About 2,600 NS-liable PRs renounced status in last 5 years

Reply to About 2,600 NS-liable PRs renounced status in last 5 years on Wed, 06 Aug 2014 07:29:39 GMT

atrecord — Wed, 06 Aug 2014 07:29:39 GMT

http://www.channelnewsasia.com/news/singapore/prs-who-fail-to-serve/1298030.html

POSTED: 05 Aug 2014 20:15
[quote]PRs who fail to serve National Service face serious consequences

NS defaulters must answer for the offence says Defence Minister Ng Eng Hen. They face a fine or jail term if convicted.

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.

- CNA/ly[/quote]

Reply to About 2,600 NS-liable PRs renounced status in last 5 years on Wed, 09 Jul 2014 14:51:06 GMT

DesertWind — Wed, 09 Jul 2014 14:51:06 GMT

Only one in four renounced? Not bad liao lah!

Reply to About 2,600 NS-liable PRs renounced status in last 5 years on Wed, 09 Jul 2014 10:48:24 GMT

nansk — Wed, 09 Jul 2014 10:48:24 GMT

limlim:

It is normal human behavior to detest being taken advantage of.

And some Singaporeans have felt that their kindness towards visitor have been taken advantage of. They complete with locals for housing, school places, jobs, medical facilities etc.. And the youngsters never really contributed. After milking all the benefits and when it is time to serve/contribute, they simply \"拍拍手屁股走人“.

It is understandable why pple are unhappy.

Not to say who is right or wrong. But if pple can try not to be taken advantage of, they would naturally.

I replied in detail to 'sun_2010' reg. these same points. If PRs are indeed 'taking advantage' of us, it is because the law allows them to do so. But another way to look at it is, we need them to come and work here, to choose Singapore over other countries. So we have given them some incentive to come.
And again, if they still choose to leave for good, not only do they have to pay back every cent of tax benefit they enjoyed, the law also makes it extremely difficult for them or their families to ever return here even as a tourist.
So there are some dis-incentives for leaving, too.

Reply to About 2,600 NS-liable PRs renounced status in last 5 years on Wed, 09 Jul 2014 10:39:53 GMT

nansk — Wed, 09 Jul 2014 10:39:53 GMT

Sun_2010:

nansk:
I don't see how that is an act of betrayal? Singapore law clearly allows them to renounce their PR before a certain age. They are merely following that law.
They are clearly exploiting a loop hole. I didnt claim that is illegal. What is of course needed is to tighten these loopholes.

It is not a \"loophole\"; it is the law. Loopholes refer to unintended interpretation of the wording of laws, to find ways of avoiding the law and yet not bearing any consequences.
This option of giving up PR and leaving Singapore is not an unintended wording - it is exactly what was intended when the law was written. The govt. has given this option in order to attract foreigners at all levels to come and work here on a long-term basis. And Singapore needs these foreigners to come and work here or there wouldn't be such a law.

Sun_2010:
nansk:
Singapore law also allows NS-age men to defer their NS for specific reasons. Would you say that in seeking a deferral these men are performing \"an act of betrayal\"?

Of course no sane person would agree. It is \"defferred\" not exempted. and that too on a case by case basis only. So I wonder why you would bring this in

It was the first example that occurred to me. Some men get to defer NS, others don't; I understand it is decided on a case-by-case basis. So doesn't that give people a feeling of 'unfairness', as people claim in the case of PRs?

Sun_2010:
nansk:
The ones who are truly betraying Singapore are the Singaporeans who do not serve NS at all, the ones who turn their back on family and friends, who leave and never return.

Again irrelevant. I wasnt in any way implying all Singaporeans are worthy

I am trying to re-direct the vitriol to the real culprits, because no amount of PR-bashing on online forums is going to change the situation. At least direct your ire toward the real law-breakers.

Sun_2010:
nansk:
You are again talking of \"availing advantages/privileges\". PRs only avail services which the law allows them to avail, and they pay for these services. They are also performing a service by living and working in Singapore, contributing to the CPF, paying taxes, paying for goods and services, and helping to keep the economy running.
Just like citizens who live and work here.
SCs too are working in Singapore, contributing to the CPF, paying taxes, paying for goods and services, and helping to keep the economy running.
So the question is how come PRsget to enjoy the rights but when it comes to responsibilities they have an option ??

