Singapore Expats

http://www.mindef.gov.sg/content/iminde ... 14_ps.html

Posted: 05 Aug 2014, 1830 hours (GMT +8)

Written Reply by Minister for Defence Dr Ng Eng Hen to Parliamentary Question on Former Permanent Residents Who Did Not Serve National Service

Assoc Prof Tan Kheng Boon Eugene: To ask (a) what is the number of ex-PRs who did not serve their NS but are currently studying, working or living in Singapore or are now Singapore PRs or citizens; (b) what is the justification for allowing these persons to be able to reside in Singapore, be re-instated as PRs, or granted citizenships; and (c) what percentage of applications for renewal of Re-Entry Permits made by the parents and family members of ex-PRs who did not serve their NS had been adversely affected and, if so, in what manner.

Dr Ng Eng Hen: Permanent Residents (PRs) who fail to register or enlist for National Service have committed an offence under the Enlistment Act. They are NS defaulters and must answer for their NS offences. Under the Enlistment Act, NS defaulters shall be liable on conviction to a fine or to imprisonment.

As previously stated, PRs who renounce their PR status before serving their NS liability also face serious adverse consequences when they subsequently apply for work and study. No such persons have been granted re-instatement of PR or citizenship in our records. For work and study, the policy has been progressively tightened such that no NS-liable PR who renounced his PR status in the last decade has been granted approval for work or study.

In addition, for ex-PRs who fail to serve NS, any immediate or future applications for renewal of their parents' and immediate family members' Re-Entry Permits may be adversely affected, including curtailment of the Re-Entry Permit.

http://www.todayonline.com/singapore/pr ... nsequences

NS defaulters must answer for their offence under the Enlistment Act says Defence Minister Ng Eng Hen

Published: 10:02 PM, August 5, 2014

SINGAPORE — Permanent Residents (PRs) who fail to register or enlist for National Service (NS) face serious consequences. In a written Parliamentary reply, Defence Minister Ng Eng Hen said that these PRs have committed an offence under the Enlistment Act.

He said they are NS defaulters and must answer for their NS offences. Upon conviction, they face a fine or a jail term. Dr Ng was responding to a question by Nominated Member of Parliament Eugene Tan. He said those who renounce their PR status before serving their NS liability face serious consequences when they apply for work and study.

Dr Ng said that according to records, no such persons have been granted re-instatement of PR or citizenship. He added that the policy has been progressively tightened such that no NS-liable PR who renounced his PR status in the last decade has been granted approval for work or study.

For former PRs who fail to serve NS, any immediate or future applications for renewal of their parents’ and immediate family members’ Re-Entry Permits may be adversely affected, including curtailment of the Re-Entry Permit.

Just to clarify:

1. I believe Dr Ng is referring (in terms of dire consequence) to 2nd generation PR's or those boys who became PR below the age of enlistment.

2. 1st generation PR's normally apply for and are granted and exemption by CIMB (I think) from NS. I know I did. Technically if you haven't applied for an exemption and you are a male 1st gen PR I guess you could be a NS defaulter.

PNGMK wrote:
2. 1st generation PR's normally apply for and are granted and exemption by CIMB (I think) from NS. I know I did. Technically if you haven't applied for an exemption and you are a male 1st gen PR I guess you could be a NS defaulter.

I thought that is for 1st gen PRs who got it through Family Ties.
Those 1st gen PRs who got it because they are "Foreign Talents", have nothing to do with NS.

Wd40 wrote:

PNGMK wrote:
2. 1st generation PR's normally apply for and are granted and exemption by CIMB (I think) from NS. I know I did. Technically if you haven't applied for an exemption and you are a male 1st gen PR I guess you could be a NS defaulter.

I thought that is for 1st gen PRs who got it through Family Ties.
Those 1st gen PRs who got it because they are "Foreign Talents", have nothing to do with NS.

I was family ties (at 29 yo) and I was exempted, perhaps because of my age. I have no idea about the talent scheme but I thought it was the same.

Wd40 wrote:

PNGMK wrote:
2. 1st generation PR's normally apply for and are granted and exemption by CIMB (I think) from NS. I know I did. Technically if you haven't applied for an exemption and you are a male 1st gen PR I guess you could be a NS defaulter.

I thought that is for 1st gen PRs who got it through Family Ties.
Those 1st gen PRs who got it because they are "Foreign Talents", have nothing to do with NS.

for 1st Generation PRs who get PR for their kids at the same time, the kids are liable for NS

just clarifying the clarification

btw, I was in Istana last Saturday, and a Singaporean volunteer was going on about PRs skipping NS (i.e. 1st generation PRs) and was suggesting that 1st Gen PRs who don't serve NS must no be allowed to buy HDB

I casually asked him, with my 13 plus years of volunteer work even before I had contemplated applying for PR, where do I stand in his opinion ...

a deer in headlight look, followed by 'you must have served NS, government is wrong ... '

I didn't want to push it further and ask in what capacity will I serve

PS , on an unrelated note same guy was ranting that HDB must be only for citizens, all PR and foreigners must be forced to buy only condos, and said PRs are rich and the stamp duty etc are peanuts ... speechless I was

PNGMK wrote:

Wd40 wrote:

PNGMK wrote:
2. 1st generation PR's normally apply for and are granted and exemption by CIMB (I think) from NS. I know I did. Technically if you haven't applied for an exemption and you are a male 1st gen PR I guess you could be a NS defaulter.

I thought that is for 1st gen PRs who got it through Family Ties.
Those 1st gen PRs who got it because they are "Foreign Talents", have nothing to do with NS.

