SECTION_NAME:MINISTERIAL STATEMENT

Column No : 2004

Column No : 2004

NATIONAL SERVICE DEFAULTERS:

(Statement by the Minister for Defence) Mr Teo Chee Hean: Mr Speaker, Sir, there has been significant public interest recently in the issue of National Service defaulters arising from the case of Melvyn Tan. Members of the House have also submitted questions on MINDEF's policy on NS defaulters, the punishments meted out to them, and whether the punishments provided for in the Enlistment Act are adequate.

Need for National Service

National Service was introduced 38 years ago in 1967, soon after we became independent. National Service fulfilled a critical need - we had to defend ourselves. It was a matter of survival. As a small country with a small population, the only way we could build a force of sufficient size to defend ourselves was through conscription. It was a decision not taken lightly given the significant impact that conscription would have on every Singaporean. But there was no alternative.

Over the past four decades, the need for National Service has been reaffirmed. With National Service, we have built up the SAF into a capable and credible force. The SAF deters aggression, protects our sovereignty and territorial integrity, and allows us to pursue our national interests without yielding to external threats or pressure. In addition, the SAF now also has to deal with a wider spectrum of threats which can derail our peace and prosperity, threats such as transnational terrorism and maritime security. The need for National Service therefore continues to be as critical as ever.

National Service and our committed National Servicemen form the backbone of the SAF. It is not an exaggeration to say that the peace and prosperity that Singapore and Singaporeans have enjoyed over the past four decades are built upon the dedication of NSmen who have dutifully served their country. 700,000 have served. More than 300,000 are currently doing their full-time NS or are active operationally ready national servicemen being called up annually for their in-camp training and standby duties. Another 400,000 have done their duty and completed their operationally ready national service cycle. Sons now follow in the footsteps of their fathers, as a second generation of Singaporeans serves our country through National Service.

National Service, both full-time and during operationally ready service, requires significant sacrifice on the part of our NSmen. The sacrifice is shared by their families; and their employers bear inconveniences as well. The Government acknowledges this, and has over the years introduced initiatives to recognise the efforts and sacrifices of our NSmen. But these initiatives can never fully compensate our NSmen for their sacrifice and the effort they commit to serving the nation.

Principles of National Service

Our National Service policy is underpinned by three fundamental principles. The first is that National Service must be for meeting a critical national need - for it requires considerable cost both to the individual and to the nation. That critical need is national security and our survival. This is why NSmen are deployed only in the Singapore Armed Forces, the Singapore Police Force and the Singapore Civil Defence Force, where they contribute directly to the security and defence of Singapore.

Once in a while, there are suggestions that Singaporeans should be allowed different forms of National Service. For example, a recent commentary by Ms Ong Soh Chin of The Straits Times advocated a rethink of the scope of National Service. She suggested that it be extended to include other forms of non-combat service, such as in the social sector or in the arts. MINDEF does not think this is appropriate. We are clear that if we require our people to perform National Service, it must be to fulfil a critical national need. Otherwise there is insufficient reason to compel a person to serve.

The second fundamental principle of our National Service is universality. All young Singaporean males who are fit to serve are conscripted. If we have a system in which some are conscripted but others are not, there will be strong feelings of unfairness which will undermine the commitment of our NSmen. This is not unique to Singapore. This was a problem that the US faced during the Vietnam War. Not everyone was conscripted. Some exploited loopholes and technicalities to avoid being drafted. There were exemptions, deferments and alternative forms of service. This affected morale and the will to fight among those who were drafted, and it also affected the American people's support for conscription and the war. MINDEF has always been very clear that National Service must be universal - all who are fit to serve National Service must serve.

The third fundamental principle of our National Service is equity. Everyone has to be treated in the same way, regardless of background or status. His deployment in NS is determined by where he is most needed to meet the needs of the national defence.

NS defaulters

In line with these three principles, MINDEF has consistently taken a tough stand against those who default on their National Service obligations. We have introduced various measures over the years to prevent such persons from evading National Service. For example, the Constitution was amended in 1979 so that those who refused to serve could not escape their National Service obligation by simply renouncing their citizenship. 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.

Since 1970, we have required pre-enlistees who are going overseas for an extended period to post a bond as a promise that they will return to fulfil their National Service obligation. The bond quantum was $20,000 in 1970 and it has been increased over the years. Since 1992, the bond quantum has been set at $75,000 or half the combined annual income of the parents, whichever is higher. The bond is however not a substitute for National Service. If a pre-enlistee fails to return to serve his National Service, not only has he broken his bond but, more importantly, he has broken his promise and broken the law by not returning to fulfil his National Service obligation. The bond quantum that is forfeited is the penalty he has to pay for breaking the bond. It is not redemption and not a substitute for National Service. He still has to face the law for failing to comply with his National Service obligations under the Enlistment Act; and he still remains liable for National Service.

There is strong support for National Service among Singaporeans. Every year only a small number, about 0.5% of those liable for NS each year, or on average 100 unresolved cases of NS defaulters a year over the past five years, fail to register or enlist for National Service, or fail to return after their exit permits expired. The vast majority of these defaulters are overseas.

An average of 12 NS defaulters a year were charged in Court for failing to comply with the Enlistment Act. The offences carry a sentence of up to three years imprisonment, a fine of up to $5,000, or both. The sentence is decided by the Court based on the circumstances of each case. Besides answering to the Court, NS defaulters who are still Singaporeans and below the age of 40 will have to serve National Service.

Melvyn Tan

Mr Speaker, Sir, allow me now to touch on the specifics of the case of Melvyn Tan. Much has been said about his case and many Singaporeans have expressed strong views. I discern two key concerns in the public debate.

The first was that the punishment meted out to NS defaulters was insufficient and not proportionate with the seriousness of the offence. There were many indignant voices who argued that a $3,000 fine was too light considering that other Singaporeans had to diligently serve 2 or 2½ years of full-time National Service and many more years of in-camp training. Such feelings are understandable and I will address this concern later in my statement.

The second concern expressed was whether Melvyn Tan had been given special treatment; whether different rules for National Service applied to different people. I would like to assure the House that this was not the case. Melvyn Tan was treated no differently from other NS defaulters in similar situations.

Melvyn Tan left Singapore at age 12 in 1969 to study music at the Yehudi Menuhin School in England. In 1974, when he was 17, he won a Foundation Scholarship, jointly funded by the Straits Times Press, Nanyang Siang Pau and the Lee Foundation, to further his music studies at the Royal College of Music. As the course would take him beyond the enlistment age of 18, he applied for and was granted deferment from National Service for three years, after his parents furnished a bond of $30,000.

However, Melvyn Tan failed to return after his deferment period ended. Instead, he requested further deferment to pursue a Masters degree in music. The request was rejected, as we did not allow further deferment for postgraduate studies. When Melvyn Tan failed to enlist for full-time National Service after his deferment period was over and his exit permit had expired, the bond his parents furnished was forfeited and he was gazetted as an NS defaulter.

Melvyn Tan subsequently took up British citizenship in 1978 and applied to renounce his Singapore citizenship. He was allowed to renounce his citizenship based on the prevailing policy at that time. That policy was subsequently tightened, and someone in a similar situation today would not be allowed to renounce his citizenship and would remain liable for National Service.

Over the years, Melvyn Tan made a number of appeals, including one to the Prime Minister in 1995, to be allowed to return to Singapore without being charged for his National Service offences. MINDEF rejected all of his appeals. MINDEF's position was that while he was free to return to Singapore, he would have to answer for his National Service offence in Court, like all other NS defaulters.

In April last year, Melvyn Tan decided to return to Singapore to face the Court. He stated that he wanted to return in order to be with his ageing parents. He pleaded guilty in Court and was sentenced to a fine of $3,000. His sentence was similar to that imposed on other NS defaulters under similar circumstances. As Melvyn was no longer a Singaporean and was in any case over 40 years old, he was no longer liable for National Service and could not be made to serve his National Service.

Penalties for NS defaulters

Sir, let me now touch on the issue of punishment for NS defaulters. The legal framework for National Service is contained in two pieces of legislation - the Enlistment Act and the Singapore Armed Forces Act.

The Enlistment Act applies to all Singaporeans and Permanent Residents from age 16½ to 40, or age 50 in the case of officers. The Act provides for the registration and enlistment of those liable for National Service, and also for the requirement to apply for an Exit Permit or to notify MINDEF when going overseas. Those who fail to comply with the provisions of the Enlistment Act are dealt with in the civil courts regardless of whether they are pre-enlistees, full-time NSmen or Operationally Ready NSmen. On conviction, they can be sentenced to a jail term of up to three years, or a fine of up to $5,000, or both.

The Singapore Armed Forces Act deals with those in the service of the SAF and contains provisions pertaining to their conduct and discipline. Those in the service of the SAF comprise regulars, full-time NSmen, and Operationally Ready NSmen who have been served an order to report for service. Pre-enlistees are not subject to the Singapore Armed Forces Act as they are not yet in the service of the SAF.

Servicemen who commit offences under the Singapore Armed Forces Act are dealt with either in the Subordinate Military Court or by SAF disciplinary officers.

NS defaulters are dealt with under the Enlistment Act as they have failed to respond to orders to register or enlist for National Service, or failed to comply with Exit Permit requirements. MINDEF's approach in dealing with NS defaulters has been to charge them in Court for Enlistment Act offences and let the Court impose an appropriate sentence based on the circumstances of each case and the provisions of the Enlistment Act.

Over the past 20 years, 185 NS defaulters have been convicted in Court for Enlistment Act offences. Of these, 43 received jail sentences, 140 were fined and two were punished in connection with other civil offences. Of the 140 who were fined, 35 were ultimately jailed when they did not pay their fines.

Of the 185 convicted defaulters, 127 were enlisted or are awaiting enlistment for National Service following their convictions. Two were supposed to enlist but defaulted again prior to their enlistment. 33 were not drafted as they were unsuitable for enlistment for security or medical reasons - they would not have been enlisted in any case even if they had not defaulted on NS. The remaining 23 were not drafted because they were either above the statutory age limit or no longer Singaporeans.

Of note is that the High Court had, in a 1993 case, reduced the sentences of two NS defaulters - two brothers - from eight months' imprisonment to a fine of $3,000 on appeal. This was an unusual case where it could be said that there were mitigating circumstances. Since then the Subordinate Courts have been using this case as a guideline, and not imposed a jail sentence on single-instance defaulters, no matter how long the default period was. The courts have imposed jail sentence on single instance defaulters only in cases where there are aggravating factors, such as repeated Enlistment Act offences, past criminal records, concurrent charges of other civil offences, and absconding during investigation.

It is for the Court to decide on the appropriate punishment for individual cases of NS defaulters. MINDEF had not been pressing for custodial sentences, nor had it appealed for heavier sentences. The majority of cases so far have been those who returned at a relatively young age and were still able to fulfil their National Service obligations. Half of those charged in Court over the past 20 years returned at age 21 or younger, and 80% returned at age 28 or younger. A fine for such NS defaulters was not inappropriate as they were still able to serve their National Service obligations in full.

However, Melvyn Tan's case has highlighted an inadequacy in penalties for those who have defaulted for so many years that they are no longer able to discharge their National Service obligations in full. Since the appeal case in the High Court in 1993, besides Melvyn Tan, there have been 13 other cases of convicted defaulters who were sentenced only to a fine and who were not subsequently enlisted because they were already over 40 or almost 40. This is something that we need to look into more closely, especially as there may now be more defaulters who are 40 or older coming before the courts with the passing of time.

Review of Enlistment Act

Sir, in the middle of last year, MINDEF embarked on a periodic review of the Enlistment Act and the Singapore Armed Forces Act. This review focused on the penalty regimes in the Acts. The review of the penalty regime in the Singapore Armed Forces Act was completed in November last year and a Bill to amend the Singapore Armed Forces Act is up for Second Reading now before the House. The proposal is to increase the maximum fine quantum provided for in the SAF Act.

The review of the Enlistment Act has taken longer because, in addition to reviewing the penalty regime, MINDEF is also studying how to modify the exit control measures to take into account the impending introduction of the biometric passport. I will provide details of the changes in the exit control measures at a later sitting when I move the Bill to amend the Enlistment Act.

Let me deal with the issues regarding the penalty regime. MINDEF considered whether, in the context of current conditions and the number of NS defaulters, it is necessary to change the nature and scale of punishments in the Enlistment Act. In particular, we looked at whether the maximum jail sentence of three years is adequate, whether we should specify a mandatory minimum jail sentence, and whether the maximum fine that can be imposed is adequate.

MINDEF will be proposing to the House to increase the maximum fine provided for in the Enlistment Act from the current $5,000 to $10,000. This will be in line with the amendment to the Singapore Armed Forces Act which is now before the House. While the maximum fine will be higher, it is important to note that the fine, like the bond, is not a substitute for serving National Service. The fine is a penalty for failing to fulfil his obligations under the Enlistment Act, and the defaulter remains liable for National Service.

MINDEF has concluded that the maximum jail sentence of three years is adequate, as it is longer than the current full-time National Service duration of two years. Whether or not a particular offence merits the maximum punishment of three years' imprisonment would be a matter for the Court to decide based on the facts of each case.

MINDEF does not consider it necessary at this time to seek a minimum mandatory jail sentence for Enlistment Act offences, as the circumstances of the cases vary widely. However, from now on, MINDEF will ask the prosecutor to press for a jail sentence in serious cases of NS defaulters, and explain why we consider a jail sentence appropriate in a particular case. Serious cases include those who default on their full-time National Service responsibilities for two years or longer from the time they were required to register or enlist, or from the time their exit permits expired for those granted deferment, whichever is later. We believe that it is in the public interest that such NS defaulters face a jail sentence, unless there are mitigating circumstances.

I would like to provide some illustrations of what MINDEF considers to be sentences appropriate to the nature of the offence or commensurate with its gravity:

(a) Where the default period exceeds two years but the defaulter is young enough to serve his full-time and operationally ready NS duties in full, MINDEF will press for a short jail sentence.

(b) Where the defaulter has reached an age when he cannot serve his full-time NS in a combat vocation or fulfil his operationally ready NS obligations in full, a longer jail sentence to reflect the period of NS he has evaded may be appropriate.

(c) Where the defaulter has reached an age when he cannot be called up for NS at all, a jail sentence up to the maximum of three years may be appropriate.
In all instances, we expect that the Court will take into account whatever aggravating or mitigating circumstances there may be in each case to determine the appropriate sentence.

Commitment is key

Mr Speaker, Sir, we need the appropriate laws and regulations, the fines, bonds and penalties to maintain our principles of universality and equity for National Service. But what is more important is having committed NSmen who are willing to serve, and who believe that they have something to fight for and to die for, if necessary. As Mr Ivan Michael Pung wrote in his letter to The Straits Times on 1st December last year, and I quote "the reason why we answer the call-up is not to enjoy the rewards cited, like HDB concessionary loans, IPPT monetary awards and New Singapore Shares. We all serve National Service so that our parents, siblings and loved ones will sleep well each and every night. We know that we must defend what belongs to us."

Mr Pung is not alone in his commitment. Singaporeans can sleep well knowing that there are many others like him who are committed to the security and defence of our country. I recently met a young man at my meet-the-people session. He came to see me about his National Service call-up. It was a heart-warming meeting. MINDEF had exempted him from National Service on medical grounds, but he wanted to serve and felt that he could contribute despite his medical condition. He told me that National Service is something all Singaporean men had to do and he wanted to do his National Service too. I was most impressed by his determination to live a normal life and to serve our country in any way he can, in spite of his illness. This young man is still studying in a post-secondary institution, and MINDEF will review his case when he has completed his studies. If it is appropriate, we will enlist him and deploy him to serve in a role that is compatible with his medical condition.

Sir, ours is a compulsory National Service system. Singaporeans do not have a choice whether or not to serve National Service. Yet there is a strong commitment to National Service among our NSmen and a belief in the importance of National Service. In a survey of NSmen conducted last year, an overwhelming majority indicated that they will defend Singapore if it should come under threat (96%), and that they will risk their lives to fight for Singapore in a war (92%). The survey findings are supported by what MINDEF has observed of NSmen during their in-camp training. They take their training seriously and many are keen to offer suggestions on how training and operating procedures can be improved.

While we continuously seek to upgrade the SAF's hardware and software, we know that it is very important not to lose sight of the heart-ware. MINDEF and the SAF have therefore been working at eliciting higher levels of commitment and ownership in our nation's defence. To cement the bonds of commitment of our people, the Army has embarked on the Army Culture and Experience, or ACE movement. The aim is to shape a positive army experience for all NSmen and to build a strong culture that will inspire confidence and commitment to collectively defend our country. May I request the Clerk to distribute some brochures describing the ACE programme. [ Copies of brochure distributed to hon. Members .]

Sir, we have come a long way since National Service was introduced 38 years ago. MINDEF is greatly heartened by the commitment of our NSmen and Singaporeans' support for National Service. The Government will continue to give recognition to the commitment and contributions of NSmen to the defence of our nation. The RECORD IV committee chaired by Dr Ng Eng Hen will soon be announcing its recommendations on ways to further recognise and enhance the contributions of NSmen to Total Defence. The Government looks forward to the recommendations of the RECORD IV committee.

Conclusion

Mr Speaker, Sir, the response to Melvyn Tan's case has highlighted that Singaporeans feel strongly that defaulting on National Service is wrong and defaulters should face serious consequences. The Government agrees with this view. NS defaulters must face the Court to answer for their offences, and thereafter must discharge their National Service liabilities. Whether such NS defaulters, who have answered for their offences in Court and paid the penalty, should be eventually accepted back into our fold, is not something that MINDEF can determine. It is for society to decide. And society will also look at whether such individuals, apart from having paid a penalty, are sincerely contrite for having failed to serve our nation, and whether they have attempted to make amends.

Mr Speaker, Sir, National Service remains critical for our national survival. Singaporeans serve willingly out of a sense of duty, and also a sense that the system is fair. Every citizen does his part, and nobody can dodge his responsibility to serve without severe legal and social sanctions. The Government will strenuously uphold the National Service system, and preserve its fairness and equity. This is essential to maintain the commitment that Singaporeans have shown over four decades of National Service.

Mr Speaker, Sir, pursuant to Standing Order No. 44, I beg to move that the Ministerial Statement on National Service be considered by Parliament.

Mr Speaker: Order. I propose to take the break now. I suspend the Sitting and will take the Chair again at 3.55 pm.

Sitting accordingly suspended

at 3.33 pm until 3.55 pm.

Sitting resumed at 3.55 pm

[Mr Speaker in the Chair]

NATIONAL SERVICE DEFAULTERS: Debate resumed.

Mr R Ravindran (Marine Parade): Sir, I welcome the Ministerial Statement by the Minister for Defence. It provides clarifications on an important and heated topic among the public recently.

I agree with the Minister that NS forms a critical component of our national security and has helped in our nation building programme.

Sir, National Service enjoys strong support among Singaporeans because it is a fair and open system. Whether it is the Prime Minister's son or a business magnate's son or a hawker's son, everyone is treated the same. NS is seen as a social equalizer and all enlistees are subject to the same training and operational regime. Everyone knows and has experienced that it is implemented in an open, transparent and fair manner. The public trust in the Government in its NS policy and implementation is impeccable. We know because we have seen it, experienced it and supported it.

Hence, when some individuals avoid doing NS for their own reasons, there is a sense of unfairness and inequity. If MINDEF treats the matter with laxity, it will undermine the whole regime of NS. Hence, the Enlistment Act is very hard on every enlistee.

It must be so. If one is enlisted into the SAF and runs away during wartime, it is treason and attracts the maximum sentence of death penalty. Under the SAF Act, if one is absent without leave (AWOL), he can be subject to a Military Court martial and given a serious sentence of imprisonment, and there have been several past cases. Considering the strong deterrent that we have in place to prevent desertion, AWOL and other offences against enlistees, it is equally important to have a strong deterrent and punishment regime for anyone who evades National Service at the pre-enlistment and enlistment stage. It is because we have such a vigilant and vigorous system in place that the actual number of defaulters remains small when compared to many other countries. MINDEF should be complimented in managing NS as a trusted, equitable and well-regulated set-up.

Sir, every male Singaporean is required to enlist and serve his National Service unless exempted. Yet we do have some who default. There are several categories of male Singaporeans who default on National Service and also PRs who try to take advantage of loopholes in the system. Let me first highlight these categories. First, there are some who leave the country before the age of 16 1/2 years for overseas and due to parental choice never return back in time to do their National Service. In such instances, the person may blame his parents for putting them in a difficult situation. They remain Singapore citizens and when they turn 21 years of age, they wish to return and serve their National Service. I urge leniency for them as they are only able to exercise their freedom of choice when they turn 21 years old. So long as they agree to do National Service and do so, MINDEF should not press for a custodial sentence unless there are good reasons. The Minister, in his statement, highlighted that for those who default for a short period, he would ask for a short prison sentence. I would urge the Minister that, in such instances, where such young men come back to do National Service, not to press for custodial sentence but to just ask for a fine instead of pressing for a custodial sentence.

Sir, the present practice of forfeiting the security bond of $75,000 should continue and I endorse the review to subject the parents to further legislative monetary penalty if they choose to send their children away before they are due for NS.

Sir, the second group is where they leave the country before they are 16 1/2 years old and return after they turn 40 years of age. They cannot be enlisted due to their age but they want to come back and reside here. They are still loyal citizens and want to remain as Singaporeans and want to enjoy the perks of citizenship. We have no choice but to be hard on them and impose a custodial sentence as they have bypassed 2 1/2 years of National Service.

There is a third category in cases like Melvyn Tan where they default on NS and subsequently take up citizenship in another country. They are at times unable to give up their citizenship as under Article 128 of the Constitution, the Singapore Government can withhold the registration of their renunciation of citizenship if they have not served their NS liabilities. They are also above the age of 40 and cannot be enlisted into NS. In such instances, they owe no loyalty to Singapore and it does not make sense to make a foreign national to do NS in our SAF or Home Team. In addition, they may not have taken any benefits as a Singaporean since leaving Singapore nor do they intend to take up residence in Singapore. The only benefit they may have taken is when, as a child, they were living in Singapore. Even this may not be much if, as a child, they have resided outside Singapore throughout their childhood. I would support a custodial sentence on such individuals as they deliberately evaded National Service and continued to do so after reaching 21 years of age. And in this instance, if the Minister feels that they should get a full three-year imprisonment sentence, I have no qualms in supporting it, Sir.

Sir, the fourth category is a recent category, but it is an important category. Sir, there are first generation Permanent Residents who do not do National Service but their children are required to do National Service when they turn 18 years of age. Some have sent their children out of the country before they turn 16 1/2 years by giving up their PR and then when their children have finished their studies, they attempt to bring their children to work in Singapore, again under the PR scheme or on a Work Pass. Sir, this smacks of an attempt to bypass our National Service policy and we have to be strict in these cases, particularly when the person has enjoyed the benefits of Singapore as a PR before he has turned 16 1/2 years old. We must not grant PR or a Work Pass in Singapore for such individuals. I urge MINDEF to work closely with the Immigration Authority and the Ministry of Manpower to ensure that this loophole is not exploited by Permanent Residents in Singapore.

Sir, let me now just highlight the present sentencing regime. I agree with the Minister that the existing sentence of a maximum of three years' imprisonment or $5,000 fine or both is adequate. It is the actual sentence that is being imposed by the courts that the public is dissatisfied with. In the case of Melvyn Tan, the Minister has explained that due to a judicial precedent in 1993, the sentence imposed was within the present sentencing norms. I understand and accept the rationale and I am quite sure that the Minister's explanation will dispel the public's misunderstanding that Melvyn Tan was given special treatment because of his accomplishments and achievements. Sir, I further agree with the Minister that the discretion must be left with the courts to decide on the appropriate sentence and I will explain why it must be so.

Sir, there will always be a sad case where a custodial sentence may not be in order. If there is a only male child who needs to travel overseas to look after his aged parents at the age of 16 and is unable to leave his parents and return to serve National Service until he is 23 or 24 years old, should we imprison him if the evidence shows that indeed his parents are old, destitute and in need of constant medical care? He may have applied for exemption and it may have been turned down. He has no intention to default on NS. He may in fact come back and serve his National Service. There will always be such sad cases and we should leave the sentencing discretion to the courts in such instances and not require the courts to impose a minimum sentence.

Sir, I would urge MINDEF to work closely with the Attorney-General's Chambers to ensure that where the circumstances merit, a deterrent sentence is pressed for, for example, in the case of Melvyn Tan.

I support MINDEF's policy to press for a custodial sentence if the NS defaulter has defaulted for two years or more. Here again, I would urge some discretion and some leniency in cases where they go on to serve NS as against a person who does not do NS at all. Sir, the unhappiness amongst Singaporeans is not against persons who default and go on and do their NS but against those who default on NS and do not go on to do their NS.

Sir, the big plus over the recent debate on the Melvyn Tan's case was the tremendous understanding of the role of National Service by all Singaporeans and the spirited defence of it by many. That it emanated such vigorous debate and feedback clearly shows that many Singaporeans are patriotic, passionate and endorse National Service as important for nation-building and the defence of Singapore. This is something all of us should be proud of.

4.06 pm

Mr Chew Heng Ching (East Coast): Mr Speaker, Sir, thank you for allowing me to join in the debate. First, I commend the Minister for his succinct and comprehensive statement on National Service and his clarifications on Melvyn Tan's case.

Sir, generations of Singaporeans have contributed to National Service, directly as participants in active service and subsequently, through regular commitment as reservists. Likewise, whole families have also contributed to NS, indirectly as parents, spouses and children through family support and sacrifice.

I believe NS has been and continues to be the bedrock of our nation. As part of the psyche and the collective make-up of our society, NS has become an essential component of rights, obligations and commitments of being a Singapore citizen. In this regard, Sir, the disquiet amongst many Singaporeans over the issue of what is perceived as a "negligible" fine imposed on Melvyn Tan upon his return to Singapore, having not fulfilled his NS obligations in an earlier stage of his life, did not come as a surprise to many.

I join my fellow MPs in arguing that NS is very important and the need for NS and its role in Singapore as a nation remain as important today as it has been since independence in 1965. The amount of full-time training and the functions that are fulfilled by our civilian army of reservists and family support may have evolved over time as our military embraced technology and innovations.

The shortening of NS period to two years is commendable in itself and is certainly welcomed. However, that does not and should not dilute the importance of NS and those that have contributed and continue to do so.

