SINGAPORE CITIZENSHIP (Applications from minor citizens)

Mr S. Dhanabalan asked the Minister for Home Affairs and Education how many applications for citizenship result from minor citizens who through ignorance fail to take the oath of allegiance on attaining the age of 21 years and whether, instead of calling up such persons and taking away their pink identity cards and issuing them blue identity cards, a procedure can be established to inform such persons individually of the need to take the oath of allegiance and to administer such an oath immediately instead of causing them to join the queue of applicants for citizenship.

Mr Chua Sian Chin: Mr Speaker, Sir, first of all, let me state that minors who become Singapore citizens by descent or by registration are required under the Singapore Constitution to take the oath of renunciation, allegiance and loyalty within 12 months on reaching the age of 21 years. Failure to comply with this legal requirement will make them automatically lose their citizenship. It is not possible to reinstate their citizenship once it is lost by reason of non-compliance with this constitutional requirement. Such persons may, however, apply again to be registered as citizens. In 1976, a total of 34 applications were received under this category.

During the last six years, the number of persons who failed to take the oath and had lost their citizenship was as follows: 1971 - 135 1972 - 150 1973 - 122 1974 - 84 1975 - 86 1976 - 67 The figures indicate that the problem is a diminishing one. I also wish to point out that some could have failed to take the oath deliberately for various reasons, such as to evade national service. In 1976, 24 of the 67 who failed to take the oath were known to have done so deliberately.

It is not practical to send individual reminders to minors about the need to take the oath because many of them were registered as Singapore citizens at a tender age, often below one year old, and it would be extremely difficult to contact these persons, particularly if they are residing overseas and do not possess Singapore identity cards. Even if reminders were to be sent, those who failed to take the oath could always claim that they did not receive the reminders and thus put the blame on the Government for their own failing.

Nevertheless, the following measures have been taken all along by the Registry of Citizenship to remind minor citizens to take the oath of renunciation, allegiance and loyalty on reaching the age of 21:

(i) A reminder on the need for the oath taking, in the four official languages, is stamped on the back of all citizenship certificates issued to minor citizens;

(ii) At the time such certificates are issued, the attention of the parent or guardian is drawn to the oath taking requirement;

(iii) Singapore passports, both international and restricted, issued to minor citizens are valid only up to their 21st birthday and will not be renewed unless the holders have taken the oath;

(iv) Since July 1973, a press statement has been issued bi-annually in June and December to remind minor citizens to take the oath. This statement is carried by the TV, radio and by the newspapers; and

(v) Minor citizens serving national service in the SAF are also reminded by the SAF to take the oath at the appropriate time.

The above measures should be sufficient to remind minor citizens to take their oath. If they fail to do so, they have themselves to blame. I might add that citizenship is a serious matter for the minors and their parents to make the effort on their part to remember to take their oath. If they do not, it is an indication that they do not seriously value the citizenship or treat their oath of allegiance to our Republic seriously. They have one full year in which to take their oath.

Dr Lau Teik Soon (Serangoon Gardens): Mr Speaker, Sir, the Minister mentioned that in 1976 out of the number who failed to take the oath of allegiance, about 34 of them had reapplied. May we know from the Minister how many of these 34 who reapplied were successful, and whether there were any rejections, if so, on what grounds were they rejected?

Mr Chua Sian Chin: Sir, I have some of the figures here. The majority of those who lost their minor citizenship have reapplied. In 1974, of those who reapplied, 17 were approved; in 1975, 169 were approved; and in 1976, 77 were approved.

Sir, as some of them are genuine cases of failure to take their oath, they were given sympathetic consideration and, in fact, some of them were given priority consideration. But before approving their citizenship applications, they have to satisfy the various requirements needed. For example, they must have the normal residence of 10 years out of the 12 years preceding their application; that they are of good character and that they have family roots in Singapore.

Mr S. Dhanabalan (Kallang): Sir, would the Minister please explain why it should be more difficult to send individual reminders when, in fact, individual letters are sent to those who have failed to take their oath of allegiance to exchange their pink identity, cards for blue identity cards?

