Singapore Expats Forum

What is SUBSTANTIAL SOCIO-ECONOMIC BENEFITS ?

A moderated forum for serious discussions only.
User avatar
sundaymorningstaple
Moderator
Moderator
Posts: 35168
Joined: Thu, 11 Nov 2004
Location: Still Fishing!
Contact:

Postby sundaymorningstaple » Mon, 25 Feb 2008 9:10 pm

PPF,

If you gained your PR via the technical scheme and are of NS age, you still must register with the central manpower board but you are given an administrative exemption so you do not have to serve. The act of you coming here with your technical skills an imparting knowledge that is to the benefit of the Singapore Government as a whole is the reason for the deferment. However, in the case of Children who take up PR (e.g., 2nd Gen PR's all they are doing is taking from the government and not giving anything. It may be subsidized medicine, subsidized schooling, subsidized housing (HDB), a safe environment to live and grow up in, etc, etc,....... this is why the government makes the 2nd Gen do NS. 1st gen's give to the government(country) as soon as they arrive while 2nd gen's only take so must pay back.

And yes, I agree that the payback is stiff. I also believe it is against international law to conscript a citizen of another country who does not hold Singapore Citizenship as well. Unfortunately, nobody has taken them to task as of yet. But as I've said time and time again. The onus is on the parents to do their homework if they are going to take their kids out of Singapore or gain PR for them. All the information is there in black & white BEFORE they take up the PR for themselves and/or their kids.

I often sound like I am pro this system. I am not. I also think it sucks big time. The problem is, I tend to look at all sides and here I generally try to just relate the facts unless somebody goes off on a rant.

User avatar
ProvenPracticalFlexible
Chatter
Chatter
Posts: 208
Joined: Thu, 13 Apr 2006
Location: East Coast

Postby ProvenPracticalFlexible » Mon, 25 Feb 2008 9:29 pm

I can understand the system and why it works like it does. Yes I also knew that they would not ask me to join jungle camping.

So what really happens if one avoids NS and gets cought later?

Checked from ENLISTMENT ACT:
"shall be guilty of an offence and shall be liable on conviction to a fine not exceeding $10,000 or to imprisonment for a term not exceeding 3 years or to both. "

Fine doesn't sound so expensive, but 3 years in prison instead of 2 years in service, quite easy to choose.

User avatar
sundaymorningstaple
Moderator
Moderator
Posts: 35168
Joined: Thu, 11 Nov 2004
Location: Still Fishing!
Contact:

Postby sundaymorningstaple » Mon, 25 Feb 2008 9:30 pm

This series of letters, excerpts of articles and comments will answer you questions I would suppose. Or at least give you a look into some of the government's current thought processes. As a 2nd gen child has to renounce their PR before the age of 13, I would think the penalties would be similar. They are reviewing the existing penalties to make them more severe I believe since the Melvyn Tan (Piano Man) case three years ago.

My position has always been that if you are an expat then you are supposed to have a bit more on the ball than the average joe. With that thought, one would suppose that that person would have enough grey matter to research heavily what they are getting into by applying for and type of long term residence vehicle. One normally does their research before investing their money, why not before investing their families? So if they fail to read everything that is provided to them (or ignore it in their haste) then they have to deal with thing like committing their sons for 21 months to NS or automatically being an organ donor. It's all there in black and white so who's to blame?

User avatar
ProvenPracticalFlexible
Chatter
Chatter
Posts: 208
Joined: Thu, 13 Apr 2006
Location: East Coast

Postby ProvenPracticalFlexible » Mon, 25 Feb 2008 9:45 pm

sundaymorningstaple wrote:My position has always been that if you are an expat then you are supposed to have a bit more on the ball than the average joe. With that thought, one would suppose that that person would have enough grey matter to research heavily what they are getting into by applying for and type of long term residence vehicle. One normally does their research before investing their money, why not before investing their families? So if they fail to read everything that is provided to them (or ignore it in their haste) then they have to deal with thing like committing their sons for 21 months to NS or automatically being an organ donor. It's all there in black and white so who's to blame?