It is therefore understandable, Sir, that many Singaporeans have had strong views on the issue of what ought to be the penalties for not fulfilling one's obligation to our country but also what ought to be the right approach in the light of our stringent NS policy in enabling the continual introduction of talent, whether Singaporean-born or foreign-born to Singapore, the merits of which have been well articulated.

The arguments for and against are plenty. Many proposals have been put forward in the media, on online forums and by community leaders on what could be the solution or approach to take to represent either interests or try to balance between them.

To me, the debate is around the pursuit of rational national interest in the long-term in attracting talents versus the emotive force behind many of the proposals for harsher punishment. I will not repeat those arguments given the constraint of time.

Sir, however, I believe the recent unhappiness over the Melvyn Tan's case is partly caused by the lack of clarity and transparency on the part of MINDEF on its policies and rules regarding NS, particularly as they apply to Singaporeans and PRs living abroad. If MINDEF had been more transparent over the interpretation of its various rules and criteria such as who is allowed back into Singapore, under what circumstances and grounds, with what residual obligations, and what are the exception processes if so desirable for appeal, if any, it would shed light on the matter and thereby, I believe, satisfy the majority of Singaporeans and potential Singaporeans alike who seek better understanding and clarity on our NS policies and fairness in its application.

If guidelines are clearly communicated and justice can be seen to be evenly applied, then the perception of inequity amongst Singaporeans, which often is a key complaint here, can be avoided. I would suggest that the policies and guidelines be clearly spelt out to all potential Singaporeans and PRs so that informed choices can be made by them for their children at an early age.

On this, I would like to elaborate on an example that is increasingly commonplace nowadays. Many children of Permanent Residents are sent overseas before NS age for studies. They subsequently become very well-qualified individuals with knowledge and skills, who can contribute greatly to Singapore. They, however, cannot return to Singapore or seek employment opportunities as MINDEF has rejected their appeals, even as, in some cases, they are happy to fulfil, as a condition of their return, their NS obligations, ie, to serve full-time NS albeit at a much older age.

Sir, this has brought some distress to families who may not be fully aware of the consequences of the choices they made earlier on for their children when they were young. This could be avoided if MINDEF has been more transparent and upfront in the policies and criteria on NS for PRs and potential Singaporeans.

In summary, Sir, I believe that we should make an effort to communicate our NS policies in as transparent a manner as possible and redress the perception gaps amongst our citizens who take NS very seriously. We should also consider clearly promulgating the criteria with regard to specific circumstances under which flexibility to our strict policy on NS may be allowed.

Finally, the NS obligations of potential Singaporeans and PRs should also be made transparent to them so that they will be fully aware of the consequences of the choices they make.

4.12 pm

Mdm Cynthia Phua: Mr Speaker, Sir, I would like to commend the Minister who spoke in great detail and his understanding of Singaporeans' concern of the light penalty on Melvyn Tan's case. So I have cut three quarters of my speech as well as my comments.

I would just like to say that no man can bring greater glory to himself and his family than by being prepared to lay down his life to honour and protect the sovereignty of his country. I see this as a wife and a mother of two growing sons. I strongly hold the view that as citizens, we must be prepared to stand up and be counted even in peacetime. Let us just take a determined stand on the side of all serving National Servicemen in our Armed Forces so that they know that we are solidly behind them.

We appreciate their contributions and their service to the nation. Still, others serve with their lives. Let not these service sacrifices of all our servicemen go in vain if we allow others to look for a shunpike to avoid their service obligation for various reasons.

Many families and parents have acknowledged the importance of National Service for the country's security and survival but have not seen it as a sacrifice but as a duty of a citizen and happy to fulfil their duties. Two years of National Service and 13 years of specialist liability is a long time and the $3,000 fine is definitely inadequate.

I would like to urge the Minister to review the appropriate penalty for the NS dodger, irregardless of age, and suitability for active service. However, on the other hand, is the jail sentence appropriate at that age? Would MINDEF look into other appropriate penalties as well, for example, a certain period of compulsory community service in the community to serve the society?

4.14 pm

Mr Tan Soo Khoon (East Coast): Sir, thank you for allowing me this opportunity to say a few words about MINDEF's deferment policy. I understand that Melvyn Tan failed to get a second deferment from National Service to further his studies at the Royal College of Music. He decided to renounce his Singapore citizenship to pursue his dreams. For that, he paid a heavy price, not just the $3,000 that he was fined recently, not just the $30,000 bond that his parents have to forgo, but he was for 39 years unable to return to the homeland where he was born and grew up in the first 12 years of his life.

Sir, there are others who take the same route as Melvyn Tan. There are, however, many more who choose not to take this route.

MINDEF does not allow them further deferments to complete their studies - sometimes these are extended courses - and therefore they return to complete their National Service obligations, unhappy though they may be. These are the ones who, quite rightly, have put the needs of the nation before their own self interests. But this does lead me to wonder if we could not tweak our deferment policy to allow further flexibility.

As MPs, we have, from time to time, come across young men who just need a little time more - sometimes just a few months - for them to complete their academic pursuits, but MINDEF gives them a flat no. I know that there are, of course, those who when given an inch will ask for a yard or even a mile. But my feeling is that we could be more accommodating to those who can furnish good reasons to ask for an extension of their deferment for a short period, because the completion of their academic courses does not coincide with the date their National Service obligations begin.

Recently, I came across a case of a young man who had his National Service disrupted so that he could complete a degree course abroad - well and good. Subsequently, he was allowed a further deferment to obtain a Master's degree - again, well and good. But because of the way his Master's degree course was structured, he could not complete his course by the time the deferment period ended. Having come so far, he did not want to lose his opportunity for a Master's degree. So he pleaded desperately for just another six months, but he was rejected.

Every time MINDEF turns down a request for deferment, in all probability, a young man returns because he has no options left. But he is probably frustrated or even bitter that his request could not be met, and that his long-term career prospects might have been compromised. And needless to say, Sir, an unhappy soldier makes a bad soldier.

I am not saying that if Melvyn Tan had been given the further deferment that he wanted, he could have come back. But I hope that we will not be bound by rigid rules that fail to take into consideration certain specific needs.

We all know that our Armed Forces is an organisation where discipline and strict regulations have to be respected and adhered to for the common good of all. But in today's global economy and where opportunities abound for our young people, we cannot afford to lose precious talent, even if it is a small number each year. Every single one lost is a loss for the country. Increasing the fines and the penalties for defaulters may give us satisfaction and a greater sense of fairness and justice, but it does not necessarily bring the man back. And there are many who are not running away from their obligations. They are not quitters. They are committed to Singapore and they want to do their National Service, but they just want MINDEF to exercise flexibility when they request for deferments.

Mr Speaker, recently, MINDEF granted a deferment of three months to one Mr Stanley Aw to allow him to participate in the Singapore finals of the World Cyber Games. Mind you, Sir, it was not the World Games itself. It was just the Singapore round. It was a laudable decision as it showed MINDEF can be flexible if it wants to. But I am not sure if Mr Stanley Aw's participation in the Cyber Games would have been pivotal to his long-term career as much as that of others who need that little extra time to complete their academic pursuits. Yes, I know it was a deferment of only three months for Mr Stanley Aw. But is the World Cyber Games more important than the pursuit of a higher degree?

Sir, I hope that the Minister will look into the possibility of fine-tuning further MINDEF's deferment policy.

4.20 pm

Dr Ong Chit Chung (Jurong): Mr Speaker, Sir, thank you for allowing me to join in the debate.

Sir, 40 years ago, Singapore separated from Malaysia and became an independent nation. It was the most difficult of times. If we had failed, we would have had to go back to Malaysia on bended knees. We struggled, we persevered, and we were determined to succeed. Failure was not in our vocabulary.

Sir, to succeed as an independent nation, we had to establish a credible defence force from scratch. We cannot depend on foreigners to defend our own country, like we had relied on the British in World War II, and everybody knew it was a disaster. What we cannot defend and hold will not be ours. Singaporeans must therefore bear arms to defend our own homeland. There is no choice.

Sir, can we defend Singapore by raising an armed forces comprising solely of regulars? Obviously not. It will be almost impossible to recruit and retain a significant armed force of regulars and keep it young and relevant and representative of our population. Hence, National Service was introduced.

Inherent and enshrined in National Service is the principle of universality of service and sacrifice. All eligible male Singaporeans serve two years full time - whether you are rich or poor, privileged or ordinary, a university graduate or a school drop-out. And, indeed, some sacrificed their lives, as there were fatal casualties in training. We have debated many times in this House about safety in training and casualties. We all know this. I remember vividly when two National Servicemen from my son's artillery batallion died in an exercise in New Zealand many years ago.

Sir, over the years, National Service has become accepted as part of the Singaporean's way of life. I have done my National Service. My two sons have done their National Service.

When Melvyn Tan's case hit the headlines, many Singaporeans who have done National Service asked, "Was Melvyn Tan given special consideration because he was famous, rich and talented?" If so, this clearly violates the principle of universality of service and sacrifice. Many who have done National Service cried foul. They asked, and rightfully so, if the sacrifices of National Service are only worth the paltry sum of $3,000. Does it mean that one can get away and abscond from National Service with the mere payment of $3,000? It would be manifestly unfair to those who have done their National Service and served the nation with honour and pride. Should there not be a mandatory jail sentence for those who have absconded for a number of years? Where is the sense of fair play and fairness?

Sir, I wish to make a comparison. Those who dutifully enlisted for National Service but thereafter go AWOL for some reason or other, are liable to be sentenced to jail in detention barracks, which I understand to be tougher than a civilian prison. On the other hand, the public's impression following Melvyn Tan's case is that those who do not even bother to enlist for NS can escape with a fine.

Sir, there are about 100 unresolved cases of NS defaulters a year. This is worrisome. I therefore urge MINDEF to address this issue, especially the universality of service and sacrifice in National Service, and plug the obvious loophole. National Service is an institution too important to be undermined. I urge our Government to press for custodial jail sentence for those NS defaulters who abscond for more than two years. Otherwise, we will lose the support of our National Servicemen, and without the commitment and sacrifices of our National Servicemen, we will not be able to defend Singapore. It will really be a sad case.

4.25 pm

Mr Sin Boon Ann (Tampines): Sir, the Melvyn Tan episode raises deeper questions about the Singapore society and us as a nation if we care to look further. At the heart of the matter is the universality of National Service and it being fairly and equitably applied to all. Sure, for the many male Singaporeans, myself included, who sweated it out over the two to two-and-a-half years in green army fatigues, sacrificing many weekends often to chase amorphous enemies, it does seem unfair that one could get away with such a light fine for defaulting on enlistment. In this case, insult was further added to the injury when it was perceived that Melvyn has had a privileged upbringing beyond the reach of an overwhelming majority of Singaporeans.

Against the deluge of angry public sentiments over the light-handed handling of Melvyn Tan's case, it would not be possible for our Government to agree with the present sentencing policy without running the risk of undermining the institution of National Service in Singapore. If we want to ensure the security of our country, it would not be possible to run a National Service where the servicemen felt that the Government practises favouritism. At the moment, it does seem that the public's anger will not be appeased unless and until an NS defaulter is sent to jail as punishment for his crime. In other words, there will not be any satisfaction until the pound of flesh is exacted.

When the dust of the matter is settled, we should perhaps re-examine the issue and ask ourselves some honest questions. In pressing for a person in Melvyn Tan's position to be sent to jail, are we better off as a society? We seem to operate on the belief that equity and fairness will only prevail if the jail sentence is imposed on the person who in the eyes of the society has committed a wrong. Such a punishment must apply, irrespective of the mitigating circumstances that may surround the case. In Melvyn Tan's case, does it matter that he has stayed away for more than 30 years through self-imposed exile from the country of his birth? Does it matter that he is not able to enjoy the ability to spend as much time freely with his frail and ageing parents in the final stretches of their lives? And does it matter if the forces that determined his decision to remain in the United Kingdom were not entirely within his control - being parental influence and perhaps the rare opportunity to pursue a path of excellence in music which may otherwise disappear if he came home at that point in time to do his National Service?

Sir, we aspire to be a world class city. To be a world class city, we must, at the same time, be a world class city of values and generosity. We have the generosity of spirit. Singapore has and will continue the march of progress on the foundation laid by the enlightened minds that guide us. Our progress as a society was greatly served when we decided to permanently remove certain criminals from public record. We did it because we believe that a person with a checkered past should be given a chance to start life anew on a clean slate. Indeed, our spirits cheered greatly when we embraced HIV sufferers as part of the larger Singapore family by facilitating easier access to medical treatment. So why can we not have the same generosity of spirit extended to Melvyn Tan or to other Singaporeans in a similar circumstance?

Sir, as we mature as a society to become more gracious, we must learn that the world is not always cast in black and white. There is a whole spectrum of colours out there that we have to live with. This is a three-dimensional and not two-dimensional world. Let us reconsider this issue. What if the defaulter in this instance was Einstein or Stephen Hawking? Can we honestly say that we would also insist that he should equally go to jail simply because he defaulted on his National Service obligations? Alternatively, what if the defaulter was Bill Gates who has the potential to invest substantially in our economy and bring employment to thousands of Singaporeans? Will our position be different?

The question we should be asking ourselves, Sir, is whether the interest of Singapore will be better served by insisting on a custodial sentence. To insist on a custodial sentence will only result in one certainty - the likes of Einstein

and Bill Gates will never return to our shores. Will we be a richer society and nation for this, or will we be poorer? Honestly speaking, a majority of Singaporeans will find it very difficult to say no to these gentlemen and stop them from coming home by insisting on the full penalty.

