Page 1 of 1

A recent case confirms that losing SC does not void NS obligation

Posted: Tue, 08 Oct 2024 9:53 am
by PNGMK
https://www.channelnewsasia.com/singapo ... nt-4662751

A couple things stick out here:

1. The Singapore govt may actually cancel your SC - I would actually like that confirmed. The article (snip below) states so but I don't believe it. I think Gan "assumed" his SC was cancelled? The reason I state this is we have seen numerous cases of men trying to cancel their SC at the various high comms, only to be told "There are outstanding CMPB matters that need addressing". (A)

On Sep 29, 2006, as Gan did not renounce his US citizenship and take the oath of renunciation, allegiance and loyalty within 12 months of turning 21, he automatically lost his Singapore citizenship, said his lawyer.

2. If his SC was cancelled, it certainly did not extinguish his NS liability. This ties into (A) above - the reason so many men try to cancel their SC is to avoid NS. But that doesn't work!

PS: My son is well past his NS days now. I full support the idea that no one gets a free pass to avoid NS, but on the other hand I think NS is a terrible idea. It routinely destroys careers and academic progress of the nation.

END

Re: A recent case confirms that losing SC does not void NS obligation

Posted: Tue, 08 Oct 2024 10:54 pm
by sundaymorningstaple
PNGMK wrote:
Tue, 08 Oct 2024 9:53 am
https://www.channelnewsasia.com/singapo ... nt-4662751

I full support the idea that no one gets a free pass to avoid NS, but on the other hand I think NS is a terrible idea. It routinely destroys careers and academic progress of the nation.

END
Yeah, It's much more cost effective to wait until they have gone into debt getting an advanced education and THEN forced to do military service where they can get blown away and thereby waste a lot of the parents money on education that they could have used for their retirements. Educated corpses don't do anybody any good. Then again, maybe I'm a bit biased...... :-k

Re: A recent case confirms that losing SC does not void NS obligation

Posted: Sat, 12 Oct 2024 1:39 am
by jalanjalan
PNGMK wrote:
Tue, 08 Oct 2024 9:53 am
1. The Singapore govt may actually cancel your SC - I would actually like that confirmed. The article (snip below) states so but I don't believe it. I think Gan "assumed" his SC was cancelled? The reason I state this is we have seen numerous cases of men trying to cancel their SC at the various high comms, only to be told "There are outstanding CMPB matters that need addressing". (A)

On Sep 29, 2006, as Gan did not renounce his US citizenship and take the oath of renunciation, allegiance and loyalty within 12 months of turning 21, he automatically lost his Singapore citizenship, said his lawyer.
I'd guess under Part 10, sections 134/135 of the Constitution.
https://sso.agc.gov.sg/act/cons1963

Re: A recent case confirms that losing SC does not void NS obligation

Posted: Sat, 12 Oct 2024 12:08 pm
by malcontent
It begs the question: why are renunciations at age 16 not executed immediately if it has no bearing on NS obligations?

Re: A recent case confirms that losing SC does not void NS obligation

Posted: Sun, 27 Oct 2024 6:26 am
by CptCauliflower
malcontent wrote:It begs the question: why are renunciations at age 16 not executed immediately if it has no bearing on NS obligations?
Yeah, my question exactly!


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk