National Service for Permanent Residents

Forging bonds of brotherhood

By William Choong, The Straits Times, 2 Jun 2012

AN INTERESTING statistic popped up from a recent Institute of Policy Studies (IPS) survey of local- and foreign-born citizens.

Sixty-nine per cent of the locals polled said having a male child who has completed National Service (NS) is an important characteristic of being 'Singaporean'. But only 43 per cent of the foreign-born citizens said the same.

The figures highlight one thing: after 45 years of National Service, most Singaporeans rate the value of NS highly.

This is cause for celebration: The Singapore Armed Forces (SAF) has become as much an instrument of social integration as it is a war-fighting entity.

Indeed, NS has become a great leveller, and proof that the Singapore Pledge is operative. Regardless of race, language and religion, all NS-liable men serve together.

As the young Dylan McDermott, acting as a war-weary sergeant in the Vietnam-era movie Hamburger Hill, said: 'All I want from anybody is to get their ass in the grass with the rest of us.'

The upshot of this is straightforward: If foreign-born citizens are less supportive of NS as being a quintessential Singaporean trait, they need to get used to it.

A more sensitive issue, however, is the perceived difference between citizens and permanent residents (PRs) when it comes to NS.

On the face of it, not much separates citizens and PRs when it comes to NS. It is mandatory for citizens and second-generation PRs to serve full-time national service for about two years from age 18. (First-generation PRs are 'administratively exempted').

NS-liable PRs are second-generation PRs. If they fail to register or enlist, they are deemed NS defaulters like any other citizen who defaults on NS. If convicted, they face a jail term of up to three years and/or a fine of up to $10,000.

But some PRs choose to renounce their PR status rather than do NS. Those who do so without serving NS face 'adverse consequences', says Mindef.

It is this escape hatch of being able to renounce one's PR status that is a cause of some resentment among locals, says Dr Leong Chan-Hoong, an IPS senior research fellow who spearheaded the think-tank's survey.

So the term 'adverse consequences' needs clarification and assurance that it is a sufficient deterrent.

Last November, Defence Minister Ng Eng Hen said that about a third of male foreigners who became PRs under the sponsorship of their parents renounced their PR status prior to serving NS.

These PRs - some 4,200 people - were warned about the consequences of their action at the point of renouncing their PR status. 'Their failure to serve NS will be taken into account when they subsequently apply to study or work in Singapore,' said Dr Ng.

It is generally understood that 'adverse consequences' refer to the difficulty associated with getting one's PR status back or obtaining a work visa to work in Singapore.

But Mindef has not explicitly spelt out what the 'adverse consequences' are. For instance, will a former PR who renounced his PR status to avoid NS but is highly skilled, still be able to obtain an Employment Pass? Or is there a blanket ban on such people getting a work visa in Singapore?

Writing to the press in December, Mr Sreedharan Sechachalam said he knew of renouncers who got into the National University of Singapore's 'highly competitive medical school to which, every year, some straight-As Singaporean students fail to gain admission'. He added that some renouncers were even admitted to speciality training programmes sought after by many Singaporeans and non-Singaporeans.

Mindef replied to Mr Sechachalam's letter, without addressing the specific cases but repeating the same premises regarding renouncers: they will face 'adverse consequences' and their failure to serve NS would be taken into account when they subsequently apply to work or study here.

To alleviate some of the resentment Singaporeans feel over this issue, two suggestions have surfaced. First, a security bond should be considered.

Writing in these pages last month, Dr Leong proposed that parents be required to put up a security bond when applying for PR status for their children.

This would be similar to the security bond posted for NS-liable pre-enlistees (citizens and PRs) who go overseas for extended periods. The bond is forfeited if these young men do not return to fulfil NS obligations.

Given that second-generation PRs are not yet citizens, the bond put up by first-generation PRs who apply for residency status for their children could be pegged lower than that for citizens.

This bond should, likewise, be forfeited if the male child fails to do his NS stint. Dr Leong adds that the child should also have to give up his PR status.

A second suggestion is that NS-liable PRs be subject to the same rules as citizens who renounce their citizenship - that is, they cannot renounce their residency until they have served NS.

The two measures are reasonable, given that NS-liable PRs have, like citizens, enjoyed the benefits of living in Singapore.

National University of Singapore sociologist Tan Ern Ser supports both ideas. The issue is as much about integration as fairness, he says, adding: 'Citizens want to be fairly treated. If young PRs have enjoyed the key privileges accorded to citizens, Singaporeans expect them to share in the responsibilities of citizenship as well.'

Deputy Prime Minister Teo Chee Hean told Parliament in 2006 that NS-liable PRs are 'like Singaporeans in many ways' as they had studied alongside their Singaporean counterparts and benefited from living in Singapore.

It is true the two measures mooted will discourage some potential PRs from rooting themselves firmly here. If so, their fledging roots never went very deep in the first place. More pertinently, the measures will go some way towards alleviating some of the unhappiness about PRs and NS.

In his 2006 Parliament speech, DPM Teo stressed two enduring principles about NS: It is universal, meaning all young and fit Singaporean males will have to serve NS; and it is equitable, meaning everyone will be treated equally. If NS is a fellowship forged among a band of brothers from a shared crucible, these two hallowed principles should apply to both citizens and NS-liable PRs.