Sir, if we accept that such sons or even daughters ought to be exempted from the full application of the law, how then are we going to reconcile this with the principle of the new policy of pressing for a custodial sentence in respect of defaulters? Quite obviously, we run the risk of having double standards if we fail to maintain a consistent application of the new policy. In this regard, I maintain that to now openly have a policy of pressing for a custodial sentence for defaulters may unnecessarily push the Government to a corner which it may find difficult to get out of.

Justice must always be tempered with mercy. In our case, I do not believe for a moment that Singaporeans do not have it in them to embrace a more compassionate solution that would be acceptable to all. Let me be clear at the onset that I firmly believe in the principle of universality of National Service and that for nearly all of Singaporean males, there is no alternative to National Service. Let me also be clear that I firmly agree that we should press hardest for a custodial sentence in cases where the defaulters took flight from the country and his National Service obligations on the account of some criminal acts or flagrant irresponsibility. However, there are very strong mitigating factors that warrant an exception to the policy, and I would urge the Government to be open to this possibility and not close its mind to it.

To my mind, there are two-pronged tests that one should adopt in deciding this issue. First, are there very special circumstances in the case that would warrant an exception to the policy of pressing for a custodial sentence; and secondly, to address the issue of the fundamental obligation of every citizen to perform his duty to his country, can an alternative way, if he is beyond National Service capability because of age, be found to discharge his national duty?

Sir, I believe an argument can and should be allowed for exceptions to be made for very special circumstances, and I would repeat, very special circumstances, if we do not want to paint ourselves to a corner. In certain cases, we may have to honestly ask ourselves whether justice will indeed be served by inflicting punishment on the defaulter. I can think of many who went away when they were young and whose decision to remain overseas was determined by their parents. Should a custodial sentence be imposed on the defaulter should he now want to come home and perform his National Service? Also, we should consider very special circumstances to include considerations of whether the larger interest of Singapore would be served by allowing the defaulter to return. In this regard, I would consider people who are brilliant scientists, highly successful entrepreneurs and world class performing artists to meet the description. I would consider Melvyn Tan to fall within this category.

Against the broad canvas of our society, Sir, we must accept that some will be thinkers and others will be doers. It would not be possible to fit everyone into the same mould much as our sense of fair play may dictate. Our bonding as a nation must be forged out of the self-evident proposition that everyone must play his part in service to his country, no matter how difficult or different the circumstances may be. And we must accept and respect that there are others who would always be treated differently from the majority of the population. Be that as it may, our different circumstances as individual citizens should not permit us to derogate from our basic duty to our country. However, such services need not and do not always have to be uniformed services. Such services can be broadened to include the sciences, the arts and services to the economy. The underlying consideration must really be whether Singapore will be a better place for their service. Applying this principle, it could be that a person such as Melvyn, who is too old for uniformed service, can be permitted to perform his national obligation to Singapore. So to satisfy the obligation of service to the country, National Service for people like Melvyn could and should perhaps take other forms that would benefit the wider society. Let me be clear that this is only an exception. The privilege of an alternative service should only be restricted to a person like Melvyn Tan or people in the situation, as to extend it to others outside the category would undermine our long established policy of maintaining a citizen's armed forces which is vital to the security of our country.

Sir, I am not saying that a defaulter should not be punished, neither am I saying that he should be released from his obligations to serve his country. What I am saying here is that the punishment must commensurate with his wrongdoing and it need not always be a jail sentence, and National Service, in some cases, need not always be in the form of uniformed service. Justice is never served by blind insistence on punishment. As our society matures, let us be prepared to broaden our minds to accept that there are those among us who may not be like us, and let us reconcile the different ways that Singaporeans can contribute to society. For if we can accept this as a starting point in this debate, there will be less angst and unhappiness over the Melvyn Tan episode. Let us learn to be a more generous society by rising above our basic instincts by being more giving and forgiving. We have gone far down the road of refinement as a society in the last 40 years. Let us, Sir, not make the mistake of taking one step forward and two steps back.

4.36 pm

Ms Irene Ng Phek Hoong (Tampines): Sir, I thank the Defence Minister for assuring the House that the Government takes a serious view of NS defaulters and there is no special treatment for those who default, whatever their status in life or their background. This bears repeating because I find it hard to agree with my colleague, much as I respect his views, that we should make exceptions for those who default based on their talent. I think this signal will unravel all the importance that we have placed on National Service, and we should be careful to seek exemption for defaulters.

We should take a tough line on serious NS defaulters, and push for a jail sentence for serious cases to send a strong signal that this is a major offence. Hence, I support the Minister's announcement that MINDEF will press for custodial sentences for serious defaulters.

Sir, the nature of the military's task - where men are expected to defend the country and, if necessary, to pay the ultimate sacrifice of the country - necessitates the transfer of individual interests to those of the group, and requires the maintenance of particularly high levels of morale and discipline.

When our young men got to know that the British pianist Melvyn Tan was only fined $3,000 for defaulting NS, some felt demoralised and asked: why bother to serve? One can say that this is a natural emotional reaction, but that question would not be answered with only harsher sentences for defaulters, or a mandatory jail sentence that does not distinguish the circumstances of one defaulter from another.

We can find countries with very harsh penalties for defaulting but still find low morale and discipline a problem among conscripts, with many still wanting to evade NS. If I may name one example: Eritrea, which has compulsory NS since the war with Ethiopia in 1998-2000. According to an international human rights report, many young people have tried to evade military service and thousands have fled the country or deserted after being conscripted. There are reports that the usual punishment for evading or escaping from military service is torture by beatings and being tied in painful contorted positions for days and indefinite detention without charge or trial. But, still, many continue to evade NS.

Sir, to return to the question that our NSmen who were angry with Melvyn Tan's case posed: why bother to serve? Before answering this question, I will touch on three inter-related themes. First, the impact of globalisation on society's attitude towards NS and how this has contributed towards the rise in the number of defaulters in Singapore. Second, on the evolving concept of the link between National Service and citizenship for men. And, finally, on the worth of National Service.

First, globalisation. Sir, we have about 100 cases of NS defaulters a year over the past five years. Although, in percentage terms, they form a very small percentage (0.5%) of those enlisted a year, the numbers seem to be on the rise if you take a longer term view. In 1991, it was reported that only 10 out of more than 20,000 who were enlisted each year did not show up. So, if you take that as a marker, in 14 years the number has gone up about ten-fold.

So, what had happened? In a word, globalisation. Most of the defaulters, over the last five years, are overseas and most come from families who have migrated. Sir, the fact is that, in this increasingly globalised world, more and more Singaporean families are going overseas to work and live. More Singaporean students go overseas to study and to seek and seize new opportunities to develop their different talents.

Singapore society itself is also changing very rapidly. We have been telling our residents to pursue their dreams, to take risks, to get out of their comfort zone and to try new paths to become successful. There is a change in societal values as we move towards a society that celebrates individual excellence and the pursuit of individual dreams. In many ways, Singapore is no different from other small countries, attempting to define and maintain for themselves a place in the world that is increasingly becoming globally integrated.

But with this change, the supporting framework for core military values of sacrifice, honour and duty, is challenged by the more individualistic and consumeristic values that are on the ascendant. This shift can also be seen in the Israeli soldiers who enlist in the Israel Defence Forces (IDF). The IDF is considered one of the strongest military forces in the Middle East and ranks among the most battle-trained armed forces in the world, having had to defend the country in five major wars.

Surveys conducted in 1980, 1984 and 1988 in Israel indicated that some 90% of the Jewish Israeli 18-year olds looked forward to their enlistment and expressed a willingness to serve even if the conscription was to be made voluntary. However, there have since been random media reports indicating an erosion in the "stigma" once attached to non-enlistment among some segments of Israeli youth. They reflect a subtle shift in priorities. According to several reports, for a growing number of young Israeli recruits, considerations of personal satisfaction (assessed in terms of either future job prospects or immediate gratification) now take precedence over a sense of patriotic pride. Influenced by the values pervading the society of which they feel a part, few now express a willingness to subordinate personal considerations, as measured in terms of the market place, to the collective good.

Sir, by the standards of all previous portraits of the IDF soldier, that constitutes a shift of seismic proportions. In Singapore, we cannot be insulated from these global forces. But can we find a way to achieve some sort of balance between, on the one hand, the need to subordinate individual needs to the collective good as a Singaporean soldier and, on the other hand, the desire for individual fulfillment as a civilian? Perhaps one way is to review our deferment policy to be more flexible on requests for temporary deferment for enlistment - on a case-by-case basis - even as we get tougher on serious defaulters. And this I echo the views made by my colleague, Mr Tan Soo Khoon. This does not necessarily mean that we compromise on the principle of universality which demands that all men who are fit must be conscripted. They will be conscripted. It is a matter of when. There is a difference between those who default and those who seek to defer their service. The defaulters have no intention of serving their NS and are running away from their obligations. Those who seek deferment want to serve NS and want to return to fulfil their obligations. This distinction must be appreciated.

If we are too rigid on deferments, these men who want to serve but could not at that point in time will then, by default, become defaulters. And if we press for a jail sentence - as we intend to do so for serious defaulters - it is as good as saying, don't come back. We should look instead at providing more re-entry points for those who seek deferment and not turn them into defaulters. As the Minister has said earlier in his Ministerial Statement, half of the NS defaulters charged in court returned at age 21 or younger, while 80% returned at age 28 or younger. I would hazard a guess that not a few might have earlier sought for deferments or further deferments but were rejected. Hence, they fall into the category of defaulters. And this is what happened to Melvyn Tan.

Sir, I would urge MINDEF to review its deferment policy and perhaps allow it within a certain timeframe, or a specific age limit on case-by-case basis.

As it is, Singaporeans generally already accept the need for deferment for specific cases. Mr Tan Soo Khoon mentioned the case of Stanley Aw. He was allowed to defer his NS by about three months to compete in the World Cyber Games. If you contrast that with the reaction to the Melvyn Tan's case, those who have heard about the Stanley Aw's case generally were largely positive, and they saw this as a sign of a more "enlightened" defence policy.

This specific deferment case also led to an op-ed piece by columnist Thomas Friedman in New York Times , which was published on 16th September last year. Headlined, "Still Eating Our Lunch", he wrote: "Last week, its Ministry of Defence granted a deferment for the country's compulsory NS to a Singaporean teenager so he could finish competing in the finals of the World Cyber Games." He continued: "Being a tiny city-state of four million, Singapore is obsessed with

nurturing every ounce of talent of every single citizen ... Its government understands that in a flattening world, where more and more jobs can go anywhere, it's not enough to just stay ahead of its neighbours. It has to stay ahead of everyone." This was in the op-ed piece by Thomas Friedman based on the deferment given to Stanley Aw.

Sir, many Singaporeans also understand that we are in a flattening world, and they wonder if they can have the best of both worlds: National Service that fosters a sense of civic obligation and duty while allowing citizens to pursue their chosen course as much as possible. There are examples of countries where deferments for enlistment have been given more generously without causing great grievance among the people or affecting operational readiness or undermining the conscription system. They also claim to have a universal system.

According to a paper published by Tel Aviv University on the Israeli Defence Forces, about 3.5% of the conscription pool receive deferments each year because they are living abroad. In Turkey, which also has the conscription system and has been at war, students may postpone their military service up to the age of 29, or up to the age of 36 in the case of postgraduate students. Different military service regulations apply for Turkish citizens who are living abroad. They can then postpone their service up to the age of 38, for a period of three years at a time. Another example is Egypt, which also has a battle-tested conscription system. There, NS lasts three years, postponement is possible for students for the duration of their studies or until they are 28, or for various domestic reasons.

I am not saying that we should be as generous. Indeed, I would caution against blanket or automatic deferments. I am urging for more flexibility on a case-by-case basis, including for postgraduate studies, especially for outstanding athletes and musicians whose most crucial stages of development are often in their youth.

Sir, my second point is on the evolving concept of the link between NS and citizenship for men. Sir, a common way of understanding citizenship is in terms of rights and obligations. Another is in terms of patriotism, as a deep commitment to one's country and fellow citizens. It is essential to reaffirm the tradition of the citizen soldier that service on behalf of the nation-state is a mark of good citizenship.

Sir, throughout history, scores of examples exist of both mandatory and voluntary service to the nation. Service to one's king or nation has been thought of as an honour. In ancient Sparta, the classical military state, although there was no mandatory military service for citizens, young men were most often shamed into service by their family and peers if they did not submit freely. Soldiers were taught to come back from battle with their shields on their shoulders or come back dead upon them. After the Battle of Leuctra in 371 BC, Sparta's first military defeat in battle, the women of the surviving soldiers mourned the return of their men because they had disgraced their families, while the women who were related to the dead soldiers, who were carried back on their shields, were happy because their men had maintained the honour of their families.

Sir, we do not need to go that far. But my point is that it is important for society, including the women, to support NS and the men who do NS, and to equally castigate those who seek to evade it. It is a matter of honour. I am pleased to know that MINDEF would be engaging young women under the National Youth Achievement Award Scheme to host young women to the SAF units to explain the NS thinking, to help them to understand the sacrifices that NSmen make. This is important to make sure that there is no gender divide over the issue of NS. Sir, whenever I am the Reviewing Officer for the passing-out parade, I always feel a sense of great pride when I see our young men standing there in the sun and being proud as Singaporeans and being proud that they have done NS. And this is the spirit that we want to maintain.

