top of page
Search

Is Conscription Ethical?

Updated: 4 days ago

“These foreigners [— including dodgy permanent residents (PRs)] — are here [in Singapore] to contribute economically & who will want to come to Singapore if we subject them to the conscription & lifelong reservist liability which we compel onto all our local lads, regardless of how many male children the parents conceive? [...] THEY WILL LEAVE”! — alvin 楊康海 (good riddance) Thank you very much for making all the males of காசிவிஸ்வநாதன் கா கே “city, not country” சண்முகம் look like FOOLS — now, I wonder what the abbreviations “NSF” & “NSman/NSmen” stand (no pun intended) for. Shyster of a hypocrite as well as a “legal expert” so-called However, MALE Singaporean ஜனில் ஆருஷா புதுச்சேரி cares about this concern as much as he does about the his father in 冷藏行動 as well as why his father was banned from entering Singapore until less than three years after 光譜行動. 1963 1987 alvin under duress retirees you must too do not have to serve breakdown dead shyster lawyer one-third 40% 14% 15% threatening joseph isaac schooling ஜனில் ஆருஷா புதுச்சேரி hypocrite patrick 陳文煒 conscription national service nsf nsman nsmen reservist city, not country national university singapore nus stinkapore sports professionalism malaysian doctor sell-out paternal uncle dominic james professionalism not equate patriotism white horse super game system circumvent காசிவிஸ்வநாதன் “city, not country” சண்முகம் கா கே élite indonesia Dutch Comfort hypocrisy 關本安 關凱文 kevin kwan melvyn tan 陳萬榮 male singaporean compatriots citizenships passports 香港人 hongkies possess up to three 3 adults cannot even have two 2 author novelist writer piano man pianist talented Monday, 29th November 1993 January 1994 葉綠娜 ivan 林紹權 佘俊陞 training related injuries hazing horrifying deaths 牽累 束縛 我們 自己 的 男生 佘俊陞 香港 舞男
Conscription is Not Tantamount to Taxation NSF Full-Time Reservist NSman NSmen Exploitation Hypocrisy No. Conscription is involuntary servitude. It is forced labor. It is immoral. One does not owe military service to the state. All the benefits we get from the state is already paid for in taxes, nothing is free. Conscription is not the same as taxation. In conscription, one is forced to do a job that he/she does not agree with. In taxation, one still gets to do a job that one chooses, and only pay a percentage of one’s income as taxes (which is fair because the state provides benefits such as public schools, roads, etc.). The state however, does not have the right to force you to serve simply because you’ve received free education - that benefit you received is already paid for in taxes. People who support conscription are in fact supporting slavery. In the USA, the constitution (13th Amendment) forbids slavery and involuntary servitude. If you live in the USA and get drafted you can invoke the 13th Amendment in court. Of course, the Supreme Court of the United States has had its own interpretation of the 13th Amendment. It (the Supreme Court) ruled during the Vietnam War that the 13th Amendment does not apply to conscription since such duty is “owed” by the civilian to the state. That interpretation is wrong and hypocritical as nobody owes the state anything once they have paid their taxes (even in taxation citizens still have the right to scrutinize and alter how their tax money is spent). The notion that people owe something or anything to the state is preposterous. Any state that supports that notion is a kleptocracy. Involuntary servitude imposed by the state is still involuntary servitude. However, you may get a different response from some people who support conscription. They will use fallacies such as “you owe it to your state, because the state provides you with benefits” and “it’s a form of taxation”. These people have no idea that they are actually supporting a kleptocracy where the state steals from you. You have the right to your own life and limb and only you have the right to decide what you wish to work as without the state interfering and stealing from you. Conscription is also a form of communism/socialism as it is opposed to capitalism and a free market. Countries that claim to have capitalist values while supporting conscription are actually committing hypocrisy as conscription is essentially stealing from the individual to give to the collective. It is taking the autonomy, time, life and limb, of the individual and giving it to the collective. It is where you have no control over your own body and how you choose to use it because the state has conscripted it for the collective. People who are opposed to conscription are not only doing the moral thing, but are also enabling the free market to take its course in selecting only the best and motivated people for the army whist allowing those who do not want to be in the army to contribute to the economy (and war effort) in their own way. 2nd Second Indochina War French France United States of America Moral Best Subsided
Conscription is Not Tantamount to Taxation NSF Full-Time Reservist NSman NSmen Conscription is Not Tantamount to Taxation NSF Full-Time Reservist NSman NSmen Exploitation Hypocrisy No. Conscription is involuntary servitude. It is forced labor. It is immoral. One does not owe military service to the state. All the benefits we get from the state is already paid for in taxes, nothing is free. Conscription is not the same as taxation. In conscription, one is forced to do a job that he/she does not agree with. In taxation, one still gets to do a job that one chooses, and only pay a percentage of one’s income as taxes (which is fair because the state provides benefits such as public schools, roads, etc.). The state however, does not have the right to force you to serve simply because you’ve received free education - that benefit you received is already paid for in taxes. People who support conscription are in fact supporting slavery. In the USA, the constitution (13th Amendment) forbids slavery and involuntary servitude. If you live in the USA and get drafted you can invoke the 13th Amendment in court. Of course, the Supreme Court of the United States has had its own interpretation of the 13th Amendment. It (the Supreme Court) ruled during the Vietnam War that the 13th Amendment does not apply to conscription since such duty is “owed” by the civilian to the state. That interpretation is wrong and hypocritical as nobody owes the state anything once they have paid their taxes (even in taxation citizens still have the right to scrutinize and alter how their tax money is spent). The notion that people owe something or anything to the state is preposterous. Any state that supports that notion is a kleptocracy. Involuntary servitude imposed by the state is still involuntary servitude. However, you may get a different response from some people who support conscription. They will use fallacies such as “you owe it to your state, because the state provides you with benefits” and “it’s a form of taxation”. These people have no idea that they are actually supporting a kleptocracy where the state steals from you. You have the right to your own life and limb and only you have the right to decide what you wish to work as without the state interfering and stealing from you. Conscription is also a form of communism/socialism as it is opposed to capitalism and a free market. Countries that claim to have capitalist values while supporting conscription are actually committing hypocrisy as conscription is essentially stealing from the individual to give to the collective. It is taking the autonomy, time, life and limb, of the individual and giving it to the collective. It is where you have no control over your own body and how you choose to use it because the state has conscripted it for the collective. People who are opposed to conscription are not only doing the moral thing, but are also enabling the free market to take its course in selecting only the best and motivated people for the army whist allowing those who do not want to be in the army to contribute to the economy (and war effort) in their own way. 2nd Second Indochina War French France United States of America Moral Best Subsided under duress retirees do not have to serve breakdown
Conscription is Not Tantamount to Taxation NSF Full-Time Reservist NSman NSmen Moral Best Conscription is Not Tantamount to Taxation NSF Full-Time Reservist NSman NSmen Exploitation Hypocrisy No. Conscription is involuntary servitude. It is forced labor. It is immoral. One does not owe military service to the state. All the benefits we get from the state is already paid for in taxes, nothing is free. Conscription is not the same as taxation. In conscription, one is forced to do a job that he/she does not agree with. In taxation, one still gets to do a job that one chooses, and only pay a percentage of one’s income as taxes (which is fair because the state provides benefits such as public schools, roads, etc.). The state however, does not have the right to force you to serve simply because you’ve received free education - that benefit you received is already paid for in taxes. People who support conscription are in fact supporting slavery. In the USA, the constitution (13th Amendment) forbids slavery and involuntary servitude. If you live in the USA and get drafted you can invoke the 13th Amendment in court. Of course, the Supreme Court of the United States has had its own interpretation of the 13th Amendment. It (the Supreme Court) ruled during the Vietnam War that the 13th Amendment does not apply to conscription since such duty is “owed” by the civilian to the state. That interpretation is wrong and hypocritical as nobody owes the state anything once they have paid their taxes (even in taxation citizens still have the right to scrutinize and alter how their tax money is spent). The notion that people owe something or anything to the state is preposterous. Any state that supports that notion is a kleptocracy. Involuntary servitude imposed by the state is still involuntary servitude. However, you may get a different response from some people who support conscription. They will use fallacies such as “you owe it to your state, because the state provides you with benefits” and “it’s a form of taxation”. These people have no idea that they are actually supporting a kleptocracy where the state steals from you. You have the right to your own life and limb and only you have the right to decide what you wish to work as without the state interfering and stealing from you. Conscription is also a form of communism/socialism as it is opposed to capitalism and a free market. Countries that claim to have capitalist values while supporting conscription are actually committing hypocrisy as conscription is essentially stealing from the individual to give to the collective. It is taking the autonomy, time, life and limb, of the individual and giving it to the collective. It is where you have no control over your own body and how you choose to use it because the state has conscripted it for the collective. People who are opposed to conscription are not only doing the moral thing, but are also enabling the free market to take its course in selecting only the best and motivated people for the army whist allowing those who do not want to be in the army to contribute to the economy (and war effort) in their own way. 2nd Second Indochina War French France United States of America Subsided Moral Best under duress retirees do not have to serve breakdown
Government Gov. Govt. Move Expensive Neighbouring Cities Catch Up Elsewhere Live Make Living Paradise Rich Wealthy Poor Impecunious Gap Terrifying Conscription Forced National Service Reservist NSF NSman NSmen Unable to Afford to Unfortunately Harder to Difficult Migrate Cities only Other Countries Wages Paid Peanuts Emigration Professional, Managerial, Executive, Technical (PMET) Professionals Working Pay High Rental Parents Caregiving Elderly Further Education Reliant Support Dependent Dependence Welfare System SGD75,000 Bond Banker’s Guarantee Eleven-&-One-Half 11.5 12 Twelve Teenage Nine 9 Month Long Passport Overseas Restricted Living Travel Extension Central Manpower Base CMPB Leave Country Nation Rigged Game Against Males You under duress retirees you must too do not have to serve breakdown own Rooms joseph isaac schooling ஜனில் ஆருஷா புதுச்சேரி hypocrite patrick 陳文煒 conscription national service nsf nsman nsmen reservist city, not country national university singapore nus stinkapore sports professionalism malaysian doctor sell-out paternal uncle dominic james professionalism not equate patriotism white horse super game system circumvent காசிவிஸ்வநாதன் “city, not country” சண்முகம் கா கே powerful men social élite Singapore’s 關本安 關凱文kevin kwan melvyn tan 陳萬榮 male singaporean compatriots citizenships passports 香港人 hongkies possess up to three 3 adults cannot even have two 2 author novelist writer piano man pianist talented Monday, 29th November 1993 January 1994 葉綠娜 Malaysia Indonesia Woke American United States Activists Chinese Communist Spies 韓俐穎 Kirsten Regime Constricted Bonded
Note the phrase “more reliant on [government] support [&] harder to migrate”, i.e. becoming more dependent on [i.e. at the mercy of] “the system [regime]” to thrive or — at the very least — survive.