NS: Priceless privilege
By Jermyn Chow, The Straits Times, 2 Jun 2012

WHEN Singapore became suddenly independent in 1965, its defence assets consisted of two untested infantry battalions, two lightly armed patrol boats and no air force to speak of.

Singapore was a new state in a tumultuous region, with an uncertain future. Then Prime Minister Lee Kuan Yew was painfully aware that Singapore could not afford a fully professional army and so took the conscription route in 1967. Thus was 'national service' (NS) born: The armed forces' backbone would be non-regular soldiers paid a token allowance.

A total of 9,000 able-bodied men were enlisted in 1967.

Today - 45 years later - more than 900,000 men have undergone the NS rite of passage.

But planners now grapple with another pressing issue - a simmering resentment among Singaporeans dismayed about the status of foreign-born permanent residents (PRs). They gripe that not all young male PRs are enlisted, and that second-generation PRs can renounce their residency to avoid NS.

Some have suggested that second-generation PRs who are liable for NS should be made to post a security bond. If they do not enlist, this bond will be forfeited.

And if they want to give up their PR, they would still have to serve NS first.

It is true that Singaporean men face penalties for defaulting on NS. And parents already stump up a bond to ensure that their kids who go overseas to study return to do NS when they are 18 years old.

But I feel that putting a price tag on NS cheapens this iconic institution. What dollar value can you impute to the responsibilities and privileges of NS, and by extension, citizenship?

Over the years, the Government has rolled out a plethora of measures - such as tax rebates, higher NS allowances, discounted club memberships - to thank the citizens who have done their NS stints. It also introduced in 2010 a $9,000 handout, the biggest cash payout yet, to be disbursed to citizens who have done NS over 10 years.

PRs don't get a cent.

But I'm not sure if all this money makes the Singaporean citizen-soldier feel more appreciated.

As former foreign minister George Yeo, who chaired a 1991 panel to recognise the contributions of operationally ready national servicemen, put it: 'It is not possible to reduce national service to costs and benefits. Neither is it right.'

Money cannot be the carrot; it should not be the stick either.

Imposing security bonds and tying down those who have taken up residency is tantamount to rolling back the welcome mat for foreigners. It smacks of an attitude of wanting to extract maximum pain from PRs in return for them enjoying Singapore's benefits.

Such negative measures dampen Singapore's attraction as a talent destination.

Prime Minister Lee Hsien Loong once said that the Government 'cannot make it so onerous for PRs and non-residents that they do not want to come'.

Already, PR numbers in the first six months of last year have fallen, for the first time in 20 years. There were 532,000 PRs last June, 9,000 fewer than in the same period in 2010.

Second-generation PRs are already liable for national service, like citizens. Mindef spokesman Kenneth Liow said: 'Singapore welcomes those who want to sink roots here and contribute as permanent residents, but they should do so only if they are fully committed to national service.'

The message is thus clear: NS is part of the package deal if you are a young man (first-generation PRs are exempted) wanting to settle in Singapore long term.

If that is not enough, what is?

As it is, the distinctions between PRs and citizens have been sharpened over the years.

PRs pay higher school fees and hospital bills as they enjoy less government subsidies. They do not get subsidised housing.

PRs pay taxes and contribute to the economy like any citizen. Many are active volunteers, giving back to the community.

But there is one crucial difference: PRs are not citizens. They have chosen Singapore as their home for now, putting down roots with their kin. But they can leave if they want to. They are not as invested as citizens in the long-term future of Singapore, which is why they do not get to vote.

And this is why we should not force them to do NS if they do not want to.

PRs have dual loyalties: to their country of origin and their adopted country. If their loyalty to Singapore is strong enough, they will fulfil their NS obligation.

Using a security bond to force a reluctant PR to serve NS, or worse, compelling a PR to serve NS before he can renounce his residency, does nothing to guarantee that the young man will be a loyal and fully committed Singapore Armed Forces (SAF) soldier.

Call me an idealist, but more than 12 years after I reported for duty at Pulau Tekong camp as a nervous recruit, I continue to hold on to the rose-tinted view that it is a privilege to enter military training, to learn to bear arms for my country and my people.

Our blood, sweat and tears shed to build the SAF cannot be reduced to a dollar value. What is defining are priceless intangibles such as duty, honour, loyalty and national pride.

When then Defence Minister Goh Keng Swee asked Parliament to pass the National Service Bill in 1967, he said: 'Nothing creates loyalty and national consciousness more speedily and more thoroughly than participation in defence and membership of the armed forces.'

Mr Lee Kuan Yew's pitch to the nation was that those called up for duty must see it as a privilege to serve: 'It will take many years - perhaps five, perhaps seven, perhaps 10 years - before we can get the whole machine into gear. But in the end, every boy and girl here will understand that what he or she has in Singapore, he or she must be prepared to fight and defend. Otherwise, it will be lost.'

Forty-five years on, are we reducing the meaning of NS by seeing it as a burden to be shared by foisting it on reluctant PRs? Are we viewing the social contract between NS, Singaporeans and NS-liable PRs purely in terms of dollars and cents?

To do so will reduce the significance of NS and be a tragic loss to the meaning of this institution.

Related

What makes someone Singaporean?