Lastly, Sir, on valuing NS and its sacredness as a form of obligation as a citizen. I feel that we should have a paradigm shift where it comes to the law where we almost frame NS as a punishment for renouncing one's citizenship, the law that disallows a Singaporean to renounce his citizenship without first serving his NS. I can understand what must be the thinking behind this policy - it is probably designed to prevent men from thinking that they can run away from NS just by renouncing their citizenship. We should have greater faith in our men and in the value placed on being a Singaporean. Those who would give up their citizenship just to evade NS may not be worth keeping as Singaporeans, and I would say good riddance to them. Instead, we should put in place a system, like in Turkey, where Singaporeans can also have their citizenship withdrawn if they live abroad and do not return to perform military service within a certain time limit. Those who have lost their citizenship this way may apply to get their citizenship restored, but their applications may only be accepted if they complete their military service. In other words, to keep your Singaporean citizenship, do your NS. Not the other way round, to renounce your citizenship, do your NS, almost like the form of punishment. This will reinforce the point that Singaporean citizenship is precious and that, for a man, it is tied inextricably to NS.

Finally, Sir, on the value of NS. How do we place a value on NS? It epitomises national solidarity and self-sacrifice. I know the RECORD IV Committee would be making their recommendations on this, and I look forward to that. But perhaps more than that, we should also look at the social values placed on it, the symbolic values placed on it. Recently, I was in UK and it happened to be a Remembrance Day. It was to honour those who have died for the country in the two World Wars and to salute those who survived them. I was there on the streets and I observed a strong sense of national identity and common history being expressed on the lapels of many ordinary British in the form of an artificial red poppy. The entire London city stood still as the Big Ben struck, and two minutes of silence were observed wherever the people were, on the streets, in the offices, in the cafes. It was a powerful moment. I walked to witness the proud parade of war veterans, some of them in walking sticks, in wheelchairs, and they passed by to loud applause from the ordinary British lining the roads. It struck me that this national ritual is a means of reminding themselves of where they came from and what they aspire to be. Equally striking: many young people were also wearing the poppies with pride.

Whilst visiting the memorial for those who fought in Singapore and Malaya to pay my respects, I found a poignant poem placed at the site, probably by a veteran. It was dedicated to those who died in the foreign lands of Malaya and Singapore. An excerpt:

"You left the shore of your lands, young lads in your teens;

You hadn't started living life, you hadn't filled your dreams.

Britons, Anzacs, Gurkhas, you all served side by side;

Foreign ground marked with your blood where you fought and died ...

We ask now was it worth it? Of course it was you see,

You helped to right a wrong and set a people free."

Sir, in the end, National Service is all about ideals and defending them. We have much to defend in Singapore, not only the land, not only our economic achievements, but our values, our way of life, the spirit of the people. That Singapore spirit, I hope, is large enough to welcome back those who have paid their penalties for defaulting, whatever their sentences were. They would include Melvyn Tan. He has paid his dues. The court has so decided. We should welcome him back and allow him to perform to applause. In some developed democracies, draft dodgers, while they may be criticised, can still become the President of the country and lead the nation to war.

Sir, I hope that in that spirit, in the larger Singapore spirit, we will welcome defaulters who have paid their dues back and make them feel proud to be with us as part of the Singapore family.

4.55 pm

Dr Geh Min (Nominated Member): Thank you, Mr Speaker, for allowing me to join in the debate. The Minister has stated very clearly that the purpose of National Service is to fulfil the critical need to provide us with national security. He has also stated that this has been implemented fairly, not to be implemented fairly but to be seen to be implemented fairly, because of the significant sacrifice that it entails on the individuals, on their families and on the nation. I fully endorse all this. I am also very, very encouraged to hear him say that, beyond the importance of this, it is the commitment of the individual National Serviceman that is important and that MINDEF has recognised this by doing a census which he (if I remember the figure correctly, 92%) said that they will risk their lives for the country.

I feel that we could raise this to 100%. I do not think this is going to be raised by increasing fines and penalties. While I do not contest the need for increasing fines and penalties, I think that this must be matched with increasing flexibility as to how the law is implemented. I agree that you cannot be too creative that playing a piano is not going to count as a form of National Service. But I would like to suggest that it is not so much how we implement it, but when it is implemented. I would plead for more flexibility, as some of the other Members have, on when an individual serves his National Service. There must be an element of trust between the State and the individual. When a young man asks for deferment, even repeated deferments, it should not be assumed that he is intended to default. I think that, in this globalised knowledge-based economy, where a basic degree is really just the beginning, many more people will be going for postgraduate studies, they will not be able to take time off or, at least, if they take time off in between the undergraduate and the postgraduate degrees, it would be at great personal sacrifice, and I believe also great sacrifice to the nation.

I am not asking for special treatment for any particularly talented or privileged individuals. This is a principle that should apply to all. But I think if Singapore wants to be more globalised, we want to enter into a knowledge-based economy, we have to recognise that a postgraduate degree is considered by many as something that is sine qua non of their education. Therefore, I do not think that we should put the individuals, if we can, in a position where they have to choose between personal development and National Service. Where possible, we should try and create a win-win situation where they can have both. As has been pointed out by other Members of the House, I think you will get more commitment to the nation if you do this rather than less. I consider that so far, the Melvyn Tan's case, although the court has decided already, has been a no-win situation because he has not felt that he is welcomed back to Singapore. I would like to make a special plea for Melvyn Tan, not because of his talent which is of course considerable, but because of his age. I belong to that same generation and I would like to ask those who feel outraged by what they see as a privileged treatment to put themselves in his shoes and take a historical perspective.

When Melvyn Tan left, Singapore was a fledgling nation and, in fact, National Service had not been started. So I am very happy that National Servicemen now feel that this is such an entrenched practice and that there is a high level of commitment now. But this level of commitment has taken 40 years of independence to develop. It was not there then and Melvyn Tan and many other people in his shoes would probably, I feel, have behaved differently in present circumstances. Whatever the pros and cons may be, let me conclude

by saying that in Singapore now, we consider National Service a practice which is an act of commitment and from what has been said by the Minister and some of the Members in the House, it is not considered a chore but it is considered an honour by most Singaporeans. So let us continue this happy state and increase it by combining the penalties with increased flexibility.

Mr Arthur Fong (West Coast): Mr Speaker, Sir, up to a short while ago, the feeling of many, especially those who have served NS, in the light of the sentence that Mr Melvyn Tan had received, was disappointment, disgust and a sense that their two or two-and-a-half years in National Service counted little.

5.02 pm

[Mr Deputy Speaker (Mr Chew Heng Ching) in the Chair]

The hue and cry and furore that followed had cast a shadow over the importance of NS. Singaporeans, I am sure, many of the 700,000 who had served NS, had expressed their stand on the responsibility of every Singaporean in our nation's defence in the press and in the blog sphere.

Listening to the Minister for Defence's statement, I applaud the upcoming changes to the SAF Act and the Enlistment Act. The Minister had also explained clearly the circumstances in Mr Tan's case and has assured us that Mr Tan had not been given special treatment. As far as the perceived disparity in treatment between the average serviceman who goes on AWOL and the defaulter similar to Mr Tan's case, I am happy to note that the review will increase the fines and align both Acts and will also push for a deterrent custodial sentence for serious cases for NS defaulters.

Sir, whether the young man's finger coiled round the trigger of a M16 rifle, or a parachute control line, or placed on a keyboard as a company clerk or round the steering of a swimming Bronco, he has served his country first in NS.

Sir, for many Singaporeans, NS is an important aspect of a life of a citizen. Let me relate to the House a case of a friend's son. This friend of mine came to Singapore from Hong Kong and became a Singaporean about 15 years ago. I met his son about 12 years ago when he was in Primary Six/Secondary One. Throughout his secondary school life, he had been convincing his mother that he is a Singaporean and National Service was very important and he had to do his part. Being mothers, they are very concerned about their sons going to National Service. He successfully convinced his mum about his role as a Singaporean in the National Service.

This young man contracted meningitis some time during his NS and he was supposed to start medical school at NUS. That is not a possibility now. But this young man has been given a deferred entrance to NUS to do another programme. But the signal to this young man is that, just as important as the signal of this young man to his mother, the Government is sending a strong signal to Singaporeans, to people who want to default or who have defaulted, that NS is an obligation that they must serve. That is why it is so important to all Singaporeans to know that NS is a national duty. It is important that the Government has dispelled the impression that those with special talents or with special circumstances can be given an easy way out or should they default on NS. Singaporean men, and whatever family background they happen to come from, all will be treated the same.

I thank the Minister for his responses in his statement, sending a clear signal to Singaporeans that their contributions are not taken lightly.

5.05 pm

Dr Amy Khor Lean Suan (Hong Kah): Sir, I confess that I am a "debataholic" and always relish taking on an issue in Parliament. But in this instance, I took quite a while to decide that I would participate in this debate on the issue of National Service and draft dodgers. As a woman who has never had to go through what many would consider as the rite of passage for Singaporean males, I am painfully aware that I do not exactly have the moral authority to speak on this issue.

My only locus standi is that I have a 15-year-old son who would be going to NS in about three years' time and who had recently posed me this question, "Why must all boys in Singapore go for NS?"

Indeed, Sir, this is the heart of the matter.

On hindsight, that the case of Melvyn Tan, unknown to the public until the Straits Times blew the cover on it, so to speak, has stirred so much controversy, should come as no surprise. All my male grassroots leaders felt offended by the seeming injustice of it all.

Men in green who go on AWOL are charged and sentenced to detention barracks - period. There is no "either a fine not exceeding $5,000 or a jail term not exceeding three years" in the sentencing.

Indeed, we are given to understand that for many years now, and as the Minister has explained in his statement earlier, since 1993, the Subordinate Courts have imposed only fines on all draft dodgers. The Subordinate Courts had relied on two cases whose jail sentences were commuted to fines by the High Court in 1993.

Many of my male friends and my husband asked quite indignantly, "Is not this an anomaly, when a civilian who escapes NS gets away with a mere $3,000 fine, while someone enlisted, and is already serving, but who is being disciplined, receives much harsher treatment?"

Surely, the two to two-and-a-half years of tough, regimented training, 5.00 am stand-by beds, night topography exercises, being food to hordes of mosquitoes in the jungle, 20-kilometre route marches in full battle order - surely, this cannot be worth a mere $3,000.

However, under the guiding pen of some press writers, the debate took on a life of its own, shape shifting into various larger issues. It became a debate on foreign talent or, more precisely, foreign local talent - that the vitriolic public reaction was really another expression of gripes at how this Government readily rolls out the red carpet to able non-Singaporeans while local workers are left to mire in their insecurity.

It also became a debate on the politics of envy, of the reality of fault lines in our society, of a class divide, between the rich - because Melvyn Tan's parents could afford to pose the then princely sum of $30,000 as bond - and the poor. It became an issue of privilege and partiality, that the talented and the wealthy could get away with what would otherwise be applied forcefully on ordinary people.

In some ways, it echoed the white horse controversies some years ago about alleged special treatment of children of VIPs in the army. It also became a debate on whether and how we should expand the notion of NS in this globalised world where it is viewed that the battle for talent surpasses in intensity and importance, the battle for geographical territory.

Sir, I think the case may be overstated by some of these writers.

Being a small country, expanding the scope of National Service to include civilian jobs or humanitarian assistance locally and overseas, is a luxury we can ill-afford, at least in the foreseeable future. In fact, it is precisely because we are a small nation that National Service for the defence of a country is compulsory for all able-bodied men in Singapore so that we would be able to get a respectably sized fighting force if the need should ever arise. A 3G army still needs 3G soldiers even if technology can reduce casualties and the need for manpower.

Sir, the idea of allowing our top talents to serve NS in other areas outside the uniformed groups so as not to discourage even more amongst the Singapore diaspora from coming home is also flawed. The suspicion that there is inequity in the system, that Melvyn Tan has been given special treatment due to his fame and talent is, in fact, one of the main factors fuelling the controversy.

Nonetheless, I do agree with the writers that we should never let up our efforts to heal the rifts under the surface so that they do not erupt.

Sir, we need to affirm the basics of NS, that it is a sacred, necessary and noble institution because it underpins the defence of our country. That it is also a rite of passage for every young man to instill in him discipline, commitment and sacrifice of his personal preferences for a larger national purpose. That undergoing NS is also a measure of loyalty to the country and that its rigour should be applied to all, regardless of rank, ability or parentage.

Hence, I fully support MINDEF's decision to amend the Enlistment Act to impose more deterrent sentence on those who dodge the draft to reflect the tremendous sacrifice of our men who dutifully heed the call to National Service. I agree that MINDEF should press for jail sentence for serious NS evasion cases, commensurate with the length of default and whether the defaulter is able to serve NS, unless there are mitigating circumstances.

At the same time, MINDEF also shows that it has a heart when it decides not to put in place a minimum mandatory jail sentence so that whilst we demonstrate the value and critical importance we place on NS, we allow the courts to exercise compassion where this is generally warranted under extenuating circumstances. Sir, I do, however, agree with some of my parliamentary colleagues that we should review the deferment policies, not just for enlistment but also for reservists' training.