You make it sound like PRs are here to do a favour to Singapore. I would like to think of it this way - PRs are here as they see a better living ( be it financial or others) for themselves, and the govt grants them this status as they forsee benefits for the nation - a symbiosis , no? Yes the onus is on the govt to ensure they dont get short changed. But it is a point worth raising.

I did not imply that PRs are doing us any favours merely by being here. But you must agree that our economy needs them to come and work here. If it didn't, there would be no work visas or PRs granted in the first place. It is a symbiotic relationship. And in order to attract good people, the govt. has given them some incentives (whether we like it or not).
And you must also agree that the govt. is listening to the voice of the people, and it has made populist changes in the recent years.

So again, fretting online in an anonymous garb is not going to change the situation. Recognise the value PRs add to our economy and quit complaining. Or, if you desperately want changes, write to your MP or dash off a letter to the editor and propose a viable alternativep.

Reply to About 2,600 NS-liable PRs renounced status in last 5 years on Wed, 09 Jul 2014 09:47:55 GMT

limlim — Wed, 09 Jul 2014 09:47:55 GMT

nansk:

It is normal human behaviour to take advantage of the best opportunities for personal advancement. PR or Singaporean, we are all human, and we all will take the best opportunities available to us.

It is normal human behavior to detest being taken advantage of.

And some Singaporeans have felt that their kindness towards visitor have been taken advantage of. They complete with locals for housing, school places, jobs, medical facilities etc.. And the youngsters never really contributed. After milking all the benefits and when it is time to serve/contribute, they simply \"拍拍手屁股走人“.

It is understandable why pple are unhappy.

Not to say who is right or wrong. But if pple can try not to be taken advantage of, they would naturally.

Reply to About 2,600 NS-liable PRs renounced status in last 5 years on Wed, 09 Jul 2014 09:36:21 GMT

atrecord — Wed, 09 Jul 2014 09:36:21 GMT

nansk:
atrecord:
So about 1 in 4 of these 2nd generation PRs... (or their parents) earn our salary, enjoy our transport and housing, healthcare, education, safety, etc etc..

Your choice of words is misleading. The PRs don't earn our salary; they earn their own salary for their own work. Their work benefits companies in Singapore.

Your choice of the word 'enjoy' implies that PRs avail of transport, housing, healthcare, education, etc. for free. They do pay for these services, and, esp. in recent years, have been paying much more than we do for the same service.

Sorry, indeed it wasn't sound grammatically. But I hope the message gets across: which is that the salary paid to these PRs can be paid to another Singaporean who can equally benefit the companies - and who is more deserving of that opportunity because he serves the country in other ways that the PRs will not.

The PRs pay for the services, which are presumably better than what they get at home, hence the attraction to come here, but other than the higher amount they are paying, these come at another type of price. Think of who or what made our services/system/infrastructure so attractive. If by simply paying more they can get to enjoy these, then try paying the same back home and expect it there. It is a package deal.

[quote][quote]but run far far when need to serve[/quote]To be honest, I have met some Singaporeans who appeared to be going to serve NS under duress. I got the impression that if they had the option to not serve, they would have taken that option. It is entirely possible that the ratio of these Singaporeans may be 1 in 4, too.

I have also met several PRs who understand the rationale behind, and
benefits of, NS and whose sons have served, or will serve when it's their turn.

So it is egregious to paint all PRs with the same black brush.[/quote]You are right in that we should not label all PRs in a negative light - that's not my intention I should clarify. I have great PR friends growing up, even now. But I think it is completely unfair that when Singaporean boys and men sacrifice their time, and sometimes their lives to make the country safe, you should cast serious doubt to the tune of believing that 1 in 4 will shy away from NS.