Yes, note that many new permanent residents (PRs) tend to be mid-career professionals who join the middle class & upper-middle class, i.e. they are already financially stable (individuals). Therefore, when they clinch their “pink” NRIC (national registration identity card), they would receive approximately the same benefits as born-&-bred citizens, even though the latter have gone through full-time-conscription-cum-lifelong-reservist-liability as well as paid a lifetime of taxes. Well-consolidated themselves I.e. by the time they become naturalised Singapore citizens (Singaporeans). National Service Full-Time Conscription (NSF) NSman NSmen Lifelong Reservist Liability 黃永宏 陳振聲 Well-established Consolidated Careers
Although I served in a more significant vocation air defence 24/7 24 twenty-four hour seven 7 day a week, national service (NS) feels like a tool for powerful politicians i.e. the political élite & protect élite’s wealth to safeguard i.e. maintain their foothold (political as well as socio-economic power) rather than actually defending Singapore i.e. the country in the first 1st place. As Singapore government brings in more foreigners with no national service (NS) commitments (years of mandatory full-time conscription i.e. “NSF”) as well as lifelong reservist (i.e. “NSman/NSmen”) on their part, line becomes more blurred. It became apparent to me when I watched a Channel News-Asia (CNA) documentary touting Singapore’s national reserves with multiple wealth thanks to Singapore’s strong defence force. Why therefore are we still paying young conscripted men below average wages i.e. “allowances” then for two-&-one-half years albeit shortened to two? Who are we actually protecting? Made the fool fools காசிவிஸ்வநாதன் கா கே சண்முகம் city, not country shyster Apa ini macam? Deadwood 黃永宏 have retired and now helmed by陳振聲 (cotton comes from sheep). Isn't he going to reverse the exemption of those 30-40 year old free loaders from serving national service (NS). Agree that, serving NS is compulsory and cannot be compromised if those foreigners want to take up Permanent Residency (PR) &/ Citizenship. It is a calling to protect the constitution of Singapore. Not even going for three (3) months Basic Military Training What kind of signal are they sending to our NS boys who need to sacrifices their youth and prime and lives in times of trouble and not logical that we have to protect those ungrateful foreigners who will be the first to flee including our very own bunch of paper generals. Very unfair treatment to our very own kind but favourable to those free-loaders. Why is our government treating locals as trash. Really cannot fathom their actions, seems like those monkeys dislike own citizens and make them suffer for their own amusement. Why? Should New Citizens be Subjected to Full-Time Conscription (NSF) & / Lifelong-Reservist Liability (NSman/NSmen) fifty 50 commissioned officers
This is because the regime in Singapore always considers Malaysia and/or Indonesia as conventional, i.e. “20th century” military threats one quarter of a century into the 21st century. Also reason why Singapore herds — or rather dumps — all males regardless of their individual familial and/or socio-economic circumstances — or rather, predicaments — into years of mandatory full-time conscription (“NSF”) as well as lifelong reservist liability (i.e. “NSman/NSmen”) i.e. confining as well as shackling the local males to the 20th century (i.e. forced practices) well into the 21st century whilst self-entitled local females & foreigners, including dodgy permanent residents (PRs) are thoroughly allowed to exploit the local lads via “gaming the system” to their contemporary 21st century advantage (i.e. “moving ahead” and/or [figuratively] stepping on the [local males’] heads). After all, as you alluded, almost (nearly) 40% (i.e. just over a one-third) of காசிவிஸ்வநாதன் [கா] [கே] சண்முகம் “city, not country’s” population already have a foot in at least another country (in 1990, it was approximately 14%). Shyster utter waste time made fools make the best of youth best time life & a better individual conscription reservist liability
Today I learnt Malays were not allowed to serve National Service from 1967–1984 which had a huge social repercussion “There has been discrimination both for and against Malays during Singapore’s history… The Malays were positively favoured as employees by the British, particularly in the uniformed services (army, police and fire brigade) and in some related clerical, transport, and personal services. In 1957, almost 20 per cent of Malay working men were employed in the uniformed services… Malay youth were not called up for National Service during the 1970s, and some were still not being called up in 1984. Those who were called up claimed to be placed only in menial capacities, and always excluded from the air-force, commando, and tank units which are the key units in Singapore’s defence system.” There was an unfortunate side effect to the non-recruitment of Malays into National Service. Employers in Singapore are generally unwilling to recruit or train young male workers who have not completed National Service or obtained exemption papers as these youths can be called up at any time. Since Malays were not officially exempted from National Service, Malay youths were unable to obtain apprenticeships or regular jobs, and many were forced into an extended limbo period of about ten years from ages 14 to 24… [This] was in part responsible for the high percentage of Malay youths who became involved in heroin abuse during the late 1970s. Compelled Not Officially Discharged — Malays in Singapore Culture, Economy & Ideology. Tania Li Social Repercussion of Malays & National Service from the late 1960s to the early 1980s Ramifications Conscription Lifelong Reservist Liability Narcotics Drugs NSF NSman NSmen NS Social Repercussion of Malays & National Service from the late 1960s to the early 1980s
Today I learnt Malays were not allowed to serve National Service from 1967–1984 which had a huge social repercussion “There has been discrimination both for and against Malays during Singapore’s history… The Malays were positively favoured as employees by the British, particularly in the uniformed services (army, police and fire brigade) and in some related clerical, transport, and personal services. In 1957, almost 20 per cent of Malay working men were employed in the uniformed services… Malay youth were not called up for National Service during the 1970s, and some were still not being called up in 1984. Those who were called up claimed to be placed only in menial capacities, and always excluded from the air-force, commando, and tank units which are the key units in Singapore’s defence system.” There was an unfortunate side effect to the non-recruitment of Malays into National Service. Employers in Singapore are generally unwilling to recruit or train young male workers who have not completed National Service or obtained exemption papers as these youths can be called up at any time. Since Malays were not officially exempted from National Service, Malay youths were unable to obtain apprenticeships or regular jobs, and many were forced into an extended limbo period of about ten years from ages 14 to 24… [This] was in part responsible for the high percentage of Malay youths who became involved in heroin abuse during the late 1970s. Compelled Not Officially Discharged — Malays in Singapore Culture, Economy & Ideology. Tania Li Social Repercussion of Malays & National Service from the late 1960s to the early 1980s Ramifications Conscription Lifelong Reservist Liability Narcotics Drugs NSF NSman NSmen NS Social Repercussion of Malays & National Service from late 1960s to the early 1980s Social Repercussion of Malays & National Service from the late 1960s to the early 1980s
Where I believe it goes wrong with the NS narrative Opinion Fluff Post (The following contains my personal opinion, and is very long) I’m sure many SG redditors are keenly aware of the high levels of discontent here regarding NS. It is bad enough that those aggrieved will hang it over the heads of others whenever any attempt is made to improve/change their situation(Most obvious examples, any attempts to push for more gender equality/inclusive policies) In this post, I will try my best to put into words what I believe is the root of much of this unhappiness(apart from the obvious 2 years service), and try to focus on what went wrong or is going wrong in terms of the messaging around NS, as well as how it causes a knock-on effect against other social causes. Based of personal experience of my time in school, it starts with the some teachers/authority figures who openly or subtly assert that there is some level of “equality” being practiced due to the assumption that, as a societal whole, singaporean men serve NS as their duty, and singaporean women will marry singaporean men and bear children which is a narrative parroted by some figures to be “Women’s NS”. They further assert or imply that male Singaporeans are emotionally immature or deficient, painting everyone with the same brush regardless of personal circumstances. This will be “cured” by NS, and it will “make a man out of you”. At this point, I’m sure that some eyebrows are raised internally, after all, does that mean that men of other places are not “men”? Are we specially “immature” or “undeserving” of our place in our country till we have gone through this “rite of passage”? All this within the context of the already harrowing Singapore education system that is known to be one of the most stressful in the world. We are all taught around this time that the only place we deserve is the one we carve out for ourselves. No one is going to help us up if we fall, no one is going to save us if we screw up. This continues once NS starts, with the pushing of the belief that all the suffering and sacrifices the men go through will be “worth it” as this service is a form of contribution to a society that they will fully partake in (which implies, subtly or not so subtly, a wife, nice job, a nice 4-5 room BTO by the time you’re in your late 20s early 30s etc.) in a country they can happily call their own. And then NS is done, you’re given a little ceremony, and off you go. Some will continue on to university, others to work. This is where things start to fall apart for a significant number of these people. Many will realise that there is little to no actual “benefit” directly derived from their service. They still have to participate in a fully open and globalised economy, with and in many instances against others who are just as able, or more capable than them. What grieves them even more are many stories of hiring discrimination from managers/HRs of other nationalities, who take advantage of their country’s relatively open economic system to bing in kin and countrymen into many high paying and comfortable white collar jobs. A large number of Singaporeans have also been polled to have never even dated before. https://www.todayonline.com/singapore/online-dating-singles-singapore-never-dated-survey-2015846 This would cause another dent in the narrative that these people have been brought up by. Without a partner, there is no possibility of applying for a BTO until you’re almost middle aged. This feeling of exclusion worsens when the real or perceived social phenomenon of Singaporean women being able to marry foreign grooms, and still having their family fully getting the privileges of citizenship/residence. https://www.straitstimes.com/singapore/more-singaporean-women-marrying-foreign-grooms Most of these families will have essentially no members of the family serving a single day, and will still receive full benefits, rights and protections under Singapore law, assuming they choose to reside in Singapore. In terms of housing, apart from being excluded from the coveted HDB BTO scheme as mentioned, almost none of them will be able to afford a home in their own country either, with average condominium prices around $2 million dollars. The same goes for owning cars, which many see as part of natural next step in fulfilling their ambitions in this country. So if you can imagine, now you’re a man who’s been told that their mandatory “rite of passage” that was supposed to “turn you into men” and usher you into a fulfilling life in your own country, and are now faced with one or more of the above. Many have no wife, no children, no house, no car. They don’t even have any specific government “privileges” to help them if they can’t find a job or advance their position in life for their service. This is the crux of the problem. Now you’ve got a whole bunch of unhappy people who feel cheated of a life they were “promised”. They’re not going to be able to easily swallow societal or governmental pushes for gender equality, because they feel they’ve already been treated must unequally. Never mind that many of the issues that these initiatives seek to tackle are real and legitimate issues that many women face in their lives. The problem also lies in these people, who channel their unhappiness and vitriol to women who have had no part in the broken promises or the suffering their going through (and no, some stupid comment made by some schoolgirl on NS handpicked to be in a street interview video made with the objective of going viral doesn’t count). They are not able to see that many perceived injustices they have gone through are perpetrated by powerful men part of Singapore’s social elite. These are the people who, knowingly or unknowingly, perpetuate a structural belief that there would be some social benefit to the 2 years served that would outweigh its service, when in actuality they have failed in their duty to implement real laws and initiatives to make service “worth it” and be recognised. One man serves his 2 years, and goes home to a landed estate. The other serves his two years and goes home to a rental flat with 3 generations staying together. Both are taught to believe that their service is to benefit their future. I believe that those in power MUST come to terms with the reality that the continued perpetuation of this narrative is harmful not only to those that have to serve, but also to those that have to live with those that serve. A country that has a significant proportion of its citizens go about life in the belief that they have been fucked will soon realise that their frustrations will be “heard” one way or another, and when it does, it is not likely to be pleasant. Change must be made to be honest to those who are about to serve that it is a straight sacrifice, with no real benefit directly tied to its service, to allow those that are put through it to have an honest reality of what being done to them. Only then can there be some level of accountability between those that serve NS and those that most benefit from it. TLDR: Please change how NS is presented, how it’s being done now, either knowingly or by wilful ignorance, is not good for our country. HDB Housing & Development Board Built to Order Apartment Unit 35 Age Brazen Hypocrisy own Rooms
Where I believe it goes wrong with the NS narrative Opinion Fluff Post (The following contains my personal opinion, and is very long) I’m sure many SG redditors are keenly aware of the high levels of discontent here regarding NS. It is bad enough that those aggrieved will hang it over the heads of others whenever any attempt is made to improve/change their situation(Most obvious examples, any attempts to push for more gender equality/inclusive policies) In this post, I will try my best to put into words what I believe is the root of much of this unhappiness(apart from the obvious 2 years service), and try to focus on what went wrong or is going wrong in terms of the messaging around NS, as well as how it causes a knock-on effect against other social causes. Based of personal experience of my time in school, it starts with the some teachers/authority figures who openly or subtly assert that there is some level of “equality” being practiced due to the assumption that, as a societal whole, singaporean men serve NS as their duty, and singaporean women will marry singaporean men and bear children which is a narrative parroted by some figures to be “Women’s NS”. They further assert or imply that male Singaporeans are emotionally immature or deficient, painting everyone with the same brush regardless of personal circumstances. This will be “cured” by NS, and it will “make a man out of you”. At this point, I’m sure that some eyebrows are raised internally, after all, does that mean that men of other places are not “men”? Are we specially “immature” or “undeserving” of our place in our country till we have gone through this “rite of passage”? All this within the context of the already harrowing Singapore education system that is known to be one of the most stressful in the world. We are all taught around this time that the only place we deserve is the one we carve out for ourselves. No one is going to help us up if we fall, no one is going to save us if we screw up. This continues once NS starts, with the pushing of the belief that all the suffering and sacrifices the men go through will be “worth it” as this service is a form of contribution to a society that they will fully partake in (which implies, subtly or not so subtly, a wife, nice job, a nice 4-5 room BTO by the time you’re in your late 20s early 30s etc.) in a country they can happily call their own. And then NS is done, you’re given a little ceremony, and off you go. Some will continue on to university, others to work. This is where things start to fall apart for a significant number of these people. Many will realise that there is little to no actual “benefit” directly derived from their service. They still have to participate in a fully open and globalised economy, with and in many instances against others who are just as able, or more capable than them. What grieves them even more are many stories of hiring discrimination from managers/HRs of other nationalities, who take advantage of their country’s relatively open economic system to bing in kin and countrymen into many high paying and comfortable white collar jobs. A large number of Singaporeans have also been polled to have never even dated before. https://www.todayonline.com/singapore/online-dating-singles-singapore-never-dated-survey-2015846 This would cause another dent in the narrative that these people have been brought up by. Without a partner, there is no possibility of applying for a BTO until you’re almost middle aged. This feeling of exclusion worsens when the real or perceived social phenomenon of Singaporean women being able to marry foreign grooms, and still having their family fully getting the privileges of citizenship/residence. https://www.straitstimes.com/singapore/more-singaporean-women-marrying-foreign-grooms Most of these families will have essentially no members of the family serving a single day, and will still receive full benefits, rights and protections under Singapore law, assuming they choose to reside in Singapore. In terms of housing, apart from being excluded from the coveted HDB BTO scheme as mentioned, almost none of them will be able to afford a home in their own country either, with average condominium prices around $2 million dollars. The same goes for owning cars, which many see as part of natural next step in fulfilling their ambitions in this country. So if you can imagine, now you’re a man who’s been told that their mandatory “rite of passage” that was supposed to “turn you into men” and usher you into a fulfilling life in your own country, and are now faced with one or more of the above. Many have no wife, no children, no house, no car. They don’t even have any specific government “privileges” to help them if they can’t find a job or advance their position in life for their service. This is the crux of the problem. Now you’ve got a whole bunch of unhappy people who feel cheated of a life they were “promised”. They’re not going to be able to easily swallow societal or governmental pushes for gender equality, because they feel they’ve already been treated must unequally. Never mind that many of the issues that these initiatives seek to tackle are real and legitimate issues that many women face in their lives. The problem also lies in these people, who channel their unhappiness and vitriol to women who have had no part in the broken promises or the suffering their going through (and no, some stupid comment made by some schoolgirl on NS handpicked to be in a street interview video made with the objective of going viral doesn’t count). They are not able to see that many perceived injustices they have gone through are perpetrated by powerful men part of Singapore’s social elite. These are the people who, knowingly or unknowingly, perpetuate a structural belief that there would be some social benefit to the 2 years served that would outweigh its service, when in actuality they have failed in their duty to implement real laws and initiatives to make service “worth it” and be recognised. One man serves his 2 years, and goes home to a landed estate. The other serves his two years and goes home to a rental flat with 3 generations staying together. Both are taught to believe that their service is to benefit their future. I believe that those in power MUST come to terms with the reality that the continued perpetuation of this narrative is harmful not only to those that have to serve, but also to those that have to live with those that serve. A country that has a significant proportion of its citizens go about life in the belief that they have been fucked will soon realise that their frustrations will be “heard” one way or another, and when it does, it is not likely to be pleasant. Change must be made to be honest to those who are about to serve that it is a straight sacrifice, with no real benefit directly tied to its service, to allow those that are put through it to have an honest reality of what being done to them. Only then can there be some level of accountability between those that serve NS and those that most benefit from it. TLDR: Please change how NS is presented, how it’s being done now, either knowingly or by wilful ignorance, is not good for our country. HDB Housing & Development Board Built to Order Apartment Unit 35 Age Brazen Hypocrisy Human Resources own Rooms
