Give up citizenship? Brothers must do NS first

Give up citizenship? Brothers must do NS first – Norwegian trio’s bids rejected (Alfresco forum)

http://www.transitioning.org/2010/05/01/give-up-citizenship-brothers-must-do-ns-first-norwegian-trios-bids-rejected-alfresco-forum/

Post 1

http://www.singsupplies.com/showthread.php?t=2989

Give up citizenship? Brothers must do NS first Norwegian trio’s bids rejected.

Only those who haven’t enjoyed privileges of citizenship exempted, says Mindef

By Amelia Tan

THREE brothers, born to a Norwegian father and Singaporean mother, want to give up their Singapore citizenship.

But the Ministry of Defence has said no. Not until they do their national service.

The Bugge brothers – Thorbjoern, 33; Ingvar, 31; and Frode, 30 – left Singapore when each turned 18 and have tried and failed several times for over a decade to renounce their Singapore citizenships.

They want to renounce their citizenship so they will be free to visit their parents – Mr O.M. Bugge, 65, and his wife Margaret, 55 – who still live here.

They cannot return here because they have been classified as NS defaulters and risk arrest on arrival.

They were all born here and are considered Singapore citizens. But they also hold Norwegian citizenships, like their father.

They first left Singapore when they were five, three and two years old respectively, and lived in Norway for 10 years before returning here.

But each left Singapore after their O levels, and just before they could be called up for national service.

Mindef sent them NS enlistment letters, but in turn, each brother ignored the call-up. Instead, they enlisted in the Norwegian armed forces for a 19-month national service term.

All three decided to renounce their Singapore citizenship when they turned 21, but Mindef rejected their initial bids to do so.

They tried several more times over the years, writing to the ministry, then-prime minister Goh Chok Tong and the late former president Ong Teng Cheong to explain their case.

Their parents have also met staff from Mindef.

But all their attempts have failed.

When contacted, Mindef’s director of public affairs, Colonel Darius Lim, said: ‘Only persons who have emigrated at a very young age together with their families, and who have not enjoyed the privileges of Singapore citizenship, will be allowed to renounce their Singapore citizenships without serving national service.’

He said the three men are Singapore citizens and are required to fulfil their NS obligations. Their requests to renounce their Singapore citizenships can be considered only upon completion of full-time NS.

The brothers said they were disappointed by Mindef’s position.

When asked, they maintained that they did not leave Singapore to avoid NS. They preferred to be in Norway, they said, and their enlistment there showed they were not shirkers of NS, they said.

Mr Frode Bugge is a career soldier with the Norwegian army and has seen action in Kosovo and Afghanistan.

Brother Thorbjoern is also a career soldier, while Ingvar is a postman.

For now, they will have to continue meeting their parents in Malaysia. Their mother spends six months in Norway each year.

Their father, a marine consultant, said he cannot afford to spend extended periods in Norway because his business is based in Singapore. He tries to visit his sons once a year.

He said: ‘My sons’ cases are about a choice of citizenship, and not a case of national service…They would like to get this matter cleared up and be able to travel to Singapore for a visit like any other Norwegian.’

He is hoping that the law will be changed.

‘My sons’ situations may seem unique now. But as more foreigners marry Singaporeans, there will be more of these cases,’ he added.

NS defaulters can be jailed up to three years and/or fined up to $10,000 if convicted.

ameltan@sph.com.sg

—————————————————————————————————

Post 2

I am the Father of these three Norwegians who are the subject of much of this tread and would like to set a few facts straight.

They were born in Singapore in the middle of the “Two is Enough” or “Stop at two”-period (1975-78). As such they had to follow the Father’s citizenship and was included on my passport within weeks after birth to avoid being deported as “illegal aliens”, although the Singapore Constitution gave them the right to a Singapore Citizenship.

As they got older they got their own Norwegian Passports, which had to be endorsed with a “Dependent Pass” to allow them to remain in Singapore. A letter from the Norwegian Embassy here confirms the facts.I was running my own small P/L company in Singapore at the time and held an Employment Pass.