While it is true that if given a choice, there will be Singaporeans who might not want to serve NS, it is because of the perceived unfairness that led to this. Why should I risk my life when I see that the other person can get away from it - that type of feeling…

And it is precisely such loopholes or possibilities that should be patched, or reduced, for the mentality to be corrected, or else everyone will be looking to get out of it!

Bear in mind that NS takes 2 yr (for me it was 2.5) of your prime years, plus 10 more cycles (13 for me) of reservists, which by law can be up to 40 days a year. Not only does the boy/man have to sacrifice for this, his parents/siblings/spouse/children/colleagues/bosses/staff will also be affected. Why should they need to make this sacrifice to enjoy the same (our country, society, safety, job, education, healthcare, etc. etc.) as a PR who knowingly came here to enjoy the benefits, with the full intention of not serving his dues?

Reply to About 2,600 NS-liable PRs renounced status in last 5 years on Wed, 09 Jul 2014 07:57:55 GMT

Sun_2010 — Wed, 09 Jul 2014 07:57:55 GMT

nansk:
Sun_2010:

[quote=\"nansk\"]To be honest, I have met some Singaporeans who appeared to be going to serve NS under duress. I got the impression that if they had the option to not serve, they would have taken that option. It is entirely possible that the ratio of these Singaporeans may be 1 in 4, too.
The point is a Singaporean son does not have the option . So willing or un willing - they serve.
Like I pay tax. I dont like it, I dont want to pay , but I still pay. And that is what matters.
So the talk that some/most boys dont want to serve so is the same as a PR renouncing their status just doesn't count.

How is it not analogous?
PRs who renounce do so because they have the option to renounce. Singaporeans don't legally have that option, but if they did, we would see the same percentage taking that option.
You pay tax because you are required by law to pay tax. If you had the option to not pay tax, would you not have exercised that option?
It is normal human behaviour to take advantage of the best opportunities for personal advancement. PR or Singaporean, we are all human, and we all will take the best opportunities available to us.[quote]PRs may be paying a little more in education, medical and property ( like only resale flat, etc). Still they are availing advantages/privileges ( which is why they became PRs in the first place) and then quitting just before the enlistment age - it is an act of betrayal :spank:[/quote]I don't see how that is an act of betrayal? Singapore law clearly allows them to renounce their PR before a certain age. They are merely following that law.

They are clearly exploiting a loop hole. I didnt claim that is illegal. What is of course needed is to tighten these loopholes.

Singapore law also allows NS-age men to defer their NS for specific reasons. Would you say that in seeking a deferral these men are performing \"an act of betrayal\"?

Of course no sane person would agree. It is \"defferred\" not exempted. and that too on a case by case basis only. So I wonder why you would bring this in

The ones who are truly betraying Singapore are the Singaporeans who do not serve NS at all, the ones who turn their back on family and friends, who leave and never return.

Again irrelevant. I wasnt in any way implying all Singaporeans are worthy

You are again talking of \"availing advantages/privileges\". PRs only avail services which the law allows them to avail, and they pay for these services. They are also performing a service by living and working in Singapore, contributing to the CPF, paying taxes, paying for goods and services, and helping to keep the economy running.

Just like citizens who live and work here.
SCs too are working in Singapore, contributing to the CPF, paying taxes, paying for goods and services, and helping to keep the economy running.
So the question is how come PRsget to enjoy the rights but when it comes to responsibilities they have an option ??

You make it sound like PRs are here to do a favour to Singapore. I would like to think of it this way - PRs are here as they see a better living ( be it financial or others) for themselves, and the govt grants them this status as they forsee benefits for the nation - a symbiosis , no? Yes the onus is on the govt to ensure they dont get short changed. But it is a point worth raising.

And don't forget that if PRs they renounce their status, they do pay. Not only do they have to pay back all the CPF tax benefits they enjoyed during their entire stay in Singapore, they also lose future opportunities for themselves and their family members.