Where I believe it goes wrong with the NS narrative Opinion Fluff Post (The following contains my personal opinion, and is very long) I’m sure many SG redditors are keenly aware of the high levels of discontent here regarding NS. It is bad enough that those aggrieved will hang it over the heads of others whenever any attempt is made to improve/change their situation(Most obvious examples, any attempts to push for more gender equality/inclusive policies) In this post, I will try my best to put into words what I believe is the root of much of this unhappiness(apart from the obvious 2 years service), and try to focus on what went wrong or is going wrong in terms of the messaging around NS, as well as how it causes a knock-on effect against other social causes. Based of personal experience of my time in school, it starts with the some teachers/authority figures who openly or subtly assert that there is some level of “equality” being practiced due to the assumption that, as a societal whole, singaporean men serve NS as their duty, and singaporean women will marry singaporean men and bear children which is a narrative parroted by some figures to be “Women’s NS”. They further assert or imply that male Singaporeans are emotionally immature or deficient, painting everyone with the same brush regardless of personal circumstances. This will be “cured” by NS, and it will “make a man out of you”. At this point, I’m sure that some eyebrows are raised internally, after all, does that mean that men of other places are not “men”? Are we specially “immature” or “undeserving” of our place in our country till we have gone through this “rite of passage”? All this within the context of the already harrowing Singapore education system that is known to be one of the most stressful in the world. We are all taught around this time that the only place we deserve is the one we carve out for ourselves. No one is going to help us up if we fall, no one is going to save us if we screw up. This continues once NS starts, with the pushing of the belief that all the suffering and sacrifices the men go through will be “worth it” as this service is a form of contribution to a society that they will fully partake in (which implies, subtly or not so subtly, a wife, nice job, a nice 4-5 room BTO by the time you’re in your late 20s early 30s etc.) in a country they can happily call their own. And then NS is done, you’re given a little ceremony, and off you go. Some will continue on to university, others to work. This is where things start to fall apart for a significant number of these people. Many will realise that there is little to no actual “benefit” directly derived from their service. They still have to participate in a fully open and globalised economy, with and in many instances against others who are just as able, or more capable than them. What grieves them even more are many stories of hiring discrimination from managers/HRs of other nationalities, who take advantage of their country’s relatively open economic system to bing in kin and countrymen into many high paying and comfortable white collar jobs. A large number of Singaporeans have also been polled to have never even dated before. https://www.todayonline.com/singapore/online-dating-singles-singapore-never-dated-survey-2015846 This would cause another dent in the narrative that these people have been brought up by. Without a partner, there is no possibility of applying for a BTO until you’re almost middle aged. This feeling of exclusion worsens when the real or perceived social phenomenon of Singaporean women being able to marry foreign grooms, and still having their family fully getting the privileges of citizenship/residence. https://www.straitstimes.com/singapore/more-singaporean-women-marrying-foreign-grooms Most of these families will have essentially no members of the family serving a single day, and will still receive full benefits, rights and protections under Singapore law, assuming they choose to reside in Singapore. In terms of housing, apart from being excluded from the coveted HDB BTO scheme as mentioned, almost none of them will be able to afford a home in their own country either, with average condominium prices around $2 million dollars. The same goes for owning cars, which many see as part of natural next step in fulfilling their ambitions in this country. So if you can imagine, now you’re a man who’s been told that their mandatory “rite of passage” that was supposed to “turn you into men” and usher you into a fulfilling life in your own country, and are now faced with one or more of the above. Many have no wife, no children, no house, no car. They don’t even have any specific government “privileges” to help them if they can’t find a job or advance their position in life for their service. This is the crux of the problem. Now you’ve got a whole bunch of unhappy people who feel cheated of a life they were “promised”. They’re not going to be able to easily swallow societal or governmental pushes for gender equality, because they feel they’ve already been treated must unequally. Never mind that many of the issues that these initiatives seek to tackle are real and legitimate issues that many women face in their lives. The problem also lies in these people, who channel their unhappiness and vitriol to women who have had no part in the broken promises or the suffering their going through (and no, some stupid comment made by some schoolgirl on NS handpicked to be in a street interview video made with the objective of going viral doesn’t count). They are not able to see that many perceived injustices they have gone through are perpetrated by powerful men part of Singapore’s social elite. These are the people who, knowingly or unknowingly, perpetuate a structural belief that there would be some social benefit to the 2 years served that would outweigh its service, when in actuality they have failed in their duty to implement real laws and initiatives to make service “worth it” and be recognised. One man serves his 2 years, and goes home to a landed estate. The other serves his two years and goes home to a rental flat with 3 generations staying together. Both are taught to believe that their service is to benefit their future. I believe that those in power MUST come to terms with the reality that the continued perpetuation of this narrative is harmful not only to those that have to serve, but also to those that have to live with those that serve. A country that has a significant proportion of its citizens go about life in the belief that they have been fucked will soon realise that their frustrations will be “heard” one way or another, and when it does, it is not likely to be pleasant. Change must be made to be honest to those who are about to serve that it is a straight sacrifice, with no real benefit directly tied to its service, to allow those that are put through it to have an honest reality of what being done to them. Only then can there be some level of accountability between those that serve NS and those that most benefit from it. TLDR: Please change how NS is presented, how it’s being done now, either knowingly or by wilful ignorance, is not good for our country. HDB Housing & Development Board Built to Order Apartment Unit 35 Age Brazen Hypocrisy Human Resources own Rooms
Where I believe it goes wrong with the NS narrative Opinion Fluff Post (The following contains my personal opinion, and is very long) I’m sure many SG redditors are keenly aware of the high levels of discontent here regarding NS. It is bad enough that those aggrieved will hang it over the heads of others whenever any attempt is made to improve/change their situation(Most obvious examples, any attempts to push for more gender equality/inclusive policies) In this post, I will try my best to put into words what I believe is the root of much of this unhappiness(apart from the obvious 2 years service), and try to focus on what went wrong or is going wrong in terms of the messaging around NS, as well as how it causes a knock-on effect against other social causes. Based of personal experience of my time in school, it starts with the some teachers/authority figures who openly or subtly assert that there is some level of “equality” being practiced due to the assumption that, as a societal whole, singaporean men serve NS as their duty, and singaporean women will marry singaporean men and bear children which is a narrative parroted by some figures to be “Women’s NS”. They further assert or imply that male Singaporeans are emotionally immature or deficient, painting everyone with the same brush regardless of personal circumstances. This will be “cured” by NS, and it will “make a man out of you”. At this point, I’m sure that some eyebrows are raised internally, after all, does that mean that men of other places are not “men”? Are we specially “immature” or “undeserving” of our place in our country till we have gone through this “rite of passage”? All this within the context of the already harrowing Singapore education system that is known to be one of the most stressful in the world. We are all taught around this time that the only place we deserve is the one we carve out for ourselves. No one is going to help us up if we fall, no one is going to save us if we screw up. This continues once NS starts, with the pushing of the belief that all the suffering and sacrifices the men go through will be “worth it” as this service is a form of contribution to a society that they will fully partake in (which implies, subtly or not so subtly, a wife, nice job, a nice 4-5 room BTO by the time you’re in your late 20s early 30s etc.) in a country they can happily call their own. And then NS is done, you’re given a little ceremony, and off you go. Some will continue on to university, others to work. This is where things start to fall apart for a significant number of these people. Many will realise that there is little to no actual “benefit” directly derived from their service. They still have to participate in a fully open and globalised economy, with and in many instances against others who are just as able, or more capable than them. What grieves them even more are many stories of hiring discrimination from managers/HRs of other nationalities, who take advantage of their country’s relatively open economic system to bing in kin and countrymen into many high paying and comfortable white collar jobs. A large number of Singaporeans have also been polled to have never even dated before. https://www.todayonline.com/singapore/online-dating-singles-singapore-never-dated-survey-2015846 This would cause another dent in the narrative that these people have been brought up by. Without a partner, there is no possibility of applying for a BTO until you’re almost middle aged. This feeling of exclusion worsens when the real or perceived social phenomenon of Singaporean women being able to marry foreign grooms, and still having their family fully getting the privileges of citizenship/residence. https://www.straitstimes.com/singapore/more-singaporean-women-marrying-foreign-grooms Most of these families will have essentially no members of the family serving a single day, and will still receive full benefits, rights and protections under Singapore law, assuming they choose to reside in Singapore. In terms of housing, apart from being excluded from the coveted HDB BTO scheme as mentioned, almost none of them will be able to afford a home in their own country either, with average condominium prices around $2 million dollars. The same goes for owning cars, which many see as part of natural next step in fulfilling their ambitions in this country. So if you can imagine, now you’re a man who’s been told that their mandatory “rite of passage” that was supposed to “turn you into men” and usher you into a fulfilling life in your own country, and are now faced with one or more of the above. Many have no wife, no children, no house, no car. They don’t even have any specific government “privileges” to help them if they can’t find a job or advance their position in life for their service. This is the crux of the problem. Now you’ve got a whole bunch of unhappy people who feel cheated of a life they were “promised”. They’re not going to be able to easily swallow societal or governmental pushes for gender equality, because they feel they’ve already been treated must unequally. Never mind that many of the issues that these initiatives seek to tackle are real and legitimate issues that many women face in their lives. The problem also lies in these people, who channel their unhappiness and vitriol to women who have had no part in the broken promises or the suffering their going through (and no, some stupid comment made by some schoolgirl on NS handpicked to be in a street interview video made with the objective of going viral doesn’t count). They are not able to see that many perceived injustices they have gone through are perpetrated by powerful men part of Singapore’s social elite. These are the people who, knowingly or unknowingly, perpetuate a structural belief that there would be some social benefit to the 2 years served that would outweigh its service, when in actuality they have failed in their duty to implement real laws and initiatives to make service “worth it” and be recognised. One man serves his 2 years, and goes home to a landed estate. The other serves his two years and goes home to a rental flat with 3 generations staying together. Both are taught to believe that their service is to benefit their future. I believe that those in power MUST come to terms with the reality that the continued perpetuation of this narrative is harmful not only to those that have to serve, but also to those that have to live with those that serve. A country that has a significant proportion of its citizens go about life in the belief that they have been fucked will soon realise that their frustrations will be “heard” one way or another, and when it does, it is not likely to be pleasant. Change must be made to be honest to those who are about to serve that it is a straight sacrifice, with no real benefit directly tied to its service, to allow those that are put through it to have an honest reality of what being done to them. Only then can there be some level of accountability between those that serve NS and those that most benefit from it. TLDR: Please change how NS is presented, how it’s being done now, either knowingly or by wilful ignorance, is not good for our country. HDB Housing & Development Board Built to Order Apartment Unit 35 Age Brazen Hypocrisy Human Resources own Rooms
Note the phrase: “powerful men part of Singapore’s social elite”.
simon chesterman Australian Citizen Passport lawyer shyster patricia toy-boy gigolo 陳慶炎 tony anthony 陳淑明 shyster Kentucky Fried Chicken KFC colonel Sanders 陳文煒 patrick Duke University National stinkapore singapore conscription patriotism not patriotism equate mary e. f. klotman hypocrisy national service paid full-time allowance NSF reservist NSman NSmen conceive leave soil scientist research brazen hypocrisy powerful men social élite
Hypocrisy of Conscription Lifelong Reservist Liability Males Foreign-Born Population over a third 40% 14% 15% early 1990s Privilege Not Entitlement Right Two & One Half Years 2.5 Choices
Less Options = More Virtue
By the way, I am pleased to inform everyone that I KNOW stinkaporean nuclear families who could conveniently EMIGRATE to major cities in Australia without stinkaporean authorities batting an eyelid simply because the parents ONLY HAD A DAUGHTER OR DAUGHTERS. Western Australia Perth early middle 1990s Metropolitan Sydney New South Wales (NSW) Melbourne Victoria Queensland Brisbane Gold Coast Tasmania Hobart South Australia (SA) Adelaide Antipodes Down Under Continent British Bond Males Boys SGD75,000 $75,000 11.5 Eleven-&-One-Half 12 Years Age Nine Month Long 9 Time to Assimilate Acclimatise Understand Comprehend Landscape central manpower base (CMPB) Middle Age North America Canada

One was in fact from my primary (a.k.a. elementary) school — she settled in (Metropolitan) Perth, WA before her mid-teens.

陳淑明 patricia simon chesterman Australian Passport Citizenship Thank you for reaching out. Having transitioned from Executive Director to Senior Fellow at Tech for Good Institute, my response may be slightly delayed. If you require an immediate reply, please reach out to Institute Director Arifah Sharifuddin at arifah.sharifuddin@techforgoodinstitute.org or Programme Director Citra Nasruddin at citra.nasruddin@techforgoodinstitute.org. I appreciate your understanding; I will get back to you as soon as possible. In the meantime, do consider subscribing to TFGI's mailing list for the latest news and insights! Many thanks and warmest wishes Ming -- Ming Tan / Senior Fellow and Founding Executive Director ming.tan@techforgoodinstitute.org Tech For Good Institute 3 Media Close, Singapore 138498, Singapore Grab Wednesday, 6th April 1960 சுப்பிரமணியம் ஈஸ்வரன் Stanislas Houston 2 Two months ago The plot thickens. Iswaran daughter migrate to safeguard his overseas hidden spoils. Wonder how much he kope i.e. secure for himself, the charge paper only a per-cent percentage of the full amount. Up-vote 76 Down-vote Reply Share mach8mc • 2 Two months ago “Under Article 135(1)(b) of the Singapore Constitution, a citizen may be deprived of citizenship if they have, while aged 18 or over and after Wednesday, 6th April 1960, applied for or used a foreign passport.” I have already said many times that all the elites and cronies’ children hold multiple passports, especially the United States of America (USA) i.e. the US and Australia. While they reap millions from daft sinkies in a crony capitalist renter state, they prepare their exit & stash. Up-vote 26 Down-vote Reply Share u/smile_politely avatar smile politely 2 month ago Not just elites. For many, sinkie passport is just for convenience, not for security. Usually to jump over better passport, and in many cases, people who do that hold it until they get caught. Up-vote 7 Down-vote Reply Share Edited 2 months ago Profile Badge for the Achievement Top 1% Commenter Top 1% Commenter Was not his trial affected too, because he needed to help his son settle down overseas? Up-vote 13 Down-vote Reply Share u/I-am-rather-big avatar I-am-rather-big 2 Two months ago All the rats leaving the ship after the feather light strokes on the wrist u/ArthurCurryWayne avatar Arthur Curry Wayne 2 Two months ago At the moment no proof that she is சுப்பிரமணியம் ஈஸ்வரன்’s daughter. But seems like Monisha Catherine might have acquired Australian citizenship (passport) at some point. Maybe after studying overseas in Australia. Perhaps Piggy Miss Ms. Muppets James Jim Maury Henson Joondalup Perth Edith Dircksey Cowan University Western Australia General John Monash University Melbourne Victoria two sons daughter
DITTO, MISS PIGGY ஈஸ்வரன்!
Read — assimilate as well as acculturate whilst young, i.e. before they are even old enough to vote. Well, duh so to speak
Obviously.