We left Singapore in 1980 and moved to Norway in order for the boys to learn how to be Norwegians. They arrived there at the tender age of 4 1/2, 3 and 2 years.
None of them spoke a word of Norwegian but, thrown into a Kindergarten with all Norwegian kids, they quickly learnt. Within 6 months you could not hear the difference between them and their playmates, but we kept them speaking English at home.

In 1990 we moved back to Singapore to give them a grounding in their other identity. They arrived here as Norwegian Citizen and received a Social Visit Pass in their Norwegian Passport, like any other visitor. This was renewed a few times as we applied for places in Government Schools for them. But that stranded as they were not Singapore Citizen and required Student Pass to be accepted. They actually lost a full year of schooling in the process.

One day an Immigration Officer asked; “why do you apply for Student Pass for your sons, they are entitled to dual citizenship until 21, which give them the right to stay and study in Singapore until they are 21″
A few minutes later they had a stamp in their Norwegian passport to the affect. Nothing said that they would expose themselves to NS liabilities, or be refused their right to choose.

We managed to enrolled two in a private, but government sponsored school here. (Seventh-day Adventist School) The oldest studied for his O-levels as a private candidate.

Now we made a big mistake. They were offered Pink ICs, which we accepted on the understanding that they would be able to choose which citizenship to hold and which to renounce at 21 per Singapore Constitution and Citizenship Laws. Little did we know that this would be interpreted as an acceptance of NS liability later.

As the first son finished his O-levels, he left to further his study in Norway as a Photo Journalist.
While he was there the first letter from MINDEF rolled in. I replied that he was a Norwegian Citizen and was studying in Norway and to please defer him from NS registration until he returned to Singapore, which was granted.

At the time it was not clear to me which citizenship he, or his brothers, would chose at 21 as they had been groomed to make up their own mind when the time came.

On completion of the one-year course he enrolled in the Norwegian Army to do his National Service. Shortly after we were informed that he had volunteered for service in the Norwegian peace keeping contingent in Bosnia. He has later served in Lebanon, Kosovo and Afghanistan and is due to go back to Afghanistan to train the Afghan Army soon.

His youngest brother has followed in his footsteps and are due back in Afghanistan for the fourth time. He has also been in Kosovo twice earlier.

It therefore became quite clear that he had made up his mind which citizenship he wanted to retain and which to renounce. As he became 21, he sent in an application to renounce his right to Singapore Citizenship, which was promptly refused by MINDEF. He has not been back in Singapore since and he will be 33 in a few days time (9. Sept)

The other brothers also left on completion of O-levels and returned to Norway, as none of them found Singapore to their liking at the time. After all they had grown up with wide open spaces, mountains and the sea, and found Singapore to be too restricted to their liking.

As the youngest brother turned 30 earlier this year, they all sent in an application to renounce their right to Singapore Citizenship again, with the same result.
MINDEF insisted that they were defaulters from NS and should return to Singapore “to face the music”.

I have had numerous meetings with the person in charge of such cases at CMPB, sent letters to the Minister of Defence through our MP at the time and later through a Lawyer. I have also sent letter to the Registrar of Citizen, the Prime Minister (then Goh Chok Tong) and the President (the late Ong Teng Chong) but all letters were replied by the same person at CPMB, with the stock reply, NO.

This is NOT first and foremost a question of NS and where, or whether, it should be served. It is a question of the right of a person born with two citizenships to have the right to choose which to keep and which to renounce at the age of 21.
Once he/she have made their choice they will have to comply with whatever obligations that goes with it, whether military service or others.
To deny anybody this right is against UN Charter of Human Rights, and against the Singapore Constitution.

As it stands, our three sons are unable to visit family in Singapore without risking 3 years jail and S$ 10,000 fine, although they have complied with the law and renounced one of their two citizenships as required, and served National Service in the country to which they belong.

This may not affect all that many yet, but with the number of mixed marriages in Singapore today it will be more and more of a problem.

I have spent most of my life here and has a very clear understanding of the need for a strong defence, but to force foreign nationals to serve in SAF does NOT improve military readiness or moral.

