Also, such penalties are not meant to penalise Singaporeans over foreigners. The concept of NS is that citizens and PRs must participate in the defence of Singapore. It is a form of conscription. States which practise conscription always have harsh penalties for defaulters, to coerce citizens and PRs to serve. NS was never voluntary service.
============
Laws on NS not all that draconian
I REFER to Mr Yong Yin Min's letter last Saturday, 'NS not a debt citizens must repay'. I strongly disagree with many of his views.
Article 128(2)(b) of the Constitution states that the Government may withhold renunciation of citizenship if the declaration is made by a person subject to the Enlistment Act (Cap. 93).
Chapter 93 of the Enlistment Act then states that 'a 'person subject to this Act' means a person who is a citizen of Singapore or a permanent resident thereof and who is not less than 16 years and six months of age and not more than 40 years of age'.
The Bugge brothers were all Singapore citizens when they hit 16 years and six months, therefore they were all subject to the Enlistment Act, and the Government has every right to withhold renunciation of their citizenships.
In addition, Mr Yong referred to taxpayers' money being spent on citizens who have emigrated, with no returns. I think the returns of such a practice may not be material, but are there nonetheless. All able citizens and PRs must undergo national service (NS), even if they emigrate and renounce their citizenship immediately after it is complete. The alternative, of not spending on such people, is unthinkable. How do the authorities predict if someone will renounce his citizenship after completing NS? Should such people be excused NS? What if many, upon enlistment, say they will emigrate after NS, and change their minds later?
Furthermore, this 'compulsion' may 'reek of punishment', but it is nothing compared to the penalties in the Enlistment Act. Since they are citizens, they are defaulters who have evaded NS, and are liable to a fine not exceeding $10,000, imprisonment for a term not exceeding three years, or both. Allowing them to renounce their citizenship basically allows their offence to be nullified, even if they return to Singapore.
Also, such penalties are not meant to penalise Singaporeans over foreigners. The concept of NS is that citizens and PRs must participate in the defence of Singapore. It is a form of conscription. States which practise conscription always have harsh penalties for defaulters, to coerce citizens and PRs to serve. NS was never voluntary service.
The laws here are not all that draconian. I know someone who was initially a PR, but renounced it and left Singapore successfully before he reached 16 years and six months. Failing to comply with the law, however, invites punishment. Some may feel the laws should be changed, but until that happens, they must be respected and upheld.
Brian Premchand
============
Laws on NS not all that draconian
I REFER to Mr Yong Yin Min's letter last Saturday, 'NS not a debt citizens must repay'. I strongly disagree with many of his views.
Article 128(2)(b) of the Constitution states that the Government may withhold renunciation of citizenship if the declaration is made by a person subject to the Enlistment Act (Cap. 93).
Chapter 93 of the Enlistment Act then states that 'a 'person subject to this Act' means a person who is a citizen of Singapore or a permanent resident thereof and who is not less than 16 years and six months of age and not more than 40 years of age'.
The Bugge brothers were all Singapore citizens when they hit 16 years and six months, therefore they were all subject to the Enlistment Act, and the Government has every right to withhold renunciation of their citizenships.
In addition, Mr Yong referred to taxpayers' money being spent on citizens who have emigrated, with no returns. I think the returns of such a practice may not be material, but are there nonetheless. All able citizens and PRs must undergo national service (NS), even if they emigrate and renounce their citizenship immediately after it is complete. The alternative, of not spending on such people, is unthinkable. How do the authorities predict if someone will renounce his citizenship after completing NS? Should such people be excused NS? What if many, upon enlistment, say they will emigrate after NS, and change their minds later?
Furthermore, this 'compulsion' may 'reek of punishment', but it is nothing compared to the penalties in the Enlistment Act. Since they are citizens, they are defaulters who have evaded NS, and are liable to a fine not exceeding $10,000, imprisonment for a term not exceeding three years, or both. Allowing them to renounce their citizenship basically allows their offence to be nullified, even if they return to Singapore.
Also, such penalties are not meant to penalise Singaporeans over foreigners. The concept of NS is that citizens and PRs must participate in the defence of Singapore. It is a form of conscription. States which practise conscription always have harsh penalties for defaulters, to coerce citizens and PRs to serve. NS was never voluntary service.
The laws here are not all that draconian. I know someone who was initially a PR, but renounced it and left Singapore successfully before he reached 16 years and six months. Failing to comply with the law, however, invites punishment. Some may feel the laws should be changed, but until that happens, they must be respected and upheld.
Brian Premchand