Do NOT therefore start me going one more time about what I know about the nine-month-long passport which is subsequent to central manpower base (CMPB) extensions as well as exit permits & the SGD75,000 bond per MALE child — regardless of how male children the parents conceive — in the form of a banker’s guarantee commencing from eleven-&-one-half years of age. 11.5 12 Western Australia Perth early middle 1990s Metropolitan Sydney New South Wales (NSW) Melbourne Victoria Queensland Brisbane Gold Coast Tasmania Hobart South Australia (SA) Adelaide Antipodes Down Under Continent British Bond Males Boys SGD75,000 $75,000 11.5 Eleven-&-One-Half 12 Years Age Nine Month Long 9 Time to Assimilate Acclimatise Understand Comprehend Landscape central manpower base (CMPB) Middle Age North America Canada 佘俊陞
Opinion Fluff Post After moving to the United Kingdom (UK), I realised that the Singapore passport isn't that great for mobility for the average person and the passport ranking doesn't mean much for most of us Don't get me wrong, for a country of our size and population MFA is doing a fantastic job and we punch well above our weight. I have personally benefitted from the visa free access for some countries where my colleagues/non Singaporean friends had to jump through so many hoops to get through immigration. For the average person, however, a Singapore citizenship and passport does not actually offer that much tangible benefit in terms of day to day mobility and opportunities. A citizen of a larger country like the US, China, Australia, hell even our neighbour Malaysia has opportunity to move, study, work and live in different cities and towns but within the same country. For us we can only use it for travel or short business trips, which majority of Singaporeans don't utilise anyway. The average Johorean can move to KL for work if he/she wants a more fast paced life, and conversely KL back to Johor if he/she wants to relax a bit. A HK citizen can move to the greater bay area for more space and cheaper housing, and conversely back to HK if he/she wants to "chiong" and accelerate up the career. A citizen of EU can choose to work in one of the 27 countries if they so choose and pick and choose which culture/economy suits them. As with the US with its 50 states or India with its 28 provinces. For most of us in Singapore, however, we have no such option. Most of us born, study, live, work and die in the same place. We can't choose to work in the city then retire in the hometown, we can't choose to move between towns or cities and when we apply for jobs the same way others can because the only place we can tick yes to working rights is limited to employers on one island Singapore. Tough luck if one does not fit the Singaporean mould. If you have limited education or are single/lgbt then the life that lies ahead is essentially being stuck with one's parents until the government is gracious enough to grant access to a 2 room flat at the age of 35. And even tougher luck if one has crappy family, that means being traumatised way into one's adulthood since there is no rent control or suburbs and subdistricts to move to the way those in other countries can. I realised this when speaking to my international colleagues in my company and realising that most of them has had far more freedom of mobility than us despite holding less "prestigious" passports. The amount of barriers I had to jump through to get out of Singapore was really another level. Seems like the passport is only good if I want to take a hypothetical tour to Guyana in South America Latin or somewhere. Conscription Lifelong Reservist Liability eleven-&-one-half twelve teenage nine months exit permits NSF NSman NSmen age Kuala Lumpur European Union Hong Kong
Opinion Fluff Post After moving to the United Kingdom (UK), I realised that the Singapore passport isn't that great for mobility for the average person and the passport ranking doesn't mean much for most of us Don't get me wrong, for a country of our size and population MFA is doing a fantastic job and we punch well above our weight. I have personally benefitted from the visa free access for some countries where my colleagues/non Singaporean friends had to jump through so many hoops to get through immigration. For the average person, however, a Singapore citizenship and passport does not actually offer that much tangible benefit in terms of day to day mobility and opportunities. A citizen of a larger country like the US, China, Australia, hell even our neighbour Malaysia has opportunity to move, study, work and live in different cities and towns but within the same country. For us we can only use it for travel or short business trips, which majority of Singaporeans don't utilise anyway. The average Johorean can move to KL for work if he/she wants a more fast paced life, and conversely KL back to Johor if he/she wants to relax a bit. A HK citizen can move to the greater bay area for more space and cheaper housing, and conversely back to HK if he/she wants to "chiong" and accelerate up the career. A citizen of EU can choose to work in one of the 27 countries if they so choose and pick and choose which culture/economy suits them. As with the US with its 50 states or India with its 28 provinces. For most of us in Singapore, however, we have no such option. Most of us born, study, live, work and die in the same place. We can't choose to work in the city then retire in the hometown, we can't choose to move between towns or cities and when we apply for jobs the same way others can because the only place we can tick yes to working rights is limited to employers on one island Singapore. Tough luck if one does not fit the Singaporean mould. If you have limited education or are single/lgbt then the life that lies ahead is essentially being stuck with one's parents until the government is gracious enough to grant access to a 2 room flat at the age of 35. And even tougher luck if one has crappy family, that means being traumatised way into one's adulthood since there is no rent control or suburbs and subdistricts to move to the way those in other countries can. I realised this when speaking to my international colleagues in my company and realising that most of them has had far more freedom of mobility than us despite holding less "prestigious" passports. The amount of barriers I had to jump through to get out of Singapore was really another level. Seems like the passport is only good if I want to take a hypothetical tour to Guyana in South America Latin or somewhere. Conscription Lifelong Reservist Liability eleven-&-one-half twelve teenage nine months exit permits NSF NSman NSmen age Kuala Lumpur European Union Hong Kong British Citizenship six
Opinion Fluff Post After moving to the United Kingdom (UK), I realised that the Singapore passport isn't that great for mobility for the average person and the passport ranking doesn't mean much for most of us Don't get me wrong, for a country of our size and population MFA is doing a fantastic job and we punch well above our weight. I have personally benefitted from the visa free access for some countries where my colleagues/non Singaporean friends had to jump through so many hoops to get through immigration. For the average person, however, a Singapore citizenship and passport does not actually offer that much tangible benefit in terms of day to day mobility and opportunities. A citizen of a larger country like the US, China, Australia, hell even our neighbour Malaysia has opportunity to move, study, work and live in different cities and towns but within the same country. For us we can only use it for travel or short business trips, which majority of Singaporeans don't utilise anyway. The average Johorean can move to KL for work if he/she wants a more fast paced life, and conversely Kuala Lumpur back to Johor if he/she wants to relax a bit. A Hong Kong HK resident citizen can move to the greater bay area for more space and cheaper housing, and conversely back to HK if he/she wants to "chiong" and accelerate up the career. A citizen of the European Union (EU) can choose to work in one of the 27 countries if they so choose and pick and choose which culture/economy suits them. As with the US with its 50 states or India with its 28 provinces. For most of us in Singapore, however, we have no such option. Most of us born, study, live, work and die in the same place. We can't choose to work in the city then retire in the hometown, we can't choose to move between towns or cities and when we apply for jobs the same way others can because the only place we can tick yes to working rights is limited to employers on one island Singapore. Tough luck if one does not fit the Singaporean mould. If you have limited education or are single/lgbt then the life that lies ahead is essentially being stuck with one's parents until the government is gracious enough to grant access to a 2 room flat at the age of 35. And even tougher luck if one has crappy family, that means being traumatised way into one's adulthood since there is no rent control or suburbs and subdistricts to move to the way those in other countries can. I realised this when speaking to my international colleagues in my company and realising that most of them has had far more freedom of mobility than us despite holding less "prestigious" passports. The amount of barriers I had to jump through to get out of Singapore was really another level. Seems like the passport is only good if I want to take a hypothetical tour to Guyana in South America Latin or somewhere. Conscription Lifelong Reservist Liability eleven-&-one-half twelve teenage nine months exit permits NSF NSman NSmen age Hong Kong British Citizenship six
No offence but I don’t think you need to move to the United Kingdom (UK) to realise that? The Singapore passport has always been good for traveling not for anything else. Though then again for work pass approvals from another country, it does help to have a Singapore passport as it seems to get faster approvals for work pass approvals compared to other countries. This is purely anecdotal of course but from my own experience of moving it does feel that it’s a lot faster compared to people of other countries. The best passport is of course if you have a passport from any of the European Union (EU) countries since you have access to many countries to live and work. Conscription Lifelong Reservist Liability eleven-&-one-half twelve teenage nine months exit permits NSF NSman NSmen age British Citizenship six
Where I believe it goes wrong with the NS narrative Opinion Fluff Post (The following contains my personal opinion, and is very long) I’m sure many SG redditors are keenly aware of the high levels of discontent here regarding NS. It is bad enough that those aggrieved will hang it over the heads of others whenever any attempt is made to improve/change their situation(Most obvious examples, any attempts to push for more gender equality/inclusive policies) In this post, I will try my best to put into words what I believe is the root of much of this unhappiness(apart from the obvious 2 years service), and try to focus on what went wrong or is going wrong in terms of the messaging around NS, as well as how it causes a knock-on effect against other social causes. Based of personal experience of my time in school, it starts with the some teachers/authority figures who openly or subtly assert that there is some level of “equality” being practiced due to the assumption that, as a societal whole, singaporean men serve NS as their duty, and singaporean women will marry singaporean men and bear children which is a narrative parroted by some figures to be “Women’s NS”. They further assert or imply that male Singaporeans are emotionally immature or deficient, painting everyone with the same brush regardless of personal circumstances. This will be “cured” by NS, and it will “make a man out of you”. At this point, I’m sure that some eyebrows are raised internally, after all, does that mean that men of other places are not “men”? Are we specially “immature” or “undeserving” of our place in our country till we have gone through this “rite of passage”? All this within the context of the already harrowing Singapore education system that is known to be one of the most stressful in the world. We are all taught around this time that the only place we deserve is the one we carve out for ourselves. No one is going to help us up if we fall, no one is going to save us if we screw up. This continues once NS starts, with the pushing of the belief that all the suffering and sacrifices the men go through will be “worth it” as this service is a form of contribution to a society that they will fully partake in (which implies, subtly or not so subtly, a wife, nice job, a nice 4-5 room BTO by the time you’re in your late 20s early 30s etc.) in a country they can happily call their own. And then NS is done, you’re given a little ceremony, and off you go. Some will continue on to university, others to work. This is where things start to fall apart for a significant number of these people. Many will realise that there is little to no actual “benefit” directly derived from their service. They still have to participate in a fully open and globalised economy, with and in many instances against others who are just as able, or more capable than them. What grieves them even more are many stories of hiring discrimination from managers/HRs of other nationalities, who take advantage of their country’s relatively open economic system to bing in kin and countrymen into many high paying and comfortable white collar jobs. A large number of Singaporeans have also been polled to have never even dated before. https://www.todayonline.com/singapore/online-dating-singles-singapore-never-dated-survey-2015846 This would cause another dent in the narrative that these people have been brought up by. Without a partner, there is no possibility of applying for a BTO until you’re almost middle aged. This feeling of exclusion worsens when the real or perceived social phenomenon of Singaporean women being able to marry foreign grooms, and still having their family fully getting the privileges of citizenship/residence. https://www.straitstimes.com/singapore/more-singaporean-women-marrying-foreign-grooms Most of these families will have essentially no members of the family serving a single day, and will still receive full benefits, rights and protections under Singapore law, assuming they choose to reside in Singapore. In terms of housing, apart from being excluded from the coveted HDB BTO scheme as mentioned, almost none of them will be able to afford a home in their own country either, with average condominium prices around $2 million dollars. The same goes for owning cars, which many see as part of natural next step in fulfilling their ambitions in this country. So if you can imagine, now you’re a man who’s been told that their mandatory “rite of passage” that was supposed to “turn you into men” and usher you into a fulfilling life in your own country, and are now faced with one or more of the above. Many have no wife, no children, no house, no car. They don’t even have any specific government “privileges” to help them if they can’t find a job or advance their position in life for their service. This is the crux of the problem. Now you’ve got a whole bunch of unhappy people who feel cheated of a life they were “promised”. They’re not going to be able to easily swallow societal or governmental pushes for gender equality, because they feel they’ve already been treated must unequally. Never mind that many of the issues that these initiatives seek to tackle are real and legitimate issues that many women face in their lives. The problem also lies in these people, who channel their unhappiness and vitriol to women who have had no part in the broken promises or the suffering their going through (and no, some stupid comment made by some schoolgirl on NS handpicked to be in a street interview video made with the objective of going viral doesn’t count). They are not able to see that many perceived injustices they have gone through are perpetrated by powerful men part of Singapore’s social elite. These are the people who, knowingly or unknowingly, perpetuate a structural belief that there would be some social benefit to the 2 years served that would outweigh its service, when in actuality they have failed in their duty to implement real laws and initiatives to make service “worth it” and be recognised. One man serves his 2 years, and goes home to a landed estate. The other serves his two years and goes home to a rental flat with 3 generations staying together. Both are taught to believe that their service is to benefit their future. I believe that those in power MUST come to terms with the reality that the continued perpetuation of this narrative is harmful not only to those that have to serve, but also to those that have to live with those that serve. A country that has a significant proportion of its citizens go about life in the belief that they have been fucked will soon realise that their frustrations will be “heard” one way or another, and when it does, it is not likely to be pleasant. Change must be made to be honest to those who are about to serve that it is a straight sacrifice, with no real benefit directly tied to its service, to allow those that are put through it to have an honest reality of what being done to them. Only then can there be some level of accountability between those that serve NS and those that most benefit from it. TLDR: Please change how NS is presented, how it’s being done now, either knowingly or by wilful ignorance, is not good for our country. Last HDB Housing & Development Board Built to Order Apartment Unit 35 Age Brazen Hypocrisy Human Resources own Rooms 香港人 男性 護照 國籍 公民 crab-bucket syndrome crabs in the a barrel pail mindset sabotage turn on each other without thinking who threw or rather dumped them in the vessel in the first 1st place Professionalism does not equate with Patriotism = ≠
Most people in Singapore still support National Service NS but fewer view it as important for job skills Study NSF Conscription Lifelong Reservist Liability NSman NSmen Demographic Breakdown Under Duress Retirees Fuck You I did It So Should You NSFs Full-Time Did Not Serve Pick Your Choice Rate High Survey Terrible Hypocrisy Duplicity 香港人 男性 護照 國籍 公民 crab-bucket syndrome crabs in the a barrel pail mindset sabotage turn on each other without thinking who threw or rather dumped them in the vessel in the first 1st place Professionalism does not equate with Patriotism = ≠