Mr Chua Sian Chin: Sir, as I said, the reason is that some of them were registered as minor citizens at the tender age of one year old and have not obtained identity cards at all. If they have identity cards, then it would not be difficult to send them reminders. In fact, the answer to the Member for Kallang's question is contained in the question itself. If they have identity cards, then it would be easier to address them for the return of their identity cards.

Mr S. Dhanabalan: They must have.

Mr Chua Sian Chin: Then it would be easier to address them a letter for the return of their identity cards.

The Senior Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister for Labour (Mr Fong Sip Chee): Sir, would the Minister consider withdrawing that part of his reply where he said that those people failed to subscribe to the oath of allegiance for reasons of evasion of national service? Would the Minister consider withdrawing this part of the reply, because there is an apparent contradiction? That is the first question.

The second question: Is the Minister not aware that the age for national service is set at the age of 18 and that the subscription to the oath of allegiance is at the age of 21? This leads me to the third question. At the age of 21, he would have served national service. So there is an apparent contradiction there. Would the Minister then consider withdrawing his entire reply in the circumstances?

Mr Chua Sian Chin: Mr Speaker, Sir, that statement of mine has been made after very careful thought. I do not know whether the request from the Member for Kampong Chai Chee was made after serious consideration on his part. I am not saying that every one of them did not take the oath because he wanted to evade national service. What I said was "some of them." And it does not mean that when a person has reached the age of 18 he will automatically do national service or, if he has not done national service, he would not have to do national service later. I think it is quite obvious that those people whom I am referring to are those who have gone abroad at the age of 18 and below and are still abroad. And when they reach the age of 21 they have not returned. This is the category of persons I am referring to.

Mr Fong Sip Chee: Sir, is not the Minister therefore implying that those who can afford to go overseas at the age of 18 and before 21 will stand the chance later to deliberately fail to subscribe to the oath of allegiance so as to evade national service? That means those who cannot afford to go overseas have no chance even to say, "I do not want to subscribe to the oath." Is there not a disparity? Would the Minister consider withdrawing this part of his reply?

Mr Chua Sian Chin: Sir, I just cannot understand the Member for Kampong Chai Chee. I was just referring to a category of people who had not done national service and that they had not done national service because they were not in the country and they had not gone to take the oath of allegiance when they reached the age of 21. That is all that I have said. I am not implying anything further.

Mr P. Govindaswamy (Anson): Sir, as regards national service registration, it is published in the papers, announced over the radio and TV that everybody affected must register during the stated periods. Why is it, therefore, that minor citizens who reach 21 years of age are not reminded to take the oath?

Mr Chua Sian Chin: Sir, in answer to the Member for Anson, the publicity is given over the radio, TV and in the newspapers.

Mr S. Dhanabalan: Sir, if letters could be sent to each individual who holds an identity card (and they are all given identity cards at the age of 12), then why cannot individual letters be sent to them when they reach the age of 21 to remind them of the oath, when in fact such letters are sent asking them to come and exchange their pink identity cards for blue identity cards?

Mr Chua Sian Chin: Sir, let me explain again. The reason why we say that it is not good policy to send letters is that if we send letters to one or to some, then we have to send to all of them.

An hon. Member: Yes, send to all.

Mr Chua Sian Chin: It is not possible to send to all because not all of them will have identity cards, particularly the category of minor citizens who are abroad. Some of them do not hold identity cards.

Mr P. Govindaswamy: Mr Speaker, Sir, the Minister has not answered my question. He has only said that national service registration is announced over radio, TV and the newspapers. What I want is that those minor citizens who reach the age of 21 years must be reminded to take the oath of allegiance. I want this reminder published in the press and carried over the radio and TV.

Mr Ho See Beng (Khe Bong): That is right. Why not?

Mr Chua Sian Chin: Sir, these reminders are being published twice annually in the newspapers, carried over radio and TV.