Thanks for this info. Good to know there are some consequences .
From http://www.ica.gov.sg/page.aspx?pageid=151:[quote] Renouncing or losing one's PR status without serving or completing full-time NS would have an adverse impact on any immediate or future applications to work or study in Singapore, or for Singapore citizenship or PR status. Renouncing or losing one’s PR status without serving or completing full-time NS may also adversely affect any immediate or future applications for renewal of Re-entry Permits made by one’s family members or sponsors.[/quote][/quote]

Reply to About 2,600 NS-liable PRs renounced status in last 5 years on Wed, 09 Jul 2014 04:37:20 GMT

nansk — Wed, 09 Jul 2014 04:37:20 GMT

Sun_2010:

nansk:
To be honest, I have met some Singaporeans who appeared to be going to serve NS under duress. I got the impression that if they had the option to not serve, they would have taken that option. It is entirely possible that the ratio of these Singaporeans may be 1 in 4, too.
The point is a Singaporean son does not have the option . So willing or un willing - they serve.
Like I pay tax. I dont like it, I dont want to pay , but I still pay. And that is what matters.
So the talk that some/most boys dont want to serve so is the same as a PR renouncing their status just doesn't count.

Reply to About 2,600 NS-liable PRs renounced status in last 5 years on Wed, 09 Jul 2014 04:09:28 GMT

Sun_2010 — Wed, 09 Jul 2014 04:09:28 GMT

nansk:
atrecord:
So about 1 in 4 of these 2nd generation PRs... (or their parents) earn our salary, enjoy our transport and housing, healthcare, education, safety, etc etc..

Your choice of words is misleading. The PRs don't earn our salary; they earn their own salary for their own work. Their work benefits companies in Singapore.

Your choice of the word 'enjoy' implies that PRs avail of transport, housing, healthcare, education, etc. for free. They do pay for these services, and, esp. in recent years, have been paying much more than we do for the same service.

I have also met several PRs who understand the rationale behind, and
benefits of, NS and whose sons have served, or will serve when it's their turn.

So it is egregious to paint all PRs with the same black brush.

Totally agree. We shouldnt be tainting the 3 PRs who serve when we point finger at the one who renounced.

nansk:
[quote]but run far far when need to serve

To be honest, I have met some Singaporeans who appeared to be going to serve NS under duress. I got the impression that if they had the option to not serve, they would have taken that option. It is entirely possible that the ratio of these Singaporeans may be 1 in 4, too. [/quote]The point is a Singaporean son does not have the option . So willing or un willing - they serve.
Like I pay tax. I dont like it, I dont want to pay , but I still pay. And that is what matters.
So the talk that some/most boys dont want to serve so is the same as a PR renouncing their status just doesn't count.
PRs may be paying a little more in education, medical and property ( like only resale flat, etc). Still they are availing advantages/privileges ( which is why they became PRs in the first place) and then quitting just before the enlistment age - it is an act of betrayal :spank:

Reply to About 2,600 NS-liable PRs renounced status in last 5 years on Wed, 09 Jul 2014 03:39:32 GMT

nansk — Wed, 09 Jul 2014 03:39:32 GMT

atrecord:
So about 1 in 4 of these 2nd generation PRs... (or their parents) earn our salary, enjoy our transport and housing, healthcare, education, safety, etc etc..

Your choice of words is misleading. The PRs don't earn our salary; they earn their own salary for their own work. Their work benefits companies in Singapore.

Your choice of the word 'enjoy' implies that PRs avail of transport, housing, healthcare, education, etc. for free. They do pay for these services, and, esp. in recent years, have been paying much more than we do for the same service.
[quote]but run far far when need to serve[/quote]To be honest, I have met some Singaporeans who appeared to be going to serve NS under duress. I got the impression that if they had the option to not serve, they would have taken that option. It is entirely possible that the ratio of these Singaporeans may be 1 in 4, too.

I have also met several PRs who understand the rationale behind, and
benefits of, NS and whose sons have served, or will serve when it's their turn.

So it is egregious to paint all PRs with the same black brush.

Reply to About 2,600 NS-liable PRs renounced status in last 5 years on Wed, 09 Jul 2014 02:55:11 GMT

limlim — Wed, 09 Jul 2014 02:55:11 GMT

hquek:
These PRs also pay our taxes la, so not one way street. And cheng hu will tell us that these pp contribute to hiring SGs.