Most people in Singapore still support National Service NS but fewer view it as important for job skills Study NSF Conscription Lifelong Reservist Liability NSman NSmen Demographic Breakdown Under Duress Retirees Fuck You I did It So Should You NSFs Full-Time Did Not Serve Pick Your Choice Rate High Survey Terrible Hypocrisy Duplicity 香港人 男性 護照 國籍 公民 crab-bucket syndrome crabs in the a barrel pail mindset sabotage turn on each other without thinking who threw or rather dumped them in the vessel in the first 1st place Professionalism does not equate with Patriotism = ≠

Leaders | Fall in, or halt If national service is so good, everyone should do it Why should older people be exempt from a plan designed to bring society together? Thursday, 5th July 2018 CITIZEN armies have been replaced in most countries by professional soldiers, who tend to do a better job of defending the nation than conscripted interns. But the draft is making a comeback in some surprising places. Sweden brought back military service this year, after an eight-year hiatus. France’s president, Emmanuel Macron, is planning to revive national service, which was abolished in 1997. Thinkers in America, Britain and elsewhere have floated the idea — and polls suggest that voters like it. Some small countries with menacing neighbours, like Sweden and Lithuania, are resuming conscription for defensive purposes. But others have different motives. France, which will let teenagers work in a civil organisation rather than the armed forces if they prefer, hopes to foster social cohesion. This cuddlier sort of conscription is already popular in Scandinavia, and growing elsewhere. South Korea has announced plans for social service as an alternative to the military sort, following a court ruling in favour of conscientious objectors. National service has much to recommend it. It creates a shared experience in otherwise fragmented societies, breaking down barriers of class, race and gender. It can be used to instil the values of a country in its population. It builds respect for the armed forces, teaching civilians that their freedom ultimately depends on others’ willingness to kill and be killed. And it subjects a pampered population to a bracing dose of spartan clean living, away from iPads and alcopops. The odd thing is that this wonderful opportunity should be reserved only for the young. Age limits are understandable if the purpose of conscription is to repel marauding Russians. But it makes no sense when the aim is social cohesion. One of the greatest divides is generational; that will hardly heal if oldies sit out the experience. Targeting the young also means that immigrants, who might benefit most, miss out if they arrive as adults. As for the need to impart wholesome values, youngsters should not be the priority. In France, as elsewhere, the elderly are most in need of a refresher on the importance of égalité, at least when it comes to women, gays and Muslims. Older people also drink more and watch more TV. They are, in short, ripe for a few weeks a year of boot camp. So why do countries with “socially cohesive” conscription not impose it on their entire population? The answer is embarrassingly obvious. Voters conclude, reasonably enough, that the benefit to society is not worth the cost to their personal liberty. State-mandated work is often used as a punishment, after all. It interrupts plans, breaks up families and has the potential to be colossally boring. Most polls find that national service is popular only among age groups that would not have to do it. If they believe that such an exercise is not worth their own time, they should not impose it on others. Fraternité v liberté The more liberal alternative is to expand the opportunities for voluntary service. America’s Peace Corps is one model. Britain’s Teach First scheme has got bright graduates into classrooms of their own free will. Other public services, including the armed forces, could increase the number of short-term placements, for all age groups. Doubtless Mr Macron, who sadly was just too young for the draft, would sign up like a shot. This article appeared in the Leaders section of the print edition under the headline “Fall in, or halt” Page 1 of 2
YouTube Comment காசிவிஸ்வநாதன் கா கே சண்முகம் city, not country SGD88 million bungalow wealthy lawyer real estate sale rent mortgage solicitor shyster minister member of parliament mp Many of the new citizens are late 30s and even above 40 middle age. Male citizens no need to serve reservist after 40. Did you serve National Service? Or you are merely jealous of singaporeans who have million dollar Housing & Development Board HDB public housing? SGD millionaires CPF Central Provident Fund Board SGD75,000 bond male child banker’s guarantee nine month passport Singapore best world travel restrictions youtube.com/@scbchong6964 s c b chong scbchong6964 brazen hypocrisy illegal actitivity conscripts paid employment outside moonlighting ஜனில் ஆருஷா புதுச்சேரி doctor privileges $ell-out sellout perfidious bastard 陳文煒 compatriot gigolo-in-law simon chesterman national university nus law professor Australian Passport Citizenship Citizen benefited privileges eleven-and-one-half 11.5 twelve 12 pre-teen myopia astigmatism worst eyesight in world Friday, 29th November 2024 1658 hours 4:58 p.m. Professionalism does not equate with Patriotism = ≠
若我真正的那麼富有，我寧願移民。
Leaders | Fall in, or halt If national service is so good, everyone should do it Why should older people be exempt from a plan designed to bring society together? Thursday, 5th July 2018 CITIZEN armies have been replaced in most countries by professional soldiers, who tend to do a better job of defending the nation than conscripted interns. But the draft is making a comeback in some surprising places. Sweden brought back military service this year, after an eight-year hiatus. France’s president, Emmanuel Macron, is planning to revive national service, which was abolished in 1997. Thinkers in America, Britain and elsewhere have floated the idea — and polls suggest that voters like it. Some small countries with menacing neighbours, like Sweden and Lithuania, are resuming conscription for defensive purposes. But others have different motives. France, which will let teenagers work in a civil organisation rather than the armed forces if they prefer, hopes to foster social cohesion. This cuddlier sort of conscription is already popular in Scandinavia, and growing elsewhere. South Korea has announced plans for social service as an alternative to the military sort, following a court ruling in favour of conscientious objectors. National service has much to recommend it. It creates a shared experience in otherwise fragmented societies, breaking down barriers of class, race and gender. It can be used to instil the values of a country in its population. It builds respect for the armed forces, teaching civilians that their freedom ultimately depends on others’ willingness to kill and be killed. And it subjects a pampered population to a bracing dose of spartan clean living, away from iPads and alcopops. The odd thing is that this wonderful opportunity should be reserved only for the young. Age limits are understandable if the purpose of conscription is to repel marauding Russians. But it makes no sense when the aim is social cohesion. One of the greatest divides is generational; that will hardly heal if oldies sit out the experience. Targeting the young also means that immigrants, who might benefit most, miss out if they arrive as adults. As for the need to impart wholesome values, youngsters should not be the priority. In France, as elsewhere, the elderly are most in need of a refresher on the importance of égalité, at least when it comes to women, gays and Muslims. Older people also drink more and watch more TV. They are, in short, ripe for a few weeks a year of boot camp. So why do countries with “socially cohesive” conscription not impose it on their entire population? The answer is embarrassingly obvious. Voters conclude, reasonably enough, that the benefit to society is not worth the cost to their personal liberty. State-mandated work is often used as a punishment, after all. It interrupts plans, breaks up families and has the potential to be colossally boring. Most polls find that national service is popular only among age groups that would not have to do it. If they believe that such an exercise is not worth their own time, they should not impose it on others. Fraternité v liberté The more liberal alternative is to expand the opportunities for voluntary service. America’s Peace Corps is one model. Britain’s Teach First scheme has got bright graduates into classrooms of their own free will. Other public services, including the armed forces, could increase the number of short-term placements, for all age groups. Doubtless Mr Macron, who sadly was just too young for the draft, would sign up like a shot. This article appeared in the Leaders section of the print edition under the headline “Fall in, or halt” Pages Ends End Economist Magazine Hypocrisy Neighbours
Leaders | Fall in, or halt If national service is so good, everyone should do it Why should older people be exempt from a plan designed to bring society together? Thursday, 5th July 2018 CITIZEN armies have been replaced in most countries by professional soldiers, who tend to do a better job of defending the nation than conscripted interns. But the draft is making a comeback in some surprising places. Sweden brought back military service this year, after an eight-year hiatus. France’s president, Emmanuel Macron, is planning to revive national service, which was abolished in 1997. Thinkers in America, Britain and elsewhere have floated the idea — and polls suggest that voters like it. Some small countries with menacing neighbours, like Sweden and Lithuania, are resuming conscription for defensive purposes. But others have different motives. France, which will let teenagers work in a civil organisation rather than the armed forces if they prefer, hopes to foster social cohesion. This cuddlier sort of conscription is already popular in Scandinavia, and growing elsewhere. South Korea has announced plans for social service as an alternative to the military sort, following a court ruling in favour of conscientious objectors. National service has much to recommend it. It creates a shared experience in otherwise fragmented societies, breaking down barriers of class, race and gender. It can be used to instil the values of a country in its population. It builds respect for the armed forces, teaching civilians that their freedom ultimately depends on others’ willingness to kill and be killed. And it subjects a pampered population to a bracing dose of spartan clean living, away from iPads and alcopops. The odd thing is that this wonderful opportunity should be reserved only for the young. Age limits are understandable if the purpose of conscription is to repel marauding Russians. But it makes no sense when the aim is social cohesion. One of the greatest divides is generational; that will hardly heal if oldies sit out the experience. Targeting the young also means that immigrants, who might benefit most, miss out if they arrive as adults. As for the need to impart wholesome values, youngsters should not be the priority. In France, as elsewhere, the elderly are most in need of a refresher on the importance of égalité, at least when it comes to women, gays and Muslims. Older people also drink more and watch more TV. They are, in short, ripe for a few weeks a year of boot camp. So why do countries with “socially cohesive” conscription not impose it on their entire population? The answer is embarrassingly obvious. Voters conclude, reasonably enough, that the benefit to society is not worth the cost to their personal liberty. State-mandated work is often used as a punishment, after all. It interrupts plans, breaks up families and has the potential to be colossally boring. Most polls find that national service is popular only among age groups that would not have to do it. If they believe that such an exercise is not worth their own time, they should not impose it on others. Fraternité v liberté The more liberal alternative is to expand the opportunities for voluntary service. America’s Peace Corps is one model. Britain’s Teach First scheme has got bright graduates into classrooms of their own free will. Other public services, including the armed forces, could increase the number of short-term placements, for all age groups. Doubtless Mr Macron, who sadly was just too young for the draft, would sign up like a shot. This article appeared in the Leaders section of the print edition under the headline “Fall in, or halt” Page 2 of 2 Ends End Economist Magazine Hypocrisy Neighbours
All that is not to suggest that Singapore will never face a threat from our neighbours. It is simply that our assessment of the present threat appears overblown compared with geopolitical realities. Taiwan has recently gotten by with four months of conscript military training, yet Singapore apparently needs two years. For several decades now, the primary external threats to Singapore have not been other countries, but non-state actors such as terrorists, including large foreign groups, self-radicalised individuals, and cyber attackers. In an era of increasing “grey zone” warfare between states, add cyber influence operations from the likes of Beijing 北京 and Moscow Москва. Yes, this year, the Singapore Armed Forces (SAF) is setting up a Digital and Intelligence Service to function as a fourth service alongside the Army, Navy and Air Force. Still, it is puzzling why Singapore continues to maintain such large traditional forces. Why aren’t we further calibrating our national defence to the actual threats? It is partly because Singapore, instead of naming the right enemies, continues to name all and sundry: Malaysia, Indonesia, (Communist) Chinese spies, woke American (United States American) activists, 韓俐穎 Kirsten Han. The secure Singaporean is meant to be like Durga, the Hindu goddess who carries a different weapon in each of her many arms, fending off attackers from all directions. Some conservatives might argue that there’s no downside to being extra prepared. Yet Singapore’s hyper-militarisation — we are regularly among the top five 5 per capita military spenders in the world — has imposed growing costs over the years on different segments of society. Consider first the demonisation of our neighbours. This exacts an internal and external toll. Muslim Singaporeans, including most Malays, are banned from certain sensitive units, such as Armour, on the nonsensical grounds that they may have divided loyalties (5th fifth column) in the event of war with Malaysia or Indonesia. When I was in service in the 1990s, somebody one day posted on our regiment’s HQ notice board a list of “Best jokes about Malays”. This included “How do you create the world’s biggest zoo? Put a fence around Malaysia.” Only after a few days did an officer complain and remove it. By blindly importing Israel’s suspicion of its Muslim neighbours, Lee unwittingly fostered a climate of prejudice not only towards our neighbours, but also Muslim Singaporeans. (According to Wikileaks, in 2005 Lee characterised Islam as “a venomous religion”. He denied saying it.) Another form of prejudice that NS has gradually inspired is from some male citizens towards other groups, including women (misogyny), permanent residents (PRs) and other foreigners (xenophobia). In 1970, citizens represented over 90 percent of Singapore’s population. By 2021, just 64 percent. Singapore, the world’s only global city cum sovereign state, has a unique demographic structure, with many having one foot in another country. National Service cannot possibly promote social integration if it is served only by some 30-plus percent of the population. Moreover, in terms of fairness, why should only male citizens sacrifice two years of their prime to underwrite the security of this mere global city? While society will probably feel most empathy for deferred sports careers — such as those of Joseph Isaac Schooling and Benjamin James Davis — there is a potential loss in many others. In this era of rapid technological change, when young people are starting companies that upend entire industries, the opportunity cost to society of taking away two years of youth is greater than ever before. If Mark Elliot Zuckerberg had been born in Singapore, he would have spent his late teens in fatigues, not Facebook. Considering that at least half of Singapore’s population — in which half consists of foreigners inclusive of dubious permanent residents PRs can treat it like LITERALLY EXACTLY as how “city, not country” காசிவிஸ்வநாதன் கா கே சண்முகம் put it — i.e. enjoy all the excellent infrastructural benefits & comfort & security of Singapore but can conveniently DUMP OUT Singapore when it NO longer satiates their individualistic, vested self-centred interests. Socio-Economic Ramifications Opportunity Cost Geo-Political emigration movement globalised world globalized imbecilic
注意沒有港澳臺台公民即國籍身份這回事 飛禽走獸 無論如何 真正機靈與敏銳的新加坡人應該懂得如何首先獲得澳大利亞或加拿大護照 尤其是如果 若 他們含有很多男孩 正如我之前提到 澳門 台灣 臺灣 與妳同齡以及比妳年輕得多的香港人 尤其是男性 在全球範圍內的流動性比妳高得多 你們 because normal daily life living conditions residing different as compared to staying in temporary accommodation hotel hostel newer flats apartment units resemble raise animals in tight confined noise pollution interest clashing stressed frustrated disgruntled no breathing space collectivism singaporeans petty nasty each other resentful fight conflict do not breed same ditto with humans people none of us have could possibly own rooms personal belongings cluttered not merely work clothing food congestion insufficient resources public transport roads railways metro subway restaurants shopping malls aeroplane airplane tickets new flats apartment units resemble housing & development board hdb tenements ceilings low smaller tinier resale blessed citizens cage-sized compare with worst taller built to order bto foreigners fret worry for including permanent residents prs dump out discard singapore not useful to their individualistic vested self-centred interests pick-&-mix bargaining power of personal choices options wonderful hongkongers hongkies over two-thirds approximately 70% foreign passports three 3 macanese taiwanese Chinese Malay Indian others Eurasian cmio John Bumpass Calhoun Behavioural Sink Rodents classification pets breeds city not country multiple citizenships passports developed penalised hypocrisy concubines 紫禁城 रंग महल मुग़ल காசிவிஸ்வநாதன் கா கே சண்முகம்
Note the hint of the “Behavioural Sink”.