We allowed the interview in Straits Times in the hope that we could get a discussion going on this subject, but the article published was angle in such a way the it appeared that our sons had left Singapore “just before they could be called up for NS” and joined the Norwegian Army to obtain Norwegian Citizenship.
Nothing could be further from the truth, which raises a question about the agenda of the Journalist, and her Editor.

Capt.O.M.Bugge,
Proud Father.

________________________________________________________

Post 3

http://www.singsupplies.com/showthread.php?p=234330#post234330

I thought in view of the interest expressed, it might be pertinent to put couple of things together for those who are planning to migrate and seek a new life. You will never find anything with clarity with the autocratic PAP and I do not want to see the Elites benefiting and the rest making the wrong decision.

This thread is not about migrating. This is for those who have made the decision and looking for help with some aspects. Others are welcome to throw in their view and experiences

Do note that things change over time.

NS Obligations

Those with boy migrating and who leave these shores before their boys reach the age of 11 yrs are not obliged to do NS but have to follow the necessary procedures to get exemption. Passports expire at the age of 11 and that should be an indicator.

Once you have left, do not renew the passport, apply for NRIC etc as one is deemed to enjoyed the privileges of citizenship and NS become mandatory.

At age 13, apply to CMPB for exit visa stating that your family has migrated and the kids is enrolled in a school in the new country. No bond is required. CMPB uses an outsourced agency to handle call centre matters and they have no clue about migrant cases. Go directly to CMPB.

At age 16.5, you need to register for NS ( an interesting term as you are actually seeking deferment). You can do it by post to CMPB again citing that you have migrated, acquired new citizenship and the kids is schooling. You will be given deferment until the age of 21 where the kid must decide if they want to hold on their Singapore citizenship. If they do, than NS must be served. If not, exmeption for ever.

All Singaporeans, male and female cannot renounce their citizenship until age 21, and if they have acquired new citizenship, they will be dual citizens.

In the meantime, one can travel in and out of Singapore without bond and using the passport of their new country.

Those who left after 11 years, unfortunately are obliged to serve.

Note: If your child’s Singapore passport expires at the age of 11 and the family is not eligible for new citizenship, the kid will not be able to travel. Do resist the pain of not visiting Singapore unless you want him to serve NS. Do not let friends and extended family members make decisions for your kids.

Whatever it is, do be careful so that your kid can travel in and out of Singapore when he grows up and not be banned.

Why SAF Officers have fast track promotions
http://perspectives.singaporeangle.com/2007/03/why_saf_officers_have_fast_tra.html

By BL on 12 Mar 2007 1:15 PM

The headline "US soldier takes potshots at SAF" by Loh Chee Kong (Today, 12 March 2007) examines several themes in an research journal article "The Roar of the Lion City: Ethnicity, Gender and Culture in the Singapore Armed Forces" (Armed Forces & Society, 2007, 33:265-285) and the rebuttals from MINDEF in response to several issues raised in the article. The piece was written by Sean P. Walsh, a graduate from United States Military Academy currently assigned to 2nd Cavalry Regiment in Vilseck, Germany.

In the article, Walsh explored several themes such as ethnic diversity, professionalism & civil military relations of officers and role of women in the Singapore Armed Forces (SAF). While most of his sources are cited as private interviews, it is difficult to ascertain the quality of the interviews, given that we only know that one of the interviewees is a United States army officer stationed in Singapore.

One issue of interest revolves around the fast track promotion and professionalism of SAF scholars. Walsh asserted that some SAF officers see that their military careers as "a stepping stone to other careers in politics, business, or the civil service" and inferred that there is a lack of professionalism at the institutional level.

We offer a hypothesis to show why the policy makers in SAF have decided to adopt such a policy of fast track promotion of military officers, particularly the overseas SAF scholars. The basic reason is to prevent military officers from consolidating too much power such that a military coup is possible in Singapore. In fact, by adopting such a policy, it reinforces the culture of the military being integrated with the civilian government. Minister Mentor Lee Kuan Yew once mentioned the possibility of a military coup if a freak election result happens, "Without the elected president and if there is a freak result, within two or three years, the army would have to come in and stop it." (Reuters, 16 Sep 06). That adds to another dimension in asking the question, "Is a military coup possible in Singapore given that there exist such a mechanism to stop the military officers in acquiring too much power?" (see this article Après nous, les militaires by Alex Au). Of course, that is an extremely complex question which we can leave it to another day.