Sir, whilst introducing flexibility into the system, we would also want to see more clear policies regarding deferment so that there would not be any perception of inequity involved.

Sir, I do feel sorry for Melvyn Tan because of all the flak he has received, whether one thinks this is deserved or not.

Lin Chun Long, one Straits Times Forum writer rightly says that we should forgive the man and embrace him. And we should do so, not because of his talent, however prodigious, but because he was a son of Singapore whose elderly parents are still living on our soil.

But we need to use Chun Long's words, the moral clarity to realise that what he did cannot be justified, and we should therefore reinforce the law to send this message clearly to our young men upon whose shoulders and loyalty, the defence of our nation rests.

Then, I can tell my son in reply to his question on why all boys must go to NS, that it is every Singaporean man's duty to defend the country, that it is not a choice, but an obligation and that it is not about sacrifice but about commitment and honour.

Sir, I support the proposal to amend the Enlistment Act to stiffen the penalties for draft dodgers.

5.10 pm

Dr Tan Cheng Bock (Ayer Rajah): Mr Deputy Speaker, Sir, thank you for allowing me to join in this debate. I did my NS training under the Israelis, so I know what it is like. It was really tough.

NS is a citizen's obligation to his nation. It is the willing sacrifice of 2.5 years, and now reduced to two years, of full-time service plus, lest we forget, one to two decades of intermittent reservist duty. Almost half a lifespan is set aside for a great and noble cause to undertake the role of a defender of Singapore. We demand this commitment for male Singaporeans because a day we do without it, we will cease to become an independent self-reliant republic. The Melvyn Tan's saga has inflamed the sentiments of many Singaporeans, especially the men. It has escalated into a national issue - the questions, the sufficiency of punishment for defaulter evading NS.

Whilst I understand the intensity of the public backlash, we, as a nation, must always make room to forgive. Where possible, Singapore must never reject a returning son. We must try to understand why some young Singaporeans are not returning. Putting aside emotions, let me try to look at this issue. I am mindful that some defaulters may have no say in remaining overseas in the first place. Many are children of parents who chose to migrate to Australia or Canada. They left Singapore at a very young age. Being obedient kids, they really have no choice but to follow their parents. Therefore, the question is, should the law take to task a boy who was taken overseas by his parents and decided to stay there? This same question was posed in one of the articles in the Straits Times on 14th January 2006.

While overseas, most of them do very well and some achieve fame in fields of science, technology and arts. I know and met some overseas Singaporeans in such situations and they are very talented. If they wish to bring their talent back to Singapore, we must not make it prohibitive

that they fear to return unless we are prepared to write them off as Singaporeans. Nobody will want to come back if they face the prospect of jail. We have been told, time and again, that every Singaporean is valuable and talent is important, because we are a small nation and need each other. So, why is it that in this situation, suddenly talent is not valued?

Sir, can a 17½-year old boy decide whether to come back to do NS or not? Some may. But at 17½ years, the reality of the situation is that his parents decide whether he should continue with his studies or come back to serve, and he will probably, being of Asian upbringing, follow his parents. Even the Government does not think that a 17½-year old boy can make good decisions and therefore does not allow him to vote until he reaches 21.

Perhaps we should study this issue from the parents' end. Take a look again at the security bond. Is $75,000 adequate now or should we up it to a much higher figure? I think the MINDEF people can decide - even to $¼ million if they think it is not high enough. Or if half of the total income of the parents is still not enough, then they can take a look and decide on what they want. I am sure a high security bond would dissuade parents from preventing their children to come back.

I am not in favour of mandatory imprisonment for such cases - and I am glad the Minister has told us so - or pressing for custodial sentences for all cases. Because, according to the Minister, the majority of them do come back before they are 21. Each case is different and I think Mr Sin Boon Ann gave a wonderful discourse just now on why there should be flexibility. May I therefore urge MINDEF, the Ministry of Law and the Attorney-General's Chambers to consider the use of community sentencing as a form of punishment, perhaps in addition to a fine. I think there should be a fine because when the child is older and when he comes of age, he must take some responsibility. The defaulter can then perform an extended period of community service as a means of rehabilitating and reintegrating into our society. So someone like Melvyn Tan can be asked to contribute a part of his expertise to the community in the form of free music lessons or perform a series of concerts for charities. We need to expand our idea of what National Service is, including returning defaulters.

As Singapore goes global, many get posted overseas and when they bring their children along, we can expect the numbers to increase over the years. So we must not be captured by our past ideas of NS. We must take a look again and see whether we can expand our idea of NS to include some of the ways that Members of this House have articulated well.

Dr Wang Kai Yuen (Bukit Timah): Mr Deputy Speaker, Sir, performing full-time National Service is a life long commitment Singapore expects of its native sons. This commitment of time and effort could not be measured in monetary terms, in particular, when this commitment occurs at an age when the young man is poised to take on adulthood and is preparing himself for a future career. Everyone has to defer his plan and some would miss out on a once-in-a-lifetime opportunity. Thus, when Melvyn Tan received only a $3,000 fine for defaulting on his National Service obligation, it is understandable that it caused a major outpour of passionate debate regarding the disparity of penalty versus obligations.

In his statement, the Minister has outlined some of the steps MINDEF intends to take to enhance the penalties for National Service defaulters. I support some of those measures. I support his proposal to amend the Enlistment Act to increase the maximum fine to $10,000. However, for those who have passed the age of enlistment, such as Melvyn Tan, the Minister intends to seek mandatory or minimum custodial jail sentences as a punishment, and he mentioned that MINDEF will seek the maximum jail sentence of three years in certain cases. This is a departure from existing practice where MINDEF presses only for a fine. Presumably, the Minister decided that the jail sentence is necessary because even the maximum fine of $10,000 will be an insufficient punishment, in particular, when the returnee has achieved fame and fortune by then.

I am disturbed by this declared intent to seek a jail sentence for similar defaulters. In seeking such a jail sentence, we will, in effect, deter anyone in similar circumstances from returning to Singapore. In all probability, someone like Melvyn Tan will not return. Thus, we are sending a message, "Defaulters, thou shall not return to Singapore." Is that a correct message to send?

Further, I think we are also presented with a logical impasse as, currently, the Singapore Government has denied such defaulters from renouncing their citizenship. On one hand, in the eyes of the Government, these defaulters are still Singaporeans, even though some of them have acquired foreign citizenship. On the other hand, we are saying, "Don't you come back. If you do, we are going to jail you."

Should Singapore be so harsh to its sons? Yes, these people made a mistake when they were young. Some maybe made their own decisions and some at the urge of their parents. However, Sir, everyone made mistakes when they were young and brash. I think if we look back, some of us also made mistakes. By seeking a jail sentence on NS defaulters, we are indeed slamming the door shut for their return. Similar to Mr Sin Boon Ann and also Dr Tan, could we be a more gracious society by leaving the door open for such people to return? Several questions come to mind. Firstly, is Singapore worse off with such people returning? Take Melvyn Tan. Did his return encourage more people to follow his example to default and later pay a fine of a few thousand dollars? Secondly, is Singapore better off with such returnees regardless of whether they are rich, famous, talented or just an ordinary man-on-the-street? Are we better off with them coming back to Singapore?

Take Melvyn Tan again. Mr Tan expressed his desire to come back to spend time with his parents who are ageing and no longer able to travel. So, regardless of how we view Mr Tan for giving up his citizenship and defaulting on his obligations to serve NS, he did retain a certain value system we all advocate, the value system to put the care of his parents high up in his priority - high enough to come back to Singapore and face the music. His return is an affirmation of his family upbringing and his early childhood education, including part of it in our school. Even though, of course, his value system did not include service to the nation, his commitment to his parents should at least deserve our sympathy. Even if Melvyn Tan were just an ordinary man, I believe his return would still be a positive example for Singapore for this particular reason alone. Indeed, we could point to him and say that for all future young men who want to default in their National Service, beware because one of these days, you might want to come back to Singapore. If, as a result of this episode, we increase the penalty to a point that there will be no returnees in future, I think it will be a loss for Singapore.

Sir, ultimately, the willingness to perform NS is a matter of the heart. Yes, defaulting on NS is a very serious matter. But by insisting that people who could no longer perform their NS upon their return to spend time in jail, are we seeking just punishment or vengeance? For those people who have served NS, they feel so strongly that they are seeking a pound of flesh.

Why would NS defaulters want to return to Singapore after so many years overseas? That is the question we should ask ourselves. Everyone has his own personal reasons. Perhaps, speaking from an older man's point of view, it is a matter of the homing instincts - a matter of returning to one's roots as one gets older. Like the salmon returning to the stream where it was spawned, what draws it home to the same stream is an instinct. Perhaps for those who are seeking to return to Singapore, their instinct that they are tied to Singapore is still very strong.

Sir, the world view of a man changes with time. As one gets closer to meeting his maker, his perspective changes. Maybe he would like to come back to breathe the air in his old neighbourhood, to touch the trees, to see the buildings that are familiar to him as he grew up as a child. Yes, Sir, this is a matter of the heart. It is the same expression of the heart as our commitment to serve National Service. Our willingness to serve National Service and also our willingness to die rest on the same emotion of the heart. I believe we should allow a man this option to find expression of this matter of the heart.

Could we address the parity of punishment without resorting to a jail sentence? Could we come up with another process that achieves the same deterrent effect without jail sentences? Perhaps we could take a cue from the USA's treatment of Sergeant Charles Jenkins, the 64-year old US deserter who defected to North Korea in 1965. Sergeant Jenkins turned himself to the US military authorities at a US base in Tokyo on 11th September 2004, two months after he had left Korea to seek medical treatment in Japan.

Jenkins pleaded guilty at a court martial to desertion and for aiding the enemy in the 1980s. The guilty plea was apparently part of a plea bargain process with US military officials for a lighter sentence in exchange for providing information on other US or South Korean deserters to North Korea. He was eventually sentenced to 30 days in confinement in a military prison and a dishonourable discharge - when he was facing charges that carry a potential jail sentence of live imprisonment.

Sir, his sentence met both the needs to maintain military discipline in the US armed forces as well as to show compassion to an old man who has returned from the wilderness, to atone for his mistake or decision made when he was a young man.

I would not suggest how Singapore could adopt a similar process since MINDEF can look into it.

But, perhaps, our defaulters could be inducted into national service upon their return, given the mandatory crew cut of whatever hairs they have left and put on the uniform. Depending on their age, the returnees could serve NS like everyone else, or for those who no longer could be inducted to serve their full-time service, they could be given a dishonourable discharge after a certain length of confinement in barracks. Perhaps the same deterrent effect could be achieved.

Sir, the $3,000 fine meted out in Melvyn Tan's case highlighted that the Enlistment Act needs a review to bring the penalty up to date. However, I would plead with the Minister that while we increase the penalty for NS defaulters, we should not slam the door shut for such lost sons of Singapore. Basically, the desire of the defaulters to return home comes from the same emotional mother lode of emotional ties that Singapore taps into to compel our young men to perform National Service. And these are the bonds of the families and friends, the bond of the land where we are born.

5.31 pm

Dr Ong Seh Hong (Aljunied): ( In Mandarin ): Mr Deputy Speaker, Sir, since National Service was implemented in 1967, Singaporeans have moved from the initial resistance to general acceptance for this institution, because we realise the importance of National Service to our survival and the positive role it plays in our national defence. All Singapore citizens upon reaching the age of 18 will gallantly "drop everything" for the time being, shave their hair and contribute two or two-and-a-half years of their precious youth to the nation. After serving full-time National Service, they will also return to the army camps to fulfil their obligations as operationally-ready servicemen.

Although National Service has caused inconvenience to our studies, our career and our family life, we have no regrets and we want to fulfil our obligations. Why? Because we know that by doing so, our parents, our family members, our friends and all Singaporeans can have comfort and they could sleep peacefully every night, just as the Minister mentioned a while ago. Likewise, after we have served our term in the National Service, like all other male citizens, we will still fulfil our obligations to defend our nation when the need arises.

As such, when a famous pianist, who has defaulted National Service for more than 30 years, returned to Singapore and was let off by a mere fine of $3,000, many Singaporeans were very unhappy. The Minister told Parliament just now that, since 1993, many who had defaulted National Service were only fined and not jailed. Understandably, many Singaporeans who have served National Service, and their family members, are unhappy. They cannot help asking: is all the hard work they have put in during their National Service worth just $3,000?

Sir, we know that when a National Serviceman who is absent without leave for just one day will be punished by being detained in the detention barracks. Yet a defaulter who has not even spent one day in the army is just let off with a fine. Is this fair? The fine of $3,000 is even lesser than the accused who was found guilty of public disorderly behaviour by quarrelling with his neighbours.

The Minister said that even after the amendment to the Enlistment Act, there would not be mandatory jail sentence for defaulters. I believe many Singaporeans will be unhappy about it. This is an insult to the sanctity of our institution of National Service. If we do not press for deterrent sentence, it will not reflect the severity of the crime of defaulting.

In order to reflect the Government's concern for ill-treatment of foreign maids by our local employers, we enhanced the sentence on such cases. Likewise, Singapore citizens who defaulted in National Service should also be punished severely. All Singapore male citizens who are physically and mentally fit should serve their duty in National Service. If they fail to do so, they shall be punished. The Minister said that he would not be asking for mandatory jail sentence on the amendment to the Enlistment Act. I think many Singaporeans will be unhappy about it. If that is the case, then anyone who has defaulted will not necessarily be sentenced to imprisonment. I think this will create a loophole. Those who ask for deferment or disruption will make use of this loophole to ask for deferments infinitely and even default on enlistment to continue their studies or to do whatever thing they wish to do.