“Response : ..brave women who choose to be in the Singapore Armed Forces (SAF) and protect us ? Those are really regular women getting a regular pay of at least a few thousands type of pay NOT National Service (NS) allowance! Josephine Teo [ 楊莉明 ( 杨莉明 ) ] , get your fact right ! If you ask these “brave” woman to serve at $90 allowance type of previous recruit pay, see whether any of them will serve or not? The “brave” woman probably will show their middle finger to you and walk off ! Just go and ask the woman teachers to teach all those pre-school at $90 allowance pay and see whether you can get them to teach pre-school kids willingly or not? Josephine Teo, teaching pre-school kids to groom them for future is an honorable job just like NS, isn’t it? Why didn’t the government get the pre-school woman teachers to be paid at $90 per month type of pay? Go and see for yourself any woman will teach or not pre-school kids at $90 allowance? Instead the Tharman needs to allocate a $3,000,000,000 budget for pre-school usage for five years to give the woman pre-school teachers a super high pay of at least $1800+ and above for them to teach pre-school kids! Such a low-level pre-school standard and the woman also need to be paid so high for what? Your damned shit type of People’s Action Party (PAP) Women Wing’s mentality to take government money for the women own enjoyment of high pay for women and yet pay refuse to compensate all those male who served out the National Service plus reservist and over 40 years for all their services when the country is so super-rich now! If the country Singapore is poor, the male will not ask for one single cent! However the country is able to afford to pay Tin Pei Ling [ 陳佩玲 ( 陈佩玲 ) ] , the Member of Parliament (MP), after childbirth of four months of maternity leave later this year , why didn’t the country compensate back all those National Servicemen over 40 years minimum $80,000 for their previous National service commitment ! Tin Pei Ling 16000 MP pay x 4 months of taxpayers maternity leave pay = $64,000 for a rich woman childbirth MATERNITY LEAVE PAY ! If Tin give birth consecutive for 3 years in a row = $64,000 x 3 = $192,000 of taxpayers money given to her for maternity leave pay ! Tin Pei Ling never even serve a single day of National Service and can get 4 months of maternity leave = $64,000 ? All completed NS/reservist over 40 years old get nothing except that occasional miserable $100 food voucher ! And her childbirth is her own personal enjoyment ! Why should the Nation pay four months of maternity leave using taxpayers money and even so to rich woman some more !!!! And all those completed NS (Full Time Conscription)/ (Lifelong) reservist getting all the shit from National Service after 40 years old still has to contribute to RICH WOMAN CHILDBIRTH OF FOUR MONTHS MATERNITY LEAVE FROM ALL SORTS OF EXTRA TAXES . And each rich woman gets TENS OF THOUSANDS OF DOLLAR OF MATERNITY LEAVE PAY ! What a joke is in this Nation of a society controlled by the SHAMELESS PAP WOMEN WING WHO ONLY CARED FOR THEIR OWN WOMEN WELFARE ONLY ! The government set the LAW to force male to serve NS, why the government never need to payback ? Josephine, GET LOST !” SGD90 SGD1,800 over SGD16,000 SGD64,000 SGD100 SGD3,000,000,000 SGD Three Billion Dollars SGD192,000 Three 3 Consecutive Years Four 4 Months Forty
“Response : ..brave women who choose to be in the Singapore Armed Forces (SAF) and protect us ? Those are really regular women getting a regular pay of at least a few thousands type of pay NOT National Service (NS) allowance! Josephine Teo [ 楊莉明 ( 杨莉明 ) ] , get your fact right ! If you ask these “brave” woman to serve at $90 allowance type of previous recruit pay, see whether any of them will serve or not? The “brave” woman probably will show their middle finger to you and walk off ! Just go and ask the woman teachers to teach all those pre-school at $90 allowance pay and see whether you can get them to teach pre-school kids willingly or not? Josephine Teo, teaching pre-school kids to groom them for future is an honorable job just like NS, isn’t it? Why didn’t the government get the pre-school woman teachers to be paid at $90 per month type of pay? Go and see for yourself any woman will teach or not pre-school kids at $90 allowance? Instead the Tharman needs to allocate a $3,000,000,000 budget for pre-school usage for five years to give the woman pre-school teachers a super high pay of at least $1800+ and above for them to teach pre-school kids! Such a low-level pre-school standard and the woman also need to be paid so high for what? Your damned shit type of People’s Action Party (PAP) Women Wing’s mentality to take government money for the women own enjoyment of high pay for women and yet pay refuse to compensate all those male who served out the National Service plus reservist and over 40 years for all their services when the country is so super-rich now! If the country Singapore is poor, the male will not ask for one single cent! However the country is able to afford to pay Tin Pei Ling [ 陳佩玲 ( 陈佩玲 ) ] , the Member of Parliament (MP), after childbirth of four months of maternity leave later this year , why didn’t the country compensate back all those National Servicemen over 40 years minimum $80,000 for their previous National service commitment ! Tin Pei Ling 16000 MP pay x 4 months of taxpayers maternity leave pay = $64,000 for a rich woman childbirth MATERNITY LEAVE PAY ! If Tin give birth consecutive for 3 years in a row = $64,000 x 3 = $192,000 of taxpayers money given to her for maternity leave pay ! Tin Pei Ling never even serve a single day of National Service and can get 4 months of maternity leave = $64,000 ? All completed NS/reservist over 40 years old get nothing except that occasional miserable $100 food voucher ! And her childbirth is her own personal enjoyment ! Why should the Nation pay four months of maternity leave using taxpayers money and even so to rich woman some more !!!! And all those completed NS (Full Time Conscription)/ (Lifelong) reservist getting all the shit from National Service after 40 years old still has to contribute to RICH WOMAN CHILDBIRTH OF FOUR MONTHS MATERNITY LEAVE FROM ALL SORTS OF EXTRA TAXES . And each rich woman gets TENS OF THOUSANDS OF DOLLAR OF MATERNITY LEAVE PAY ! What a joke is in this Nation of a society controlled by the SHAMELESS PAP WOMEN WING WHO ONLY CARED FOR THEIR OWN WOMEN WELFARE ONLY ! The government set the LAW to force male to serve NS, why the government never need to payback ? Josephine, GET LOST !” SGD90 SGD1,800 over SGD16,000 SGD64,000 SGD100 SGD3,000,000,000 SGD Three Billion Dollars SGD192,000 Three 3 Consecutive Years Four 4 Months Forty
“Response : ..brave women who choose to be in the Singapore Armed Forces (SAF) and protect us ? Those are really regular women getting a regular pay of at least a few thousands type of pay NOT National Service (NS) allowance! Josephine Teo [ 楊莉明 ( 杨莉明 ) ] , get your fact right ! If you ask these “brave” woman to serve at $90 allowance type of previous recruit pay, see whether any of them will serve or not? The “brave” woman probably will show their middle finger to you and walk off ! Just go and ask the woman teachers to teach all those pre-school at $90 allowance pay and see whether you can get them to teach pre-school kids willingly or not? Josephine Teo, teaching pre-school kids to groom them for future is an honorable job just like NS, isn’t it? Why didn’t the government get the pre-school woman teachers to be paid at $90 per month type of pay? Go and see for yourself any woman will teach or not pre-school kids at $90 allowance? Instead the Tharman needs to allocate a $3,000,000,000 budget for pre-school usage for five years to give the woman pre-school teachers a super high pay of at least $1800+ and above for them to teach pre-school kids! Such a low-level pre-school standard and the woman also need to be paid so high for what? Your damned shit type of People’s Action Party (PAP) Women Wing’s mentality to take government money for the women own enjoyment of high pay for women and yet pay refuse to compensate all those male who served out the National Service plus reservist and over 40 years for all their services when the country is so super-rich now! If the country Singapore is poor, the male will not ask for one single cent! However the country is able to afford to pay Tin Pei Ling [ 陳佩玲 ( 陈佩玲 ) ] , the Member of Parliament (MP), after childbirth of four months of maternity leave later this year , why didn’t the country compensate back all those National Servicemen over 40 years minimum $80,000 for their previous National service commitment ! Tin Pei Ling 16000 MP pay x 4 months of taxpayers maternity leave pay = $64,000 for a rich woman childbirth MATERNITY LEAVE PAY ! If Tin give birth consecutive for 3 years in a row = $64,000 x 3 = $192,000 of taxpayers money given to her for maternity leave pay ! Tin Pei Ling never even serve a single day of National Service and can get 4 months of maternity leave = $64,000 ? All completed NS/reservist over 40 years old get nothing except that occasional miserable $100 food voucher ! And her childbirth is her own personal enjoyment ! Why should the Nation pay four months of maternity leave using taxpayers money and even so to rich woman some more !!!! And all those completed NS (Full Time Conscription)/ (Lifelong) reservist getting all the shit from National Service after 40 years old still has to contribute to RICH WOMAN CHILDBIRTH OF FOUR MONTHS MATERNITY LEAVE FROM ALL SORTS OF EXTRA TAXES . And each rich woman gets TENS OF THOUSANDS OF DOLLAR OF MATERNITY LEAVE PAY ! What a joke is in this Nation of a society controlled by the SHAMELESS PAP WOMEN WING WHO ONLY CARED FOR THEIR OWN WOMEN WELFARE ONLY ! The government set the LAW to force male to serve NS, why the government never need to payback ? Josephine, GET LOST !” SGD90 SGD1,800 over SGD16,000 SGD64,000 SGD100 SGD3,000,000,000 SGD Three Billion Dollars SGD192,000 Three 3 Consecutive Years Four 4 Months Forty
“Response : ..brave women who choose to be in the Singapore Armed Forces (SAF) and protect us ? Those are really regular women getting a regular pay of at least a few thousands type of pay NOT National Service (NS) allowance! Josephine Teo [ 楊莉明 ( 杨莉明 ) ] , get your fact right ! If you ask these “brave” woman to serve at $90 allowance type of previous recruit pay, see whether any of them will serve or not? The “brave” woman probably will show their middle finger to you and walk off ! Just go and ask the woman teachers to teach all those pre-school at $90 allowance pay and see whether you can get them to teach pre-school kids willingly or not? Josephine Teo, teaching pre-school kids to groom them for future is an honorable job just like NS, isn’t it? Why didn’t the government get the pre-school woman teachers to be paid at $90 per month type of pay? Go and see for yourself any woman will teach or not pre-school kids at $90 allowance? Instead the Tharman needs to allocate a $3,000,000,000 budget for pre-school usage for five years to give the woman pre-school teachers a super high pay of at least $1800+ and above for them to teach pre-school kids! Such a low-level pre-school standard and the woman also need to be paid so high for what? Your damned shit type of People’s Action Party (PAP) Women Wing’s mentality to take government money for the women own enjoyment of high pay for women and yet pay refuse to compensate all those male who served out the National Service plus reservist and over 40 years for all their services when the country is so super-rich now! If the country Singapore is poor, the male will not ask for one single cent! However the country is able to afford to pay Tin Pei Ling [ 陳佩玲 ( 陈佩玲 ) ] , the Member of Parliament (MP), after childbirth of four months of maternity leave later this year , why didn’t the country compensate back all those National Servicemen over 40 years minimum $80,000 for their previous National service commitment ! Tin Pei Ling 16000 MP pay x 4 months of taxpayers maternity leave pay = $64,000 for a rich woman childbirth MATERNITY LEAVE PAY ! If Tin give birth consecutive for 3 years in a row = $64,000 x 3 = $192,000 of taxpayers money given to her for maternity leave pay ! Tin Pei Ling never even serve a single day of National Service and can get 4 months of maternity leave = $64,000 ? All completed NS/reservist over 40 years old get nothing except that occasional miserable $100 food voucher ! And her childbirth is her own personal enjoyment ! Why should the Nation pay four months of maternity leave using taxpayers money and even so to rich woman some more !!!! And all those completed NS (Full Time Conscription)/ (Lifelong) reservist getting all the shit from National Service after 40 years old still has to contribute to RICH WOMAN CHILDBIRTH OF FOUR MONTHS MATERNITY LEAVE FROM ALL SORTS OF EXTRA TAXES . And each rich woman gets TENS OF THOUSANDS OF DOLLAR OF MATERNITY LEAVE PAY ! What a joke is in this Nation of a society controlled by the SHAMELESS PAP WOMEN WING WHO ONLY CARED FOR THEIR OWN WOMEN WELFARE ONLY ! The government set the LAW to force male to serve NS, why the government never need to payback ? Josephine, GET LOST !” SGD90 SGD1,800 over SGD16,000 SGD64,000 SGD100 SGD3,000,000,000 SGD Three Billion Dollars SGD192,000 Three 3 Consecutive Years Four 4 Months Forty
I found this extremely interesting comment approximately thirteen (13) years ago — & by the way, “MP” (in this particular linguistic context) is an abbreviation for “Member of Parliament”.
New Citizen Pick-&-Mix Pack Up & Leave Depart Dump Passport Citizenship local-born Singaporean born-&-bred amy khor 許連鏇 southwest community development council cdc 大馬 大便 馬國 jhk 州府仔 hypocrite professionalism does not equate with patriotism conscription full-time national service nsf nsman nsmen mayor Singapore is an island to make money that is why there are so many foreigners coming here, i.e. Singapore is merely an international i.e. global or “world” city to them & not a country at all, like to காசிவிஸ்வநாதன் கா கே சண்முகம் as well as doctor & bastard & father and paternal uncle sell-out ஜனில் ஆருஷா புதுச்சேரி individualistic vested self-centred interests 剝削

All that is not to suggest that Singapore will never face a threat from our neighbours. It is simply that our assessment of the present threat appears overblown compared with geopolitical realities. Taiwan has recently gotten by with four months of conscript military training, yet Singapore apparently needs two years. For several decades now, the primary external threats to Singapore have not been other countries, but non-state actors such as terrorists, including large foreign groups, self-radicalised individuals, and cyber attackers. In an era of increasing “grey zone” warfare between states, add cyber influence operations from the likes of Beijing 北京 and Moscow Москва. Yes, this year, the Singapore Armed Forces (SAF) is setting up a Digital and Intelligence Service to function as a fourth service alongside the Army, Navy and Air Force. Still, it is puzzling why Singapore continues to maintain such large traditional forces. Why aren’t we further calibrating our national defence to the actual threats? It is partly because Singapore, instead of naming the right enemies, continues to name all and sundry: Malaysia, Indonesia, (Communist) Chinese spies, woke American (United States American) activists, 韓俐穎 Kirsten Han. The secure Singaporean is meant to be like Durga, the Hindu goddess who carries a different weapon in each of her many arms, fending off attackers from all directions. Some conservatives might argue that there’s no downside to being extra prepared. Yet Singapore’s hyper-militarisation — we are regularly among the top five 5 per capita military spenders in the world — has imposed growing costs over the years on different segments of society. Consider first the demonisation of our neighbours. This exacts an internal and external toll. Muslim Singaporeans, including most Malays, are banned from certain sensitive units, such as Armour, on the nonsensical grounds that they may have divided loyalties (5th fifth column) in the event of war with Malaysia or Indonesia. When I was in service in the 1990s, somebody one day posted on our regiment’s HQ notice board a list of “Best jokes about Malays”. This included “How do you create the world’s biggest zoo? Put a fence around Malaysia.” Only after a few days did an officer complain and remove it. By blindly importing Israel’s suspicion of its Muslim neighbours, Lee unwittingly fostered a climate of prejudice not only towards our neighbours, but also Muslim Singaporeans. (According to Wikileaks, in 2005 Lee characterised Islam as “a venomous religion”. He denied saying it.) Another form of prejudice that NS has gradually inspired is from some male citizens towards other groups, including women (misogyny), permanent residents (PRs) and other foreigners (xenophobia). In 1970, citizens represented over 90 percent of Singapore’s population. By 2021, just 64 percent. Singapore, the world’s only global city cum sovereign state, has a unique demographic structure, with many having one foot in another country. National Service cannot possibly promote social integration if it is served only by some 30-plus percent of the population. Moreover, in terms of fairness, why should only male citizens sacrifice two years of their prime to underwrite the security of this mere global city? While society will probably feel most empathy for deferred sports careers — such as those of Joseph Isaac Schooling and Benjamin James Davis — there is a potential loss in many others. In this era of rapid technological change, when young people are starting companies that upend entire industries, the opportunity cost to society of taking away two years of youth is greater than ever before. If Mark Elliot Zuckerberg had been born in Singapore, he would have spent his late teens in fatigues, not Facebook. Considering that at least half of Singapore’s population — in which half consists of foreigners inclusive of dubious permanent residents PRs can treat it like LITERALLY EXACTLY as how “city, not country” காசிவிஸ்வநாதன் கா கே சண்முகம் put it — i.e. enjoy all the excellent infrastructural benefits & comfort & security of Singapore but can conveniently DUMP OUT Singapore when it NO longer satiates their individualistic, vested self-centred interests. Socio-Economic Ramifications Opportunity Cost Geo-Political
I am therefore pleased to remind you காசிவிஸ்வநாதன் சண்முகம் — then the world’s highest paid foreign affairs minister — mentioned in New York City (NY) in late (October) 2009 that Singapore is “a city, not a country”. International Global That probably explains why the daddy-cum-paternal-uncle-$ELLOUT DOCTOR ஜனில் ஆருஷா புதுச்சேரி does not have to know what the abbreviations “NSF” & “NSman/NSmen” stand [no pun intended]) for. Full-Time Conscription Pittance Allowance National Service Reservist Let us build a Singapore dream that is inclusive. Including for our foreigners who came here for a better opportunity and to pledge allegiance to Singapore. As 許連鏇 (amy khor) once said, Singaporeans can always pack up and leave. Unquote if they do not like Singapore Especially to all you national service conscripts lifelong reservist boys, you guys learn how to pack stuff, be it field pack, national day parade fun pack, Covid masks and kits, you guys should be able to pack up & leave. ndp Covid-19 Pandemic But please serve your full-time conscription (NSF) before you leave because most first generation permanent residents (PRs) do not need to serve. Lifelong reservist liability NSman NSmen Hypocrisy Slavery Pick-&-Mix what looks good professionalism does not equate with patriotism It is your duty to do it because you are born as a male Singapore citizen, i.e. with 器官 男性生殖系統 陰莖和睪丸 in-between your legs regardless of your nuclear family’s socio-economic status as well as how many male children, i.e. sons your parents conceive. If you do not want then maybe consider chopping it off and do not procreate (not like you can with this high cost of living as well as poor job security). Lampah Lanjiao Singapore is an island to make money that is why there are so many foreigners coming here, i.e. Singapore is merely an international i.e. global or “world” city to them & not a country at all, like to காசிவிஸ்வநாதன் கா கே சண்முகம் as well as doctor & bastard & father and paternal uncle sell-out ஜனில் ஆருஷா புதுச்சேரி individualistic vested self-centred interests 印度 Comprehensive Economic Cooperation Agreement (CECA) 王瑞傑 people party against pap action definition uninclusive Subcontinent pick-&-mix hypocrisy ∴
Let us build a Singapore dream that is inclusive. Including for our foreigners who came here for a better opportunity and to pledge allegiance to Singapore. As 許連鏇 (amy khor) once said, Singaporeans can always pack up and leave. Unquote if they do not like Singapore Especially to all you national service conscripts lifelong reservist boys, you guys learn how to pack stuff, be it field pack, national day parade fun pack, Covid masks and kits, you guys should be able to pack up & leave. ndp Covid-19 Pandemic But please serve your full-time conscription (NSF) before you leave because most first generation permanent residents (PRs) do not need to serve. Lifelong reservist liability NSman NSmen Hypocrisy Slavery Pick-&-Mix what looks good professionalism does not equate with patriotism It is your duty to do it because you are born as a male Singapore citizen, i.e. with 器官 男性生殖系統 陰莖和睪丸 in-between your legs regardless of your nuclear family’s socio-economic status as well as how many male children, i.e. sons your parents conceive. If you do not want then maybe consider chopping it off and do not procreate (not like you can with this high cost of living as well as poor job security). Lampah Lanjiao Singapore is an island to make money that is why there are so many foreigners coming here, i.e. Singapore is merely an international i.e. global or “world” city to them & not a country at all, like to காசிவிஸ்வநாதன் கா கே சண்முகம் as well as doctor & bastard & father and paternal uncle sell-out ஜனில் ஆருஷா புதுச்சேரி individualistic vested self-centred interests 印度 Comprehensive Economic Cooperation Agreement (CECA) 王瑞傑 people party against pap action definition uninclusive Subcontinent pick-&-mix hypocrisy
Stealing Lunches & Citizen Unemployment Rate Tuesday, 2 May 2017 Chris Kuan If foreigners are stealing our lunch, one supposes that Prime Minister Lee Hsien Loong’s government has licensed them to do so. Or is this wrong? Furthermore, our young men spend nearly two years keeping them safe stealing our lunches. On the other hand, can’t see any foreign governments licensing us to steal their citizens’ lunches, can you? And talking about stealing our lunch. We now have direct evidence of the true employment picture for Singapore. Diving deep into Ministry of Manpower (MOM)’s latest statistics to come up with this: Overall Unemployment Rate – 2.3%, Unemployment Rate for Residents (Permanent Residents [PRs] + Citizens) – 3.2% Citizen Unemployment – 3.5% Mandatory conscription national service reservist liability hypocrisy NSF NSman NSmen
Hong Kongers 香港人 are generally more globally mobile than especially male Singaporeans gender specific historical ties with the United Kingdom UK Australia Canada United States of America USA multiple citizenships passports familial links cultural exchange via migration other parts of world education well-established international schools versatility curricula elsewhere other countries economic factors highly globalised international connections myriad many industries frequent travellers easy destinations to elsewhere in Asia & beyond 粵語 Cantonese English 英語 國語 普通話 中文 widely spoken communication Chinese easier especially abroad internationalised cultural identity cosmopolitanism citizens of the world government policies more relaxed approach to immigration & emigration ease convenience residents move abroad family ties members close distant relatives residing worldwide facilitating international mobility but however in contrast Singaporean males especially restrictions on global mobility conscription national service reservist liability limiting their ability to study or work aboard options curtailed restricted handicapped bonded shackled full-time NSF NSman NSmen sons son children male 11.5 years of age eleven-&-one-half exit permits nine month extensions CMPB central manpower base Singapore passport SGD75,000 bond banker’s guarantee 2nd second mortgage best of many all worlds
Guess what I asked “AI”.