More flexible NS deferment policy can help sportsmen

http://www.straitstimes.com/ST+Forum/Story/STIStory_519119.html

I READ with disappointment last Saturday's report, 'Jumper not allowed to defer NS, will miss 2 key junior meets'.

I feel the disappointment of long jumper Matthew Goh, whose dreams of winning a medal at the World and Asian junior athletics championships in July were dashed after the Ministry of

Defence (Mindef) rejected his appeal to defer his national service stint.

I understand that Mindef has to follow its rules and guidelines, but I wish it could be more flexible in this case as Matthew has already qualified for both meets and he is asking for only a three-month deferment.

I wonder if the people who decided not the grant his appeal know the impact their decision has on his life? I cannot understand how a three-month deferment would have any impact on Mindef's operational readiness.

Mindef should learn from the government of Cyprus - a small country with a big heart that exempted professional tennis player Marco Baghdatis from otherwise mandatory national service so he could concentrate on playing tennis.

I hope Mindef can reconsider its decision as it should not just be the job of the Ministry of Community Development, Youth and Sports to nurture local sports talent - other ministries need to chip in too.

Cheryl Tan (Ms)

Apr 13, 2010 NSman dies of heat stroke By Elena Chong A FULL-TIME police national serviceman died of heat stroke two days after an IPPT trial at the parade square of the Home Team Academy, a coroner's court heard. Mr Roslan Saharo, 18, had complained of having a fever to two squad-mates on the day of the 2.4km run on May 13, 2008. But he did not tell the squad's field instructor that he was unwell, and carried on running. At an inquiry into his death, the court heard that trainees were supposed to run three to four rounds around the parade square. During the run, two squad-mates noticed Mr Roslan - who weighed 93kg - to be unwell but he indicated that he was fine and continued running. Subsequently, another trainee saw him run diagonally towards a block and collapse on a sheltered pavement. Mr Roslan picked himself up and continued, but but fell down again after a few steps. When the field instructor realised what had happened, he ran over to Mr Roslan who threw up twice. He received medical attention at the clinic but when he became restless and disoriented, he was taken to National University Hospital. He remained in intensive care and died two days later of heat stroke which caused multiple-organ failure and left him brain dead. In recording a verdict of misadventure on his death, State Coroner Victor Yeo said it was an unfortunate case where his death could have been avoided had he reported first, to his instructor. He also urged all trainees to take good care of themselves and their fellow squad-mates during training, and to keep a lookout for one another.

http://www.straitstimes.com/BreakingNews/Singapore/Story/STIStory_513952.html

SCDF NSmen at fire stations to serve 18 days for in-camp training

http://www.channelnewsasia.com/stories/singaporelocalnews/view/1049047/1/.html

SCDF NSmen at fire stations to serve 18 days for in-camp training
By Satish Cheney & Teo Xuanwei | Posted: 09 April 2010 2211 hrs

SINGAPORE: NSmen with the Singapore Civil Defence Force (SCDF) spend eight days when it comes to in-camp training.

But from this month, those attached to fire stations will have to serve 18 days instead.

This was outlined in the SCDF workplan.

The move is to ensure that these men can be deployed in immediate response teams for fire and rescue operations along with regulars and NSFs.

Speaking at the Workplan Seminar, Law Minister and Second Minister for Home Affairs K Shanmugan said it is also essential for the SCDF to use new technologies to enhance its capabilities.

A new drive for public education is also necessary, said the Minister, adding that SCDF's successes also depend on whether it is able to continue to rely on strong public support.

"As a further extension of its current outreach efforts, SCDF will be conducting Emergency Preparedness Awareness Training Programmes in the heartlands from this year," he said. "This is a new partnership with the People's Association to teach grassroots leaders and residents essential emergency preparedness knowledge."