We must understand that for the institution of National Service to be complete, there must be some limit to the period of deferment allowed. We could not allow people to keep on deferring their National Service indefinitely. For those who are well-to-do and can afford it, paying a fine is nothing to them. Accordingly, they will let their children continue their studies or to do what they want before they come back to Singapore. If they know that they do not have to go to prison, they will be prepared to pay and ignore the enlistment order and pay the fine for defaulting later on. I hope that the Minister will look into this and make sure that it will not become a loophole.

Just now, some Members suggested that those who were talented should be allowed to serve their National Service in other ways. I do not agree because this will create a loophole and people will make use of this loophole to escape National Service. To punish the deserters, I think it is not just a question of tempering justice with mercy. Our National Service is compulsory for all male Singapore citizens.. We must, first of all, put national interest ahead of personal interest. This is the major premise. As a small nation, we could not afford to sustain a large army to defend ourselves. So, we must depend on National Service so that we could have a credible military force when necessary. If we were to give special concessions to some people, this will tantamount to unfair treatment to others, and this will create a lot of unhappiness among the people. We must look at serving in National Service as a sacrifice for the nation. We must look at national interest and be prepared to make sacrifices. We all know that if there is no nation, there is no home. If the person is a genius or a prodigy, his talent will not go away just because he has to lay-off for two years to serve National Service.

In the National Day Rally in 2002, Senior Minister Goh Chok Tong mentioned about the "stayers" and "quitters". I think we should be accountable to all these stayers who are prepared to stay and defend our nation. One day, if we are faced with a major crisis, it will be the stayers who are going to defend us, and not those quitters who will just run away for their own interest.

5.43 pm

Mr S Iswaran (West Coast): Sir, the Minister has enunciated MINDEF's stance on the matter and I thank him for it. And I would like to equally state upfront where I stand on this issue.

Let me, first, state for the record that I have nothing personal against Mr Melvyn Tan, nor should any Singaporean feel the need to personalise this debate. Indeed, Mr Melvyn Tan has done the right thing. He has subjected himself to due process in Singapore. He has had his day in court and paid his fine. And as the Minister has pointed out, his case was no different to many others at the same time, so he did not get any special treatment. It is unfortunate that his case has become a lightning rod for this debate. But we should move, wish him well, and certainly not vilify him or make him unwelcome in Singapore.

Secondly, I am against mandatory custodial sentences. And I agree with the Minister's stance on this score. The court should be allowed to take into account the mitigating and aggravating circumstances of each case in deciding what punishment is to be meted out. At the same time, our courts and prosecuting agencies should be in no doubt as to the importance we in this House and the public at large attach to the institution of National Service and that defaulters, particularly the egregious cases, will be dealt with the full force of the law. If we expect our young men to bear arms, sacrifice two years of their lives and fight, perhaps die, for their country, we must be able to tell them with total and utter conviction that we fully respect and value their sacrifice and, as part of their conviction, we will deal vigorously with those who default or dodge their obligations. And that leads me to my third point, which is that I am for vigorous prosecution of those who default or dodge their National Service obligations.

Sir, increasing the quantum of fine is perhaps a step in the right direction. But, really, if a $3,000 fine puts a derisory value on the service and sacrifice our National Servicemen have made, together with their families and even their employers, then is a $10,000 fine any different? It is not that the vast majority of NSmen need to know that defaulters will be jailed or fined heavily before they will pick up a rifle. That demeans their commitment and patriotism, and I think that does them a great disservice. What is important, however, is that we must send a profound signal to all Singaporeans as to how seriously we take this institution of National Service which, as the Minister described, serves a critical need of national security and survival. It is a basic duty of every son of Singapore, and all Singaporeans and would-be Singaporeans must be fully aware of it.

Many of my parliamentary colleagues here have tried to cast this debate in terms of talent and its retention or attraction. I think that is a red herring. I think this debate is about duty to the country, honour and commitment. We attract talent from all over the world. Many people choose to become Singaporeans. They come from many countries where there is no National Service obligation. They choose to commit, knowing that their sons will have to serve National Service. Why do they do that? And the question is asked: what message do we send to defaulters? In fact, Dr Wang asked the question: are we telling them, don't come back, the door is shut? I suppose I would put a reverse question: what message are we sending to the Singaporeans who have faithfully fulfilled their obligations? And I think we need to keep that in mind when we debate this issue and talk about what is the appropriate action that is to be taken.

I would like

to seek three things, going forward, in dealing with the matter of this importance. The first is that the penalties we legislate and seek to enforce must be of sufficient gravity to reflect the importance we attach to this institution. In my view, the present legislation, with the enhanced fine or otherwise, is adequate. I believe what is needed is clearer and more forceful, vigorous enforcement. If enforcement is there, the message will be clear.

Secondly, there must be consistency in the application of the law. The unfortunate consequence of this case, as the Minister has raised, is whether our system is equitable, or are there a privileged few. We must debunk this. In fact, if anything, the logic must be perverse or the opposite. The French have the notion of noblesse oblige where the privileged have the first duty to serve, and indeed if you are one of the beneficiaries of our system then you must step out and serve first, not seek to extend your obligations beyond or serve later, but lead by example.

So MINDEF must be vigorous and consistent in the way action is taken against defaulters. I hope this debate and the public sentiment outside and any other debate we have with respect to an amendment of the Enlistment Act will communicate the sentiment to our courts and prosecuting agency as well so that they are mindful of this when deciding on cases of this nature.

Thirdly, we have to be transparent in our rules. Today, the Minister's speech has clarified several points on how MINDEF will go about seeking redress when there are defaulters. I have met many Singaporeans and Permanent Residents, and I think all Members of this House have as well, who are often wondering what are the rules, what options there are, what are the consequences, and so on. We need to put it up there clearly, unapologetically that this is the rule, this is the expectation and this is what the consequences are, and then people will decide. I say that if someone, who is going to be a great pianist, chooses not to live in Singapore because of wanting to avoid National Service, then it is a sad loss but a loss that Singapore must live with.

There have been many calls for flexibility in this House in the way NS is administered. I would like to echo those sentiments to a point which is that, I believe, yes, within the context of individual aspirations for education against the needs in the army, we need to find ways to accommodate more of our young and talented people who want to go overseas to study. But at the same time, I would like to cite two examples of young men whom I had met in the last year. So these are not dated examples, just to illustrate the point. One who is a resident in Singapore all his life and another who is living overseas. The first is a young man whose mother is a Singaporean and father is a PR. He is actually a foreign citizen but a PR. He did his entire education in the foreign education system in Singapore. But when he came to the age of 18, he had to enlist whilst all his foreign friends went to universities overseas. You can imagine how traumatic it was for this young man because his friends kept telling him how enjoyable university life was and all the things they were doing, and he in the meantime was running up and down hills, sweating it out and also being the butt of jokes because he had an accent and he was trying to fit in. His parents wanted him to serve, asked him to fulfil his duty, and they asked me to talk to him. The other example was a young man whose family has actually migrated to Perth. They are all Australian PRs, but they have asked him to come back and serve his National Service. He was actually alone in Singapore serving his NS, although the parents kept coming back to visit him. His point was also, "Why am I doing this?" I tried to explain to him the need to be committed, his duty as a Singaporean and as a beneficiary of the system. But I could see the doubt in his eyes.

Sir, I do not know whether these two young men or, for that matter, any of the others are going to go on and become world-class concert pianists or world-beating entrepreneurs. But I do know this: I want to be able to look these men and others in the eyes and say to them, "We know you are making a sacrifice. We apply the rules impartially. We respect your sacrifice in service and we will never forget it." I think our laws and the way we enforce them must evidence that and match our words and commitment.

Dr Loo Choon Yong (Nominated Member): Mr Deputy Speaker, Sir, I was called up for the first batch of NS 38 years ago when I was a student. And I must commend the Minister for reaffirming this principle of universality of conscription. I think it is one of the non-negotiable items, invaluable principle in Singapore. He has also clarified the circumstances surrounding Melvyn Tan's case, and it is quite unfortunate there have been changes of the law and he has been affected. But the point is made that there is no special treatment for anybody, and the public must know this. Not only when it comes to enlistment, it is also when it comes to how people are treated when their children are in NS. There have been adequate explanations about the "white horse" regime. But I must commend the Prime Minister recently when he went to Pulau Tekong. It was noticed by other parents that nobody is treated differently. The Prime Minister was there as a parent - his son was going for NS - he was a parent like everybody else. I hope the leaders will set an example so that all the people will continue to have faith in this national institution. Like hon. Member Iswaran said, we must be able to look at the young people in the eyes when we ask them to serve.

I also want to ask for flexibility because I am afraid that all of us harden our position and put those fellows into jail. There are many, many ways we can serve. If, because of circumstances, you are a dodger, when you come back, over and above the fine, why is it not possible to re-enlist the person even if he was 40, 50 years old? He is not going to help the army very much. In the old days, I do not know whether it is still here, for those who came back from institutions of higher learning, some of them served part-time in the Police National Service, Vigilante Corp, but the total amount is equitably calculated. So I think we must not extract our pound of flesh, especially for those who have served.

Singapore needs everybody. I think the talent argument is a fairly compelling one. But more importantly is that we have got 18,000 Singaporeans currently studying and working overseas, we should actually welcome them back, provided that they now serve. In other words, they come and make a deal with MINDEF and say, "How much time do I have to serve?" so that it will be equitable to my colleagues, my comrades, who have served previously.

I would also like to ask the Minister to reconsider the question of going for imprisonment, a custodial sentence. I know there will be cases where they finally use loopholes to evade the draft, and I can understand there will be such a necessity. But I argue that these cases must be very few and far between. I would therefore urge that we welcome errant citizens, who in their youth have not been serving, to come back and if they want to serve, I do not think we have lost anything as a society.

Above all, the service must be real, tangible and equitable, not necessarily 2 1/2 years or 3 years, but it must be something that MINDEF feels is just and fair for the other people who have served.

Mr Steve Chia Kiah Hong: Thank you, Sir, for allowing me to participate in this debate. Sir, I just want to speak for the record that I support the proposals as laid out by the Minister for Defence. I disagree with Dr Tan and Dr Wang's comments to be gentle to the defaulting Singaporean talents that are overseas.

As what the Minister said, NS must be universal for all young male Singaporean citizens. It must also be equitable to all - past, present and future enlistees. We must not favour the defaulting talents overseas, just because they are talents, at the expense of our local talents who stay behind to fulfil their duties, as Mr Iswaran had rightly pointed out. They must not be favoured. Nobody must be able to exploit the loopholes to escape National Service. The law must be clear and consistent for all. If the defaulting citizens want to come back, they can come back after they have finished whatever they are studying and they can come back within the timeframe when they have not expired their service age. But if they have the intention to come back, they should have done that. Otherwise, they would not want to come back in the first place at all.

As such, I support the Minister's decision to press for the maximum jail sentence of three years for all draft dodgers who have passed that service age. But if they have not passed that service age, then the fine for those who are still liable to serve National Service will suffice.

Sir, I am only wondering why did it take such a high profile Mr Melvyn Tan's case for this debate and for MINDEF to review the enlistment policy. According to the Minister's message earlier, there had been 13 other convicted defaulters who were fined but not subsequently drafted in the past. Why did the Government have to get such a big hoo-ha and outcry from the people and the Internet community, especially this Melvyn Tan's high profile case, to act and tighten this loophole? I hope the Ministry and the people in MINDEF can be more on the ball and forward-looking to ensure that any loophole in the law should be immediately tightened once they have identified a case, and not wait until a big hoo-ha comes out at our national conscious level, a lot of debate and argument before the Ministry takes action to address such an injustice.

Sir, at this time, I also like to take the opportunity to request that the RECORD IV Committee propose a higher compensation allowance for our conscripted boys serving their National Service for fulfilling their duties to our nation and thus missing out on their personal development opportunities too.

Mr Teo Chee Hean: Mr Deputy Speaker, Sir, first of all, let me thank Members of the House for sharing their views and comments on this very important issue of National Service.

Sir, I am heartened to hear Members of the House expressing their very strong support for National Service and to hear that their support is shared by their constituents. Indeed, it is such support for National Service and the commitment shown by our NSmen that make our nation's defence work. As I said, 700,000 Singaporeans have served National Service or are serving National Service and, without their commitment, we will not have

the modern thriving Singapore that we have today.

[Mr Deputy Speaker (Mr S Iswaran) in the Chair]

6.00 pm

Sir, let me address now some of the specific issues that Members have raised. One is alternative forms of National Service. As I have explained earlier, National Service has served a critical need and that is, in my view, the first principle of National Service. Firstly, criticality, secondly, universality, and thirdly, equity. That critical need is national defence and we should not be trading that off against other forms of service, whether it is in the social sector, in the arts or in sports, because they do not rank in the same way as that necessity for national defence.

MINDEF feels that we can apply the principle of National Service which is to compel a person to serve only if it is to serve a critical need. We cannot apply that principle to compel a person to serve in the arts or in sports or in other areas. That would not make sufficient sense and would not be a strong enough justification.