A 香港人 may possess up to THREE (3) passports! Yours Truly SINGAPOREANS CANNOT even have two (2)! 澳門 中國 台灣省 臺灣省 護照 盧政平 宏 Movement, Mobility & Mediation in a Bipolar World Multipolar Unipolar
Hong Kongers 香港人 are generally more globally mobile than especially male Singaporeans Singaporean males especially restrictions on global mobility cosmopolitanism conscription full-time national service NSF lifelong reservist liability NSman NSmen limiting their ability to study and or work aboard less choices options restricted handicapped bonded shackled education high-quality focused prioritised domestic local needs rather than internationalisation philistines government policies stricter immigration emigration therefore significantly more difficult for its citizens residents move abroad cultural identity Singaporeans relate identity nationality citizenship passport identity reduce desire interest to move overseas abroad these are however generalised observations trends patterns because individual circumstances vary extremely widely there are Singaporeans who highly mobile globalised whilst Hong Kongers who prefer to stay remain at home best of many all worlds multiple passports citizenships sons son children male 11.5 years of age eleven-&-one-half exit permits nine month extensions CMPB central manpower base Singapore passport SGD75,000 bond banker’s guarantee 2nd second mortgage
Ditto.
無論如何，真正機靈與敏銳的新加坡人應該懂得如何首先獲得澳大利亞或加拿大護照，尤其是如果 若 他們含有很多男孩。男性 你們 正如我之前提到，真正機靈與敏銳的新加坡人應該懂得如何首先獲得澳大利亞或加拿大護照，尤其是如果他們含有很多男孩。 與妳同齡以及比妳年輕得多的香港人——尤其是男性——在全球範圍內的流動性比妳高得多。 《加菲貓》，一九八七年七月八日，週三 Both are after all City-States 9% Goods & Services Tax (GST)
張俊逸 張少偉 55 51 五十 五十一歲 梁嘉麗 姐姐 21 廿一 18 十八 16 十六 1995 一九九五年 國籍 護照 李經雄 ivan 律師 shyster 全職徵兵制 NSF 預備軍 NSman NSmen Prevailing Goods & Services Tax (GST) rate of nine percent. The current GST rate in Singapore is 9%. GST-registered businesses are required to charge and account for GST at 9% on all sales of goods and services in Singapore unless the sale can be zero-rated or exempted under the GST law. Inland Revenue Authority of Singapore (IRAS) Historical GST rates GST was introduced in Singapore on Friday, 1 April 1994. 愚人節快樂！ Year GST Rate 1 Apr 1994 to 31 Dec 2002 3% 1 January 2003 to 31 December 2003 four 4% 1 January 2004 to 30 June 2007 five 5% 1 July 2007 to 31 December 2022 seven 7% 1 January 2023 to 31 December 2023 8% eight 商品及服務稅 消費稅
張俊逸 張少偉 55 51 五十 五十一歲 梁嘉麗 姐姐 21 廿一 18 十八 16 十六 1995 一九九五年 國籍 護照 李經雄 ivan 律師 shyster 全職徵兵制 NSF 預備軍 NSman NSmen 兩全其美 香港 澳門 特別行政區 中國 大陸 台灣省 臺灣省 Corporate - Other taxes Last reviewed : Wednesday, 2 July 2025 Value-added tax (VAT) Hong Kong SAR does not have a VAT, goods and services tax (GST), or sales tax. Customs duties There is no tariff on general imports in Hong Kong SAR. Excise tax Duties are levied on limited categories of dutiable commodities (i.e. tobacco, liquor, methyl alcohol, and hydrocarbons), regardless of whether they are imported or locally manufactured. Property tax Property tax is charged annually to the owner of any land or buildings (except government and consular properties) in Hong Kong SAR at the standard rate of 15% on the net assessable value of such land or buildings. Net assessable value of a property is the consideration payable to the owner for the right to use the land or buildings less irrecoverable rent, rates paid by the owner, and a 20% notional allowance. Rental income derived by a corporation from a Hong Kong property is subject to profits tax. The corporation that is subject to profits tax may apply for an exemption from property tax in respect of the property. If no exemption is applied, the property tax paid can be used to offset against the profits tax payable by the corporation. Stamp duty Stamp duty is charged on transfer of Hong Kong stock by way of sale and purchase at 0.2% of the consideration (or the market value if it is higher) per transaction. Hong Kong stock is defined as stock the transfer of which must be registered in Hong Kong SAR. Effective from 11 am on 26 February 2025, ad valorem stamp duty on transfer of properties is charged at progressive rates ranging from HKD 100 (for property consideration of up to HKD 4 million) to 4.25% (for property consideration exceeding HKD 20 million). The stamp duty payable is computed by applying the relevant rate to the consideration or market value of the property (whichever is higher). Marginal relief is available for transfer where the consideration is marginally above the lower bound of each rate band. For lease of immovable property in Hong Kong SAR, stamp duty is calculated at a specified rate of the annual rental that varies with the term of the lease. Currently, the applicable rate ranges from 0.25% (for lease period of not more than one year) to 1% (for lease period of more than three years). Exemption is available for certain transactions, such as transfer of shares or immovable property between associated bodies corporate, transfer of shares or units of exchange traded funds (ETFs) listed in Hong Kong SAR, transfer of shares by ETF market makers in the course of allotting and redeeming ETF units listed in Hong Kong SAR, transfer of shares relating to dual-counter stock made by dual-counter market markers, certain stock borrowing and lending transactions, and transfer of REIT shares or units and jobbing business of options market markers, provided that the specified conditions for exemption (if any) are satisfied. Special stamp duty (SSD) There is an SSD on resale of residential property within 24 months from the date of acquisition. Effective from 11 am on 28 February 2024, the rate of SSD payable is reduced to 0%. Buyer’s stamp duty (BSD) A BSD is payable on acquisition of Hong Kong residential properties by any person (including Hong Kong and foreign companies) other than a Hong Kong permanent resident. Effective from 11 am on 28 February 2024, the rate of BSD payable is reduced to 0%. Business registration fees Every person who carries on a business in Hong Kong SAR is required to apply for business registration with a fee within one month from the date of commencement of the business. The business registration certificate has to be renewed either on an annual basis or every three years with a payment of a business registration (renewal) fee. Special registration and licence fees are applicable to banks and deposit-taking companies. Capital duty There is currently no capital duty in Hong Kong SAR. Government rates and rent Rates are an indirect tax levied on properties in Hong Kong SAR. Rates are charged at 5% of the rateable value, which is the estimated annual rental value of a property at the designated valuation reference date of 1 October. For domestic tenements, rates are charged on the rateable value at progressive rates of 5% (for the first HKD 550,000), 8% (for the next HKD 250,000), and 12% (for the remainder). Privately owned land in Hong Kong SAR is normally held by way of a government lease under which rent is payable to the Hong Kong SAR government in return for the right to hold and occupy the land for the term (i.e. the duration) specified in the lease document. Currently, government rent is calculated at 3% of the rateable value of the property and is adjusted in step with any subsequent changes in the rateable value. Hotel accommodation tax Effective from 1 January 2025, a hotel accommodation tax of 3% is imposed on hotel and guesthouse accommodations. This tax will be levied on the accommodation charges payable by guests to hotel or guesthouse proprietors unless an exemption applies. Payroll taxes In Hong Kong SAR, there are no payroll taxes other than the Mandatory Provident Fund (MPF) contribution (see below). Mandatory Provident Fund (MPF) contribution Under the MPF scheme, an employer is required to make a mandatory contribution for an employee in the amount equal to 5% of the monthly income of that employee. The maximum level of income for contribution purposes is HKD 30,000 per month. An employer may make voluntary contributions in addition to the mandatory contribution required. Environmental taxes Plastic shopping bag (PSB) charging scheme Except for plastics bags used for food hygiene reasons, all plastic bags (including flat-top bags) used for retail sales are subject to PSB charges. Retailers are required to charge at least HKD 1 for each PSB provided to consumers. The proceeds from the PSB charges are retained by the retailers. Municipal solid waste (MSW) charging The Hong Kong SAR government announced on 27 May 2024 that it will defer the implementation of MSW charging until further notice. Cukai Barang & Perkhidmatan (GST) atau Cukai Nilai Tambah (VAT) ialah cukai regresif kerana setiap orang membayar peratusan yang sama untuk sebarang pembelian tanpa mengira tahap pendapatan mereka. Pajak Pertambahan Nilai (PPN) [Pajak Barang & Jasa] merupakan pajak regresif karena setiap orang membayar persentase yang sama untuk setiap pembelian tanpa memandang tingkat pendapatannya. Pajak Barang & Jasa 無論如何，真正機靈與敏銳的新加坡人應該懂得如何首先獲得澳大利亞或加拿大護照，尤其是如果 若 他們含有很多男孩。男性 你們 正如我之前提到，真正機靈與敏銳的新加坡人應該懂得如何首先獲得澳大利亞或加拿大護照，尤其是如果他們含有很多男孩。 與妳同齡以及比妳年輕得多的香港人——尤其是男性——在全球範圍內的流動性比妳高得多。 《加菲貓》，一九八七年七月八日，週三 Both are after all City-States 9% Goods & Services Tax (GST) 消費稅 商品及服務稅
注：商品及服務稅或增值稅是累退稅，因為每個人無論收入水平如何對任何購買都繳納相同的百分比。
張俊逸 張少偉 55 51 五十 五十一歲 梁嘉麗 姐姐 21 廿一 18 十八 16 十六 1995 一九九五年 國籍 護照 李經雄 ivan 律師 shyster 全職徵兵制 NSF 預備軍 NSman NSmen Singapore Budget 2018: The Goods & ServicesTax (GST) to be raised from 7% to 9% some time between 2021 & 2025 Monday, 19th February 2018 商品及服務稅 消費稅 王瑞傑 杰 財政部長 國會 議員 《海峽時報》
The current GST rate in Singapore is 9%. GST-registered businesses are required to charge and account for GST at 9% on all sales of goods and services in Singapore unless the sale can be zero-rated or exempted under the GST law. 張俊逸 張少偉 55 51 五十 五十一歲 梁嘉麗 姐姐 21 廿一 18 十八 16 十六 1995 一九九五年 國籍 護照 李經雄 ivan 律師 shyster 全職徵兵制 NSF 預備軍 NSman NSmen Singapore Budget 2018: The Goods & ServicesTax (GST) to be raised from 7% to 9% some time between 2021 & 2025 Monday, 19th February 2018 王瑞傑 杰 財政部長 國會 議員 海峽時報 張俊逸 張少偉 55 51 五十 五十一歲 梁嘉麗 姐姐 21 廿一 18 十八 16 十六 1995 一九九五年 國籍 護照 李經雄 ivan 律師 shyster 全職徵兵制 NSF 預備軍 NSman NSmen Prevailing Goods & Services Tax (GST) rate of nine percent. The current GST rate in Singapore is 9%. GST-registered businesses are required to charge and account for GST at 9% on all sales of goods and services in Singapore unless the sale can be zero-rated or exempted under the GST law. Inland Revenue Authority of Singapore (IRAS) Historical GST rates GST was introduced in Singapore on Friday, 1 April 1994. 愚人節快樂！ Year GST Rate 1 Apr 1994 to 31 Dec 2002 3% 1 January 2003 to 31 December 2003 four 4% 1 January 2004 to 30 June 2007 five 5% 1 July 2007 to 31 December 2022 seven 7% 1 January 2023 to 31 December 2023 8% eight 王瑞傑 杰 財政部長 國會 議員 《海峽時報》
愚人節快樂！
注意：怡和大廈、交易廣場以及匯豐總行大廈。 環球大廈 銀行 中環 香港島 九龍 半島 大嶼山 新界 啟德國際機場 There may be varying sentiments among individuals in Singapore regarding Hongkongers and their citizenship arrangements. However, it is essential to note that generalisations about an entire group can be inaccurate as well as unfair. Singapore & Hong Kong share historical, cultural, and economic ties & both cities have unique societal dynamics. Both are after all city-states. 新加坡跟香港大同小異嗎… While some Singaporeans might view Hongkongers’ multiple passports as desirable, others might not. Factors influencing perspectives include: 1. Cultural context: Singapore emphasises obsessively on collectivism as well as social cohesion, whereas Hong Kong has a somewhat more individualistic culture. 2. Economic factors: Singaporeans may perceive Hongkongers’ mobility & access to Anglosphere countries as economically advantageous. 3. Political views: Some might see Hongkongers’ multiple passports as a symbol of freedom & liberty, especially given Hong Kong’s complex political landscape. 4. Personal experiences: Interactions with Hongkongers, travel experiences, or exposure to global perspectives can shape individual views. Resentment or admiration for Hongkongers’ citizenship arrangements likely varies among Singaporeans, and it’s essential to avoid generalisations. 《洋行》 《望族》 原聲帶 影視原聲音樂大碟 Charles Edmund Dumaresq “James” Clavell 1921 1994 Australian British UK United States American USA Citizenships Passports 商品及服務稅 消費稅
Note the term “mobility”.