The SCDF also plans to introduce a Demerit Point System to track and act against those who repeatedly commit fire offences.

- CNA/yb

http://theonlinecitizen.com/2010/01/an-indoctrination-process-during-ns/

An indoctrination process during NS

Tags: Alvin Phoon, ns

Alvin Phoon

Being Singaporean means experiencing a lot of things. Good food. High prices. SPGs. It also means constantly receiving some excellent reasons for why things are; reasons that may or may not (mostly not) justify fallacies in the current political system. I’m sure we’ve all heard some amazingly creative comments and justifications for shortcomings in our society, most of which have been provided by the beloved leaders of our country. Just recently, I was subjected to a talk during my reservist training in which the speaker, whom I shall address as Mr X, provided some interesting viewpoints.

Mr X is eloquent, intelligent and charming. In fact, he manages, within the first five minutes, to capture the undivided attention of the room, and it remains that way for a good hour. How he does this is simple. First, he makes it clear that he understands the predicament of everyone in the room. Complete with hand gestures, a passionate tone and a slightly higher volume than normal, he questions the intelligence of those who put us in the room. Next, he likens himself to the group –working men pulled out of their busy schedules by a higher power to attend unnecessary activities. That one garners him even more support from the group. Finally, he tells the group that instead of having a normal presentation, he is going to make it a discussion, just so that it’s more interesting for us. That completes the group’s transformation. They are now relatively contented, wide awake and ready to debate, when before it was mostly a propensity to swear.

Now, Mr X is ready to serve up the main course. He asks the group if there is anything they are unhappy with as Singaporeans.

ERP Gantries

The issue is raised by one of the guys, who says he disagrees with the government’s decision to increase the number of Electronic Road Pricing (ERP) gantries. The opinion is echoed around the room. Some say it isn’t fair that they have to pass through the gantries several times.

Mr X’s response: The ERP gantries help regulate the flow of traffic. They are there to discourage Singaporeans from driving so that the roads will stay clear. Public transport in Singapore is efficient enough to provide alternative means of travelling. He then compares the prices to the London Congestion Charge (£8 a day) and tells us how much better we have it here.

National Service

The inevitable question surfaces relatively early. Why are Singaporean men subjected to National Service? Is conscription really necessary?

Mr X uses a brilliant lock analogy to justify the necessity of National Service. He asks us if we lock our front doors when we go to sleep at night.

“If you don’t lock your doors, you might wake up at 3am to find someone pushing your plasma TV out the door. If you ask him why he’s doing that, he’ll tell you it’s because your door was open.”

He then explains the analogy: Everyone serving national service, including those who are Operationally Ready NS men, are considered the country’s lock. We are the guys who lockdown the nation so that the rest of the population feel safe enough go to sleep.

Foreigners

Mr X brings up this next point himself, which implies that he had prepared himself thoroughly for such a question. Why are there so many foreigners in the country? Why do we need to import so many of them?

Singapore is targeting a population of six million, so as to ensure that the country maintains a progressive long-term economic order. Everything sounds right. Then, Mr X begins his tirade.

First, he questions if it is wise that Singaporeans are refusing to have more than one child, if any at all. He is backed up by statistics which show that Singapore has one of the lowest fertility rates in the world; about 1.25 per resident female compared to about three in the 1970s. He wants to know if we will remain economically stable if our population dips to three million. That is the reason, he claims, why the government is importing foreigners: Because Singaporeans refuse to help solve the problem.

“At the rate we’re going, in about a hundred years’ time, Singaporeans may not even exist anymore. By then, the only place you can see one is in a museum!”

He continues by saying that Singaporeans are feeling threatened, and uses the reactions of Singaporeans towards news of our top PSLE student being a Chinese import as an example. He talks about how foreigners working as sales personnel in local malls have better attitudes that their local counterparts. He emphasizes that Singaporeans were all children of immigrants anyway, and so why shouldn’t we welcome foreigners?