I was family ties (at 29 yo) and I was exempted, perhaps because of my age. I have no idea about the talent scheme but I thought it was the same.

same for Talent scheme ..

years ago CMPB sends a letter notifying the NS obligation and while the newly minted PR starts to wonder how, another letter comes describing the exemption ;

Expecting 1st gen PRs to do NS is a bit insane. What about the loss of income of 2 years, how can that ever be recovered. Citizens get HDB for cheap, so that compensates for the 2 years loss of income.

Similarly I question how do you justify the 2 years loss of income for 2nd gen PRs especially now that PR's benefits have been stripped off a lot in comparison to citizens.

To make it fair, I propose that PRs who fulfill their NS duties must be accorded the benefits as citizens.

Wd40 wrote:Expecting 1st gen PRs to do NS is a bit insane. What about the loss of income of 2 years, how can that ever be recovered. Citizens get HDB for cheap, so that compensates for the 2 years loss of income.

Similarly I question how do you justify the 2 years loss of income for 2nd gen PRs especially now that PR's benefits have been stripped off a lot in comparison to citizens.

To make it fair, I propose that PRs who fulfill their NS duties must be accorded the benefits as citizens.

They could care less what you propose. It's their ball, their ball park and their rules. You want to be in the tournament, you play their game or you don't play. Simples.

sundaymorningstaple wrote:

Wd40 wrote:Expecting 1st gen PRs to do NS is a bit insane. What about the loss of income of 2 years, how can that ever be recovered. Citizens get HDB for cheap, so that compensates for the 2 years loss of income.

Similarly I question how do you justify the 2 years loss of income for 2nd gen PRs especially now that PR's benefits have been stripped off a lot in comparison to citizens.

To make it fair, I propose that PRs who fulfill their NS duties must be accorded the benefits as citizens.

They could care less what you propose. It's their ball, their ball park and their rules. You want to be in the tournament, you play their game or you don't play. Simples.

Then dont be surprised when 2nd gen PRs escape NS, just before the NS age.

Wd40 wrote:

sundaymorningstaple wrote:

Wd40 wrote:Expecting 1st gen PRs to do NS is a bit insane. What about the loss of income of 2 years, how can that ever be recovered. Citizens get HDB for cheap, so that compensates for the 2 years loss of income.

Similarly I question how do you justify the 2 years loss of income for 2nd gen PRs especially now that PR's benefits have been stripped off a lot in comparison to citizens.

To make it fair, I propose that PRs who fulfill their NS duties must be accorded the benefits as citizens.

They could care less what you propose. It's their ball, their ball park and their rules. You want to be in the tournament, you play their game or you don't play. Simples.

Then dont be surprised when 2nd gen PRs escape NS, just before the NS age.

Why do you always make yourself look like an idiot WD40? 1st Gen PR's who have to do NS are those who became PR's as kids... not as adults. 2 year loss of income no problem to a kid - they live with parents. To be fair Dr Ng response is a little confusing.

I've been saying what Dr. Ng said for the last 4 or 5 years. I had my sources but some wanted to disagree, including MS at one point when I brought it up. I'm glad it now been publicly acknowledged by Dr. Ng. The punishment will no longer be just visited on the child but possibly on the parents as well with loss of their REP.

PNGMK wrote:

Wd40 wrote:

sundaymorningstaple wrote: They could care less what you propose. It's their ball, their ball park and their rules. You want to be in the tournament, you play their game or you don't play. Simples.

Then dont be surprised when 2nd gen PRs escape NS, just before the NS age.

Why do you always make yourself look like an idiot WD40? 1st Gen PR's who have to do NS are those who became PR's as kids... not as adults. 2 year loss of income no problem to a kid - they live with parents. To be fair Dr Ng response is a little confusing.

It is loss of income, nonetheless. You start earning 2 years earlier.

Wd40 wrote:[]

It is loss of income, nonetheless. You start earning 2 years earlier.

as SMS says,play by their rules or don't play

I know a PR whose son scooted off to USA (luckily the father became SC)

the kid was reasoning the 2 year loss as his reason to join his mother in US

since green card was harder he enrolled in National Guard and guess what ? he was selected to serve in 'South West Asia' and serve he did

I told him his 2 years here would have been a holiday vs posted in A war zone!!

ecureilx wrote:

Wd40 wrote:[]

It is loss of income, nonetheless. You start earning 2 years earlier.

as SMS says,play by their rules or don't play

I know a PR whose son scooted off to USA (luckily the father became SC)

the kid was reasoning the 2 year loss as his reason to join his mother in US

since green card was harder he enrolled in National Guard and guess what ? he was selected to serve in 'South West Asia' and serve he did

I told him his 2 years here would have been a holiday vs posted in A war zone!!

I know lah, its only for the sake of discussion of fair or unfair. End of the day, we all know the rules and its our own judgement.

Wd40 wrote:

PNGMK wrote:

Wd40 wrote: Then dont be surprised when 2nd gen PRs escape NS, just before the NS age.

Why do you always make yourself look like an idiot WD40? 1st Gen PR's who have to do NS are those who became PR's as kids... not as adults. 2 year loss of income no problem to a kid - they live with parents. To be fair Dr Ng response is a little confusing.

It is loss of income, nonetheless. You start earning 2 years earlier.

You work a long time mate , whats with the rush to join the daily grind?

2 years doing something completely different probably good for the mind also.

Ultimately what is two years in the context of a working life , dont get so hung up on money.