I fully agree with you on this. If you just come here to pick up goodies, should know what you sign for.

primitivo
Newbie
Newbie
Posts: 19
Joined: Fri, 22 Feb 2008

Postby primitivo » Tue, 26 Feb 2008 5:42 am

ProvenPracticalFlexible wrote:At end still I'm wondering why do you care if your son is never planning to come back to Singapore?


I would prefer to have a clean solution, instead of just avoiding Singapore in the future.

The problem is that the Singapore laws are very vague, leaving lots of room for the government to interpret.

For example, can anyone find the original source of Teo Chee Hean's statement in an official law/regulation?

"ONLY THOSE WHO HAVE EMIGRATED AT A YOUNG AGE AND HAVE NOT ENJOYED
SUBSTANTIAL SOCIO-ECONOMIC BENEFITS ARE ALLOWED TO RENOUNCE THEIR
CITIZENSHIP WITHOUT SERVING NATIONAL SERVICE."

User avatar
cutiebutie
Chatter
Chatter
Posts: 286
Joined: Sat, 01 Sep 2007
Location: Bangkok, Kuala Lumpur and Home

Postby cutiebutie » Tue, 26 Feb 2008 9:36 am

You say you want to have a clean solution, but you continue to harp on about (in caps, no less) about a comment.

You have been told what is the legal position, you know the consequences, you made mistakes all that while ago and you now want to play-play with words.

Perhaps a more mature approach on your part and an acceptance of the facts would be more beneficial to you.

(Oh, and English is also not my mother tongue and I did not live in an English-language country for 12 years. My comment was aimed at the fact that if you write so badly you give the impression that you don't understand the answers) :roll:
- Thank God for Darwin -

primitivo
Newbie
Newbie
Posts: 19
Joined: Fri, 22 Feb 2008

Postby primitivo » Tue, 26 Feb 2008 10:18 am

I'm not talking about a normal comment by a normal person, it was from a recent official speech by the Defense Minister.

One should expect that such an important statement should have some legal basis.

But I can only find the following in the Enlistment Act:

Postponement.
28. The proper authority may by notice postpone for such period as it may consider appropriate all or any part of the liability of any person under this Act.

[27

Exemption.
29. The proper authority may by notice exempt any person from all or any part of the liability of that person under this Act.

User avatar
cutiebutie
Chatter
Chatter
Posts: 286
Joined: Sat, 01 Sep 2007
Location: Bangkok, Kuala Lumpur and Home

Postby cutiebutie » Tue, 26 Feb 2008 12:57 pm

And there you have your answer. :wink: Clear now? :D
- Thank God for Darwin -

User avatar
sundaymorningstaple
Moderator
Moderator
Posts: 35168
Joined: Thu, 11 Nov 2004
Location: Still Fishing!
Contact:

Postby sundaymorningstaple » Tue, 26 Feb 2008 12:57 pm

primitive tivo,

We have tried to help you the best we can with the information available. If you insist of hunting for a specific phrase, then by all means, please ignore all that we have said here.

At your own peril I might add. The melvin tan case was an instance of a guy gone for 37 years and having been a british citizen for most of them. He still got fined and because of that they are looking into making the penalties even heavier. The Singapore government has a very long memory. After all, the father of Singapore is a very vindictive person himself. Look at the politicians who crossed his path who were subsequently sued into submission.

I think you ought to just come waltzing into Singapore like nobody's business and completely ignore all the information that has been given to you. After all, you seem to know so much that you are pinning all your hopes on a silly phrase. As they lead you away, you can keep asking where is that phrase.

The only clean solution is to do your NS like a man, and the whimpering pup that you are starting to appear like.

:roll:

primitivo
Newbie
Newbie
Posts: 19
Joined: Fri, 22 Feb 2008

Postby primitivo » Tue, 26 Feb 2008 1:59 pm

I've read Melvin Tan's case, and I think he got away too easily. He should have been punished to the full extent of the Singapore law.