No they don't. Their parent may do, but not them before turning NS age.

Reply to About 2,600 NS-liable PRs renounced status in last 5 years on Wed, 09 Jul 2014 02:24:39 GMT

hquek — Wed, 09 Jul 2014 02:24:39 GMT

These PRs also pay our taxes la, so not one way street. And cheng hu will tell us that these pp contribute to hiring SGs.

I’m not quite surprised by the numbers becos I keep hearing stories of PRs who come here to enjoy the safety and security for their young kids, but fully intending to go abroad once their kids get older. It’s just the way of the mobile society.

What irks me more are those FOC scholarships we offer to pp all over for SG university and here we have pp from lower strata of society staring at fee increments almost on a yearly basis. Not sure if this practice has stopped but sure hope so. Apparently this group lagi worse, there are those don’t intend to serve out their bond by working in SG and just hop on the next plane out once they get their degree. I just don’t get the feel that this group has been dealt with and SG end up looking like a fool.

Reply to About 2,600 NS-liable PRs renounced status in last 5 years on Wed, 09 Jul 2014 02:16:43 GMT

atrecord — Wed, 09 Jul 2014 02:16:43 GMT

So about 1 in 4 of these 2nd generation PRs will not serve our country. They (or their parents) earn our salary, enjoy our transport and housing, healthcare, education, safety, etc etc. but run far far when need to serve.

i think the govt should relook at the benefits of their whole extended families in SGP, rather than just them in future…

Why should me and my son protect these people in times of conflict???

Reply to About 2,600 NS-liable PRs renounced status in last 5 years on Wed, 09 Jul 2014 01:37:59 GMT

pirate — Wed, 09 Jul 2014 01:37:59 GMT

ChiefKiasu:
I don't understand the correction at the bottom of the article that says that it is incorrect to say that over 25% of NS liable PRs have revoke their status. If the 7200 eligible PRs include those who have not reached the age for enlistment, then wouldn't the 2600 that revoked that up a much higher percentage of the group?

The number is shocking and sad for Singapore.

The 7200 cannot include those who have not reached the age of enlistment lah, because the 7200 refer to those who have already either enlisted or completed NS. Only the 2600 can include those who have not reached the age of enlistment.

Reply to About 2,600 NS-liable PRs renounced status in last 5 years on Wed, 09 Jul 2014 01:35:50 GMT

Nebbermind — Wed, 09 Jul 2014 01:35:50 GMT

ChiefKiasu:
I don't understand the correction at the bottom of the article that says that it is incorrect to say that over 25% of NS liable PRs have revoke their status. If the 7200 eligible PRs include those who have not reached the age for enlistment, then wouldn't the 2600 that revoked that up a much higher percentage of the group?

The number is shocking and sad for Singapore.

I think 7200 is the number who had reached the age of enlistment and enlisted.
2600 include those who are younger than enlistment age.

But I think not much difference...coz some would also renounced their PR status earlier (> 5 yrs ago) in this group

Reply to About 2,600 NS-liable PRs renounced status in last 5 years on Wed, 09 Jul 2014 01:16:04 GMT

littleprince — Wed, 09 Jul 2014 01:16:04 GMT

These are the same "kids" who fought for a place in "good" schools and rob Singaporeans of their place via Phase 1, 2A1,2A2 and 2B.

Reply to About 2,600 NS-liable PRs renounced status in last 5 years on Wed, 09 Jul 2014 01:05:51 GMT

ChiefKiasu — Wed, 09 Jul 2014 01:05:51 GMT

I don’t understand the correction at the bottom of the article that says that it is incorrect to say that over 25% of NS liable PRs have revoke their status. If the 7200 eligible PRs include those who have not reached the age for enlistment, then wouldn’t the 2600 that revoked that up a much higher percentage of the group?

The number is shocking and sad for Singapore.

Reply to About 2,600 NS-liable PRs renounced status in last 5 years on Tue, 08 Jul 2014 17:17:56 GMT

Green_white — Tue, 08 Jul 2014 17:17:56 GMT

Hmm…sets me thinking…

Thanks for sharing