Many Members talked about the need for flexibility. Sir, indeed, MINDEF does agree that we should apply flexibility and allow Singaporeans, as far as possible, to fulfil their individual goals. But this flexibility has to be exercised within that principle of equity. If we do not exercise flexibility within the principle of equity, then a sense of unfairness will prevail, and again the commitment to National Service will be undermined.

Let me give some examples of flexibility though Members may not consider these to be flexibility. The Enlistment Act provides for an enlistment age of 18 years old and as Dr Loo pointed out to me just now during the break, we had people, certainly during Dr Loo's time or even my time, classmates who were drafted at the age of 18 years old, regardless of what they were doing. They might be studying but they were required to do National Service while they were studying - part-time in the Police National Service and in the Special Constabulary. While the rest of us were studying and could enjoy life, they had to spend two nights a week doing National Service, even during examination period, as Dr Loo reminded me.

Today, MINDEF does exercise flexibility. We do not insist on young men being enlisted immediately after their 18th birthday. And we do grant deferments to allow them to complete their 'A' levels or polytechnic diplomas before enlisting for National Service. This, in fact, also contributes, in a sense, to equity because we allow them to proceed to the same level of education before we require them to serve.

However, deferment cannot be free for all. The concept of National Service does involve making a sacrifice or postponing a person's individual gratification or pursuit of his own personal life goals to serve the nation when the nation needs his service. So the concept of self sacrifice and postponement of personal gratification is an inherent part of National Service and it is not possible to have a system where the person's personal gratification is completely fulfilled and yet, at the same time, he serves National Service. These two things are not completely compatible.

But more importantly, we must bear in mind our fundamental principle of equity, not just in terms of whether one serves National Service or not, but also in terms of when one serves National Service. A deferment policy can be flexible only to the extent where equity is maintained. Otherwise, as I have said, there will be a loss of morale and commitment if it is perceived that some can get deferred to pursue their personal goals while others have to serve. As far as possible, we also want pre-enlistees of the same school cohort to enlist for National Service at around the same time. This helps in terms of bonding - the cohesion of the units and their fighting spirit - and also ensures equity in that they all bear similar interruptions to their studies or careers.

Sir, Mr Tan Soo Khoon cited an example of the flexibility that MINDEF has exercised in allowing deferment of a few months for the World Cyber Games. So indeed, MINDEF is flexible. But Mr Tan Soo Khoon, on the other hand, also criticised MINDEF for being inequitable for allowing Mr Stanley Aw to be deferred for the World Cyber Games but not other people to be deferred to pursue personal goals in their studies and so forth. Therein lies the dilemma that we have to face and we have to deal with this all the time in MINDEF, to try to balance flexibility with equity, and we try to do it in the best way that we can. Unfortunately, different persons, particularly individuals who are affected by not being allowed deferment, will often feel that we have not been fair to them, that somehow or other, we should have let them go. But in the end, we have to look at the totality of the cases and decide in as fair a way as possible, in order to be fair to all those who serve.

Members have also suggested that we should take into account the talents and contributions that NS defaulters can make to Singapore when dealing with them. They are concerned that if we are too harsh, such NS defaulters may not want to come back and Singapore may end up losing their talents. As I have explained earlier, universality and equity are two of the fundamental principles of National Service. NS defaulters, regardless of talent, must be dealt with in an equal manner. We will be seen as being unfair if we were to treat talented NS defaulters more leniently than others. Besides, the fact that they are talented and can contribute to Singapore does not detract from the fact that they have defaulted on their NS duties. Everyone, regardless of talent, must play their part in our nation's defence. And I cannot put it more eloquently than Mr Iswaran did just now.

Members have also made the point that post-graduate studies are more important today and so forth. But there is nothing to stop Singaporeans from going on to post-graduate studies after they have finished their National Service. In fact, many Singaporeans do and more Singaporeans do today than they did in the past. The important thing is that you should complete the service obligations before you move on. In fact, one could argue that you should complete your service obligations early so that you can proceed with the rest of your career without interruptions, because after you have finished your graduation, you may get a $1 million job offer - as many of our Singaporeans do - because you are very talented and able. You may get a very attractive offer to do your post-graduate studies. So it is better for Singaporeans to finish their National Service as early as possible before they move on to the next phase of their life.

Mr Sin Boon Ann also asked whether those with special talents can serve in a different way or be deferred from NS so as to fully develop their potential. I think Dr Tan also asked similar questions. MINDEF has exercised flexibility, for example, in allowing pre-enlistees who are top athletes who are chosen to represent Singapore to defer their enlistment for a few months in order to train and compete at key games. These deferments are for limited periods and for specific purposes and the pre-enlistees will be enlisted once their deferment period is over. You must recall that Melvyn Tan actually was granted deferment for a finite period and was asked to return on the completion of the finite period of deferment. Any such deferments are finite and the person has to return to perform his National Service when his deferment period is over or he will become an NS defaulter, and must face the consequences.

Sir, I was at the SEA Games recently in Manila and I was with many athletes. I had a very loud and indignant response from a former national athlete who is now in the management committee of one of our sports associations. He was quite indignant and quite outraged that those who did not serve their NS could get away so lightly, and he was quite insistent that everyone has to perform his duties. He had just, incidentally, completed his ICT before rushing off to Manila to be with the team. Sir, these are the kinds of people and the type of commitment that we need in order to maintain our defence.

Dr Tan Cheng Bock asked about citizens who left at a young age. Basically, Sir, the parents have to decide. And as Mr Iswaran has pointed out just now, many Singaporean parents who have young children who live abroad want to retain their Singapore citizenship, want to retain their roots with Singapore and have urged their children to do National Service. I think that is the right way. We cannot be such that we want to keep our options open all the time and then, at a later stage in life, we jump whichever way the options appear best. And then, we want not to be able to do National Service, but then to be able to come back and enjoy the fruits of those who have performed their National Service dutifully.

Mr Tan Soo Khoon asked about Permanent Residents and their liability for National Service. Perhaps, I should take this opportunity to expand on this subject a little. Permanent Residents are liable to serve National Service under the Enlistment Act. First generation Permanent Residents who are able to contribute to Singapore economically immediately upon the grant of PR status are administratively exempted from National Service. Second generation PRs, who are sponsored by their parents for PRs and those granted PRs at a young age based on their potential to contribute to Singapore in the future, are required to serve National Service. If NS-liable PRs fail to register or enlist for National Service, they would also be treated as NS defaulters. However, PRs have the option of renouncing their PR status. We cannot stop them from doing so since they are PRs and not Singapore citizens. Upon renunciation of their PR, they would no longer be liable for National Service.

Mr Chew Heng Ching asked about MINDEF's policy towards PRs who have renounced their PR status without serving NS and subsequently, changing their mind and wanting to study and work in Singapore and are prepared to serve their National Service. He argued that some of these PRs may be talents who would be able to serve to contribute to Singapore.

Sir, PRs, who are liable for National Service, are like Singaporeans in many ways. Many of them studied alongside their Singaporean counterparts in our schools and they benefited from living in Singapore like Singaporeans. So, like Singaporeans, they are expected to play their part in defending Singapore and the fundamental NS principles of universality and equity would apply to them. After all, they have benefited from the security provided by the many batches of NSmen who served diligently before them. Unlike Singaporeans, such PRs can renounce their PR status without serving NS. This is fair for those PRs who have decided that they do not want to make Singapore their home.

But what about those who subsequently want to return? Would it be fair to allow them to do so unconditionally? After all, their initial action of renouncing their PR status to avoid serving National Service calls into question their commitment to Singapore. It would also not be fair to Singaporeans who have to serve their National Service. This is why we currently take into account, together with other factors, the fact that such ex-PRs have failed to serve National Service when they subsequently applied for a student pass or Work Pass to study or work in Singapore. And there is no automaticity for them to be able to be restored. Such ex-PRs who refuse to do NS should be considered in that light.

Should we be more welcoming of ex-PRs if they offer to serve NS again? As ex-PRs, they are no longer liable for National Service. That is a technical legal issue. And, in fact, they cannot be drafted for National Service. By renouncing their PR in order to pursue their personal goals and then later offering to return to serve National Service, they are, in effect, trying to choose when to serve their National Service. This is an option which is not open to Singaporeans. A Singaporean cannot say, "I suspend my Singapore citizenship. I go abroad to study and then I come back and reclaim my Singapore citizenship." He cannot choose when to do NS. He has to do NS when the nation calls. So we have to look at PRs in that light.

We recognise that some PRs may decide not to do NS and renounce their PR. But each year, a substantial number of PRs answer the call and do serve NS. If we freely allow the return of those who have chosen not to do NS, we would also be unfair to those PRs who have answered the call of duty when they were asked to do so.

A number of Members asked about alternative punishments for defaulters who come back and there have been a number of creative ideas proposed. If I may reiterate what MINDEF is proposing to do. We are proposing to amend the Enlistment Act to increase the fine from $5,000 to $10,000. But we do not believe that the fine is sufficient compensation as replacement for a person who has failed to do NS. What we intend to do is that for those who return after a relatively short period of default, we will not object if they were only fined. They will continue to serve their National Service after that. But for longer periods of default, we will press for jail sentences -

initially, short jail sentences and, subsequently, longer jail sentences.

Some of the Members asked: what message are we sending to defaulters? Are we sending the message, "Defaulters, don't come back." I think the message to defaulters is: if you have defaulted, do come back as early as possible to settle your account and do your National Service. And best of all, do not default. Do your National Service duties like 700,000 other Singaporeans have done.

Sir, several Members have argued emotionally that we should be more accepting of National Service defaulters, particularly those who have reached an older age. In order to maintain the institution of National Service, we have to apply National Service universally and equitably. Unfortunately, if we do not do that, the whole concept of National Service and the commitment of our young men who serve National Service will be undermined. This is the greater good that we have to maintain.

Several Members have expressed sympathy for Melvyn Tan. Sir, I ask them to consider: who will shed a tear for Singapore if there is no Singapore for such people to return to, because the institution of National Service has been undermined, young men do not serve, no one defends Singapore and Singapore is no longer there for them to return to? Who will shed a tear?

Mr Deputy Speaker, Sir, National Service is a key cornerstone of our security and prosperity. It has, over the past four decades, come to be accepted and embraced by Singaporeans as a key milestone in every male Singaporean's life. Sons follow fathers into National Service. And I wish every Singaporean had a mother like Dr Amy Khor to explain to their son why National Service is important and why he needs to do it.

I am heartened by the strong support that Singaporeans have shown for National Service and the commitment that NSmen have for National Service. These bode well for the future of Singapore.

Sir, anyone who has led men, or who have done National Service, knows how strong the spirit is in our National Service units. They strive for each other. They want to do well for each other. There is a great spirit of comradeship, and that is because they know we are all in it together. So we must continue to ensure that those who fail to serve National Service are dealt with appropriately in order not to erode the support for National Service.

Melvyn Tan's case has highlighted an inadequacy in penalties for those who have defaulted for so many years that they are no longer able to discharge their National Service obligations in full. Perhaps MINDEF should have acted earlier. I concede that. But MINDEF will now be acting to address this inadequacy by asking the Prosecutor to press for jail sentences in serious cases of NS defaulters. This will help to send a clear signal that defaulting on National Service is not acceptable.

Sir, I would like to, once again, thank Members of the House for sharing their views and comments and for their strong support for National Service.

Mr Low Thia Khiang: Sir, I would like to seek a clarification from the Minister. Currently, how many NS defaulters are there on the Gazette ? What is the number?

Mr Teo Chee Hean: Our statistics show that there are about 100 unresolved cases a year. There may be defaulters, there may be a number beyond that, but many of those are for short periods and for technical infringements and so forth. We deal with them summarily, eg, we compound fines and so forth. There are about 100 cases a year, about 0.5% of the NS cohort who remain unresolved each year.

Mr Low Thia Khiang: A further clarification, Sir. Are there measures in place to resolve these cases? For instance, how would we know that they have slipped into Singapore through the airport? Are there measures to make sure that these cases can be resolved fairly?

Mr Teo Chee Hean: Yes, certainly, there are. That is why they are put on the Gazette . And that is why when they come to Singapore, they will be picked up. That is why many of them are a little wary of attempting to come to Singapore.

Many of the average 100 cases a year are actually overseas. We know that they are overseas. A number of them have dual citizenship and they may well have decided that they are not going to return to Singapore in any case, and just have not gone through the process of renouncing their citizenship and so forth, which they could have been allowed to do so. So a number of these cases are like that, but they remain as defaulters and on the Gazette. That is the situation.

Dr Loo Choon Yong: Sir, will the Minister, before passing this law, be prepared to consider a period of amnesty for some people who could be unjustly treated? Give them one last chance to come forward, pay their dues and then they could move forward?

Mr Teo Chee Hean: I am not in favour of granting an amnesty, Sir. For many of them, they have had long periods to think over this matter. Some of them have waited for a very long time. I am not in favour of granting an amnesty. Dr Geh Min, for example, said that Melvyn Tan left at a time before National Service. That is not true. Melvyn Tan left in 1969. National Service, as an institution, began in 1967. He decided not to enlist for National Service. He knew very well that there was National Service. This was already in the 1970s. I think that when persons default from National Service, they know that they are doing something wrong. So I am not in favour of an amnesty period.

Mr Deputy Speaker: The motion to consider the Ministerial Statement on National Service lapses at the conclusion of debate.

Column No : 2084