Corruption

By now Mr X has stopped taking questions. He begins talking about how the Singapore government has done such a good job resisting the lures of corruption. Despite my best efforts, he didn’t hear me snigger. He then asks if it is possible that the government will one day succumb to temptation. Raising, as an example, the rise of the Philippines as one of the world’s top trading centres and their fall from grace, leading to women coming to Singapore to work as maids, he asks if our women might suffer that very same fate one day.

He ends his talk with two stories. The first is about an Australian family he encountered while on holiday. After a barbeque, the Australian family replaced the charcoal before driving off. Mr X emphasizes that although there was a sign telling users to do so, there was no one around to enforce the rule. But they did it anyway. Subsequently, he drives into a small town where he sees a table full of fresh fruit with no one manning it. He notices a tin labeled ‘50 cents’, and says that there is no way something like this could ever happen in Singapore.

The second is about an incident he observed while in a local supermarket. After finishing a food sample given to her by promoters, a young girl was instructed by her grandmother to throw the toothpick on the floor. According to him, Singaporeans have been spoon-fed by the government so much that we now expect them to clean up after us.

“Throw it away and the government will send someone to clean it up.”

He adds that there isn’t a strong sense of community and trust in Singapore, and finishes off by saying that it is up to us, and not the government, to be civic-minded.

Later, I discover that Mr X served as an Army regular for 30 years, before setting up his own company to provide leadership programmes and “National Education” talks to various organizations. His clients include the Ministry of Finance, the Ministry of Community Development, Youth and Sports, Ministry of Defence and the Singapore Civil Defence Force. Explains a lot doesn’t it?

The condescending manner in which Mr X delivers his points suggests that he considers the men in the room to be intellectually inferior to him, thus rendering them incapable of making their own decisions and opinions about their own country. Visualize a kindergarten teacher talking to her students about evolution and you’ll get an accurate picture. Besides being a complete waste of time, it is an immense insult to our intelligence.

The question remains though: Why us? Is the whole thing an elaborate set-up manufactured to exploit whatever feelings of patriotism an In-Camp Training session may incite? Are we easy targets because we are old enough to vote and young enough to be considered easily influenced? Or is reservist training more about feeding us false information and justifications, than making sure we maintain our physical fitness?

Mr X epitomizes everything the government is: intelligent, cunning, articulate, and committed to the cause. The question is whether we have what it takes to identify their methods. Judging from the reactions of the other men in the room as they trek off to lunch, it seems like we have some way to go.

Photo 1: http://beconfused.com

Photo 2: http://military-life.blogspot.com

NS deaths: Confidential Operational Matter or Issue of Public Interest

NS deaths: Confidential Operational Matter or Issue of Public Interest

(Unpublished - Dec 13, 2009)
http://thinkingbetterthinkingmeta.blogspot.com/2009/12/ns-deaths-confidential-operational.html

I refer to the report on Alex Tan's ban from the Young PAP Network Facebook group (Dec 13).

I am shocked at the part of the report which stated he was put into detention barracks for five days for blogging about the number of National Service related deaths over the years.

He was reported to have been detained because this is an operational matter, which suggests that what he did was a compromise of operations.

Since the number of training-related deaths is a statistic for public interest, I cannot understand the extent to which knowing the number of deaths is a compromise of operations.

Furthermore, should the government not be more accountable for something that annually receives a lot of public funds and taxpayer money?

Most training and operational matters deserve their confidentiality, but I hope the rules are not abused just to silence people who are deemed to be potential threat to the establishment. We are today definitely beyond such political strategies, because such strategies remove the agents of debate and lead to the avoidance of debate itself.

Having served five cycles of reservist training and being fortunate enough not to suffer any severe injury, I feel as a member of the public, that I deserve to know training-related deaths and injuries. I want to know how our training safety track record and serviceman welfare have improved.

It is sometimes relatively apparent that the blanket ruling of confidentiality and secrecy is more of a public relations management strategy than an actual safeguard of training confidentiality itself. The related defence organisations see public embarrassment and lack of public faith and trust as great a threat as actual confidentiality compromises.

I hope Alex Tan's detention will not create a chilling effect on servicemen, preventing them from providing feedback, contributing to public opinion, and demanding accountability.

Ho Chi Sam