born OVERSEAS but acquired Singapore Citizenship due to DESCENT shall cease to be a citizen if he/she does not take an OATH by the age of 21.* -
I guess we need the percentage for this minority group to form a better valued judgement.Originally posted by free thinker:Yes I would agree if he happens to be a Singapore-Born male. What happens if he is born OVERSEAS and clearly does not want to make Singapore his home? Then that would be extremly unfair isn't it?
*FYI, any person born OVERSEAS but acquired Singapore Citizenship due to DESCENT shall cease to be a citizen if he/she does not take an OATH by the age of 21.*
1. What is the percentage for those acquiring citizenship by descent?
2. How many are actually force to serve to retain their citizenship?
3. How many actually serve willingly to retain their citizenship?
And one more thing, what losses would a person falls in this category chunked up should he decides to renounce his allegiance to Singapore? -
The USA ACTUALLY lowered the voting age from 21 to 18 at the height of the Vietnam War following protests from students unhappy about the draft.
More recently, the WP wanted to reduce the voting age to 19. If I am not wrong it was back in the mid-90s. Maybe Goh Meng Seng might have heard of it from his party bosses.
Still I do not see how letting 18-year-olds vote is nonsensical just because military service is mandatory.
-
Dear TooFreeOriginally posted by TooFree:I guess we need the percentage for this minority group to form a better valued judgement.
1. What is the percentage for those acquiring citizenship by descent?
2. How many are actually force to serve to retain their citizenship?
3. How many actually serve willingly to retain their citizenship?
And one more thing, what losses would a person falls in this category chunked up should he decides to renounce his allegiance to Singapore?
In my opinion it doesnt matter what the percentage is. The important thing is that the child DOES NOT get to reject the Singapore Citizenship from birth. He is FORCED to take it. Therefore it is like forcing him to do NS.
He doesn't need to renounce his allegiance to Singapore. The government automatically "cancel" him if he doesn' take the OATH by 21. Regardless of whether he did NS or not.
Cheers