He left Singapore at 12 (past 11), to study under a Singapore fund, applied exit permit beyond 18, and then did not return to serve NS with parents still in Singapore.

Our case is totally different. Our son left Singapore when he was only 5.

I do not understand why you guys would downplay an official statement made by Singapore defense minister.

Ministerial Statement on National Service Defaulters by Minister for Defence Teo Chee Hean

http://www.mindef.gov.sg/imindef/news_a ... ment%20Act

User avatar
sundaymorningstaple
Moderator
Moderator
Posts: 35168
Joined: Thu, 11 Nov 2004
Location: Still Fishing!
Contact:

Postby sundaymorningstaple » Tue, 26 Feb 2008 2:26 pm

Nobody downplayed the statement at all.

Only those who have emigrated at a young age and have not enjoyed substantial socio-economic benefits are allowed to renounce their citizenship without serving National Service.


The key word here is "AND". By their own admission, if you hold a Singapore passport after the age of 11 (13 with the new rules) you are deemed to have enjoyed significant socio-economic benefits where or not you were in Singapore proper. Why is that so difficult to understand I don't know. Obviously the US standards for granting citizenship has really gotten slack since I left.

As I said before, ignore the information at you own peril.

primitivo
Newbie
Newbie
Posts: 19
Joined: Fri, 22 Feb 2008

Postby primitivo » Tue, 26 Feb 2008 4:18 pm

sundaymorningstaple wrote:if you hold a Singapore passport after the age of 11 (13 with the new rules) you are deemed to have enjoyed significant socio-economic benefits


Ha, splendid.

I double checked his Singapore passport. It expired 2 months and 2 days before his 13th birthday. We did not renew it afterwards.

Thanks

User avatar
sundaymorningstaple
Moderator
Moderator
Posts: 35168
Joined: Thu, 11 Nov 2004
Location: Still Fishing!
Contact:

Postby sundaymorningstaple » Tue, 26 Feb 2008 6:16 pm

primitivo wrote:
sundaymorningstaple wrote:if you hold a Singapore passport after the age of 11 (13 with the new rules) you are deemed to have enjoyed significant socio-economic benefits


Ha, splendid.

I double checked his Singapore passport. It expired 2 months and 2 days before his 13th birthday. We did not renew it afterwards.

Thanks


Like just about every other post you have made so far, you don't seem to think very far or in very much depth (he would have the problems he has now if you did). The age of 13 only came about recently. not 4 years ago. It is very possible that the law was still 11 once your boy passed his eleventh birthday with that valid passport. The change wasn't retroactive. It was changed because of the new biometric passports which have only came about recently.

You really ought to read your post above. You sound like you are the kid who had a eureka moment. Almost like you think this is a game show. Here we are trying to help and you are acting like it's a contest.

Good luck. :roll:

User avatar
cutiebutie
Chatter
Chatter
Posts: 286
Joined: Sat, 01 Sep 2007
Location: Bangkok, Kuala Lumpur and Home

Postby cutiebutie » Tue, 26 Feb 2008 6:50 pm

And the name 'primitivo'? Troll potential, but definitely immature.
- Thank God for Darwin -

User avatar
Plavt
Director
Director
Posts: 4292
Joined: Wed, 18 May 2005
Location: United Kingdom

Postby Plavt » Tue, 26 Feb 2008 7:11 pm

primitivo wrote:Ha, splendid.

I double checked his Singapore passport. It expired 2 months and 2 days before his 13th birthday. We did not renew it afterwards.

Thanks


To be quite brutal primitivo you are only seeking to hear what you want to hear like many of those poor lost souls I see in the airline thread. Why don't you just admit it, you f******** up? There is an easy way for your son to avoid NS and quite simple: STAY OUT OF SINGAPORE PERIOD! :roll:


  • Similar Topics
    Replies
    Views
    Last post

Return to “Strictly Speaking”

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 1 guest