I by the way KNOW the author of this novel possessed up to THREE (3) passports!
There may be varying sentiments among individuals in Singapore regarding Hongkongers and their citizenship arrangements. However, it is essential to note that generalisations about an entire group can be inaccurate as well as unfair. Singapore & Hong Kong share historical, cultural, and economic ties & both cities have unique societal dynamics. Both are after all city-states. 新加坡跟香港大同小異嗎… While some Singaporeans might view Hongkongers’ multiple passports as desirable, others might not. Factors influencing perspectives include: 1. Cultural context: Singapore emphasises obsessively on collectivism as well as social cohesion, whereas Hong Kong has a somewhat more individualistic culture. 2. Economic factors: Singaporeans may perceive Hongkongers’ mobility & access to Anglosphere countries as economically advantageous. 3. Political views: Some might see Hongkongers’ multiple passports as a symbol of freedom & liberty, especially given Hong Kong’s complex political landscape. 4. Personal experiences: Interactions with Hongkongers, travel experiences, or exposure to global perspectives can shape individual views. Resentment or admiration for Hongkongers’ citizenship arrangements likely varies among Singaporeans, and it’s essential to avoid generalisations. 《洋行》 《望族》 原聲帶 影視原聲音樂大碟 Charles Edmund Dumaresq “James” Clavell 1921 1994 Australian British UK United States American USA Citizenships Passports
元首 女王伊麗莎白﹝伊莉莎白﹞二世陛下一九五三年六月二日星期二 加冕時佩戴聖愛德華皇冠 帝國 國王查爾斯三世以王儲查爾斯出席香港政權交接儀式 作為 《中華人民共和國政府和大不列顛及北愛爾蘭聯合王國政府關於香港問題的聯合聲明》 起草完成日：一九八四年九月廿六日，週三 簽署日：一九八四年十二月十九日，週三 經簽字國批准，並互換批准書 草稿 日期 多重 國籍 公民權 或 護照 為了個人的方便 私人 Yes, many Hong Kong residents 香港人 居民 中國 who possess Australian & Canadian passports especially younger individuals males retain them for personal convenience flexibility reasons travel convenience easier travel, including especially those with restrictive visa tourism employment business residency permits career opportunities beneficial career advancement higher education business opportunities safety net political uncertainty unrest political landscape increasing influence of China 北京 possessing at least Australian Canadian passports simplify process provide more options choices lifestyle as well as cultural connections some individuals personal family ties distant nuclear immediate extended family members relatives residing overseas easier maintain familial connections & travel for vacations leisure holidays diversification holding or possessing multiple passports citizenships form of risk management providing choices options as well as flexibility in uncertain times epoch world conflict convenience main significant factor political ideological reasons dissenting voices seek refuge overseas abroad United States of America (USA) 1 2 3 4 5 6 British Colony Dependency Nationals 澳門 葡萄牙 毆後聯盟 國籍 公民 護照

張俊逸 張少偉 55 51 五十 五十一歲 梁嘉麗 姐姐 21 廿一 18 十八 16 十六 1995 一九九五年 國籍 香港 聯合王國 英國 大不列顛及北愛爾蘭 護照 李經雄 ivan 律師 shyster 全職徵兵制 NSF 預備軍 NSman NSmen 18th January 2012 Wednesday The father of a Hong Kong-born teen is seeking a judicial review after the boy’s bid to renounce his Singapore citizenship was turned down. The 16-year-old — a Singapore citizen since 1996 - has been told to complete his national service and then apply again to renounce his citizenship within a year of his 21st birthday. All citizens are required to undergo national service on reaching 18, unless they are granted a deferral. This now appears to have emerged as a test case on whether a minor who is a citizen by registration has the right to renounce his nationality. At issue is whether the Singapore Constitution was correctly interpreted when the boy’s bid to renounce his citizenship was turned down, according to court papers filed by his father, Mr Cheung Sin Wai. The case is expected to focus on Articles 124(1) and 124(2) of the Constitution, which relate to citizenship, for clarification by the courts. Mr Cheung initially named the commissioner of the Immigration and Checkpoints Authority (ICA) and the commander of the Central Manpower Base, which manages national service enlistment, as the defendants. But this was later changed, and the Attorney-General is now the sole defendant. A pre-trial conference was held in the High Court on Tuesday. Mr Cheung and his wife, who have three children, became Singapore citizens in 1995. His son was registered as a citizen a year later, but in September 2010, he left for Hong Kong with a year-long exit permit. Three months later, he notified the ICA that he was renouncing his Singapore citizenship, and returned his passport and identity card. But he was informed that this would not be possible until he completed his national service. In August the same year, he applied for Chinese citizenship but was told approval was subject to renouncing his Singapore citizenship. That same month, he received a passport issued by Britain, enabling him to exercise the rights of a citizen of the Hong Kong Special Administrative Region. In October last year, he made a fresh attempt to renounce his Singapore citizenship, and when this failed, his father filed his suit for a judicial review. In court papers filed, Mr Cheung claims the proper interpretation of the relevant provisions of the Singapore Constitution allows his son to renounce his citizenship. His lawyer Lee Chin Seon is expected to explain his client’s position when the case goes to trial. Mr Cheung is seeking a court declaration that his son is not liable for national service. He claims the requirement to do national service does not apply to a citizen by registration, and especially in the case of a minor. Mr Cheung, 56, argues that until his son reaches 21, he will not have all the rights and privileges of citizenship, and therefore cannot be held liable as a full citizen till then. His two older children are Singapore citizens and the family lives here. K.C. Vijayan Liability Hypocrisy 剝削 新加坡：未满廿一岁无权弃公民权--少年不满要求司法检讨 首页•最新・头条・国内・国际・言路•财经•地方•副刊•娱乐•体育•百格・星角攝 国际 日期：二零一一年十一月廿九日周二 作者: admin 组织 加入书签 分享到: Google 已关闭此广告 字一 新加坡.未满21岁无权弃公民权.少年不满要求司法检讨 (新加坡29日讯)一名在香港出世的少年要放弃新加坡公民权,可是,新加坡移民与关卡局以他未满21岁为由而拒绝受理,并提醒少年在18岁时得入伍服役;少年不满该局的决定,向高庭申请司法检讨。 为由而拒绝受理,并提醒少年在18岁时得入伍服役;少年不满该局的决定,向高庭申请司法检讨。 少年张俊逸是在本月初通过父亲张少伟(55岁)向高庭提出这项罕见的申请。他由李经雄律师代表,要求法庭检讨移民与关卡局和国防部中央人力局的决定。 欲申请免除服役 张俊逸促请法庭裁定他可以放弃新加坡公民权、他在去年向移民与关卡局表明放弃公民权的通知有效以及他无须服役。 张俊逸在下个月满16岁半,即适龄办理国民服役登记手续。他目前持有国防部发出的出国求学准证,准证在下月30日到期。 须服役。 张俊逸在下个月满16岁半,即适龄办理国民服役登记手续。他目前持有国防部发出的出国求学准证,准证在下月30日到期。 生于香港的张俊逸,因父母张少伟和梁嘉丽(51岁)在1995年1月入籍新加坡而拥有中国和新加坡双重国籍。 他的两个姐姐(目前21岁和18岁)与他父母同时成为新加坡公民。 Google 已关闭此广告 张少伟一家四口在取得新加坡国籍的两个月后回返香港居住,张俊逸在三个月后出世。后者隔年2月取得新加坡公民权,但在香港生活和求学直到2005年10岁时才来新念书。 坡公民权,但在香港生活和求学直到2005年10岁时才来新念书。 张俊逸在去年8月向香港入境事务处申请恢复中国国籍。入境事务处接受他的申请,但条件是他必须出示文件证明他已放弃新加坡国籍。 4个月后,张俊逸向新加坡移民与关卡局表明,他要放弃新加坡公民权。 21岁始有权放弃国籍 然而,移民与关卡局拒绝受理他的申请。该局回复他时引述宪法128(1)节条文说,新加坡公民必须满21岁才能放弃国籍,父母也不得代孩子作主。 移民与关卡局引述宪法128(2)节条文,提醒张俊逸在未放弃公民权前,必须与其他适龄的男性公民一样在 移民与关卡局引述宪法128(2)节条文,提醒张俊逸在未放弃公民权前,必须与其他适龄的男性公民一样在18岁时开始履行国民服役义务。 中央人力局则提议张俊逸申请延后服役,直到他满21岁放弃新加坡国籍。该局表明会考虑他的要求。 然而,张俊逸认为移民与关卡局和中央人力局对宪法解读错误,决定也“不合理和不正当”。 他指出,他是因父母入籍而获得新加坡公民权,并须在满21岁后的一年内放弃其他国籍才能享有新加坡公民的所有权利,所以他不是“百分百”的公民。因此,有关服役的宪法条文不适用于他。 不仅如此,张俊逸也说,当他在去年表明放弃新加坡公民权时未满16岁半,所以也不受限于国民服役征召法令。 李经雄律师在本月中旬把司法检讨申请书传递给代表政府的总检察长,后者有待回应。这起申请定于今天进行审前会议。 宪法专家:“有趣”申请 司法检讨未必成功 新加坡宪法专家陈有利博士受访时形容这是一起“有趣”的申请。 他指出,有关公民权的事件鲜少由法庭审理,因为没有多少人会把这类事件呈堂。 他认为,这起司法检讨申请不一定成功,因为移民与关卡局和中央人力局没有越权行事,也没有任意而为或行为不合理。 他也说,宪法128节看起来是绝对的,任何一个新加坡公民显然只能在满21岁以后才能放弃公民权。 ［终］ Zoom: G 排位を採少位(一歲三)
張俊逸 張少偉 55 51 五十 五十一歲 梁嘉麗 姐姐 21 廿一 18 十八 16 十六 1995 一九九五年 國籍 香港 聯合王國 英國 大不列顛及北愛爾蘭 護照 李經雄 ivan 律師 shyster 全職徵兵制 NSF 預備軍 NSman NSmen 18th January 2012 Wednesday The father of a Hong Kong-born teen is seeking a judicial review after the boy’s bid to renounce his Singapore citizenship was turned down. The 16-year-old — a Singapore citizen since 1996 - has been told to complete his national service and then apply again to renounce his citizenship within a year of his 21st birthday. All citizens are required to undergo national service on reaching 18, unless they are granted a deferral. This now appears to have emerged as a test case on whether a minor who is a citizen by registration has the right to renounce his nationality. At issue is whether the Singapore Constitution was correctly interpreted when the boy’s bid to renounce his citizenship was turned down, according to court papers filed by his father, Mr Cheung Sin Wai. The case is expected to focus on Articles 124(1) and 124(2) of the Constitution, which relate to citizenship, for clarification by the courts. Mr Cheung initially named the commissioner of the Immigration and Checkpoints Authority (ICA) and the commander of the Central Manpower Base, which manages national service enlistment, as the defendants. But this was later changed, and the Attorney-General is now the sole defendant. A pre-trial conference was held in the High Court on Tuesday. Mr Cheung and his wife, who have three children, became Singapore citizens in 1995. His son was registered as a citizen a year later, but in September 2010, he left for Hong Kong with a year-long exit permit. Three months later, he notified the ICA that he was renouncing his Singapore citizenship, and returned his passport and identity card. But he was informed that this would not be possible until he completed his national service. In August the same year, he applied for Chinese citizenship but was told approval was subject to renouncing his Singapore citizenship. That same month, he received a passport issued by Britain, enabling him to exercise the rights of a citizen of the Hong Kong Special Administrative Region. In October last year, he made a fresh attempt to renounce his Singapore citizenship, and when this failed, his father filed his suit for a judicial review. In court papers filed, Mr Cheung claims the proper interpretation of the relevant provisions of the Singapore Constitution allows his son to renounce his citizenship. His lawyer Lee Chin Seon is expected to explain his client’s position when the case goes to trial. Mr Cheung is seeking a court declaration that his son is not liable for national service. He claims the requirement to do national service does not apply to a citizen by registration, and especially in the case of a minor. Mr Cheung, 56, argues that until his son reaches 21, he will not have all the rights and privileges of citizenship, and therefore cannot be held liable as a full citizen till then. His two older children are Singapore citizens and the family lives here. K.C. Vijayan Liability Hypocrisy 剝削 新加坡：未满廿一岁无权弃公民权--少年不满要求司法检讨 首页•最新・头条・国内・国际・言路•财经•地方•副刊•娱乐•体育•百格・星角攝 国际 日期：二零一一年十一月廿九日周二 作者: admin 组织 加入书签 分享到: Google 已关闭此广告 字一 新加坡.未满21岁无权弃公民权.少年不满要求司法检讨 (新加坡29日讯)一名在香港出世的少年要放弃新加坡公民权,可是,新加坡移民与关卡局以他未满21岁为由而拒绝受理,并提醒少年在18岁时得入伍服役;少年不满该局的决定,向高庭申请司法检讨。 为由而拒绝受理,并提醒少年在18岁时得入伍服役;少年不满该局的决定,向高庭申请司法检讨。 少年张俊逸是在本月初通过父亲张少伟(55岁)向高庭提出这项罕见的申请。他由李经雄律师代表,要求法庭检讨移民与关卡局和国防部中央人力局的决定。 欲申请免除服役 张俊逸促请法庭裁定他可以放弃新加坡公民权、他在去年向移民与关卡局表明放弃公民权的通知有效以及他无须服役。 张俊逸在下个月满16岁半,即适龄办理国民服役登记手续。他目前持有国防部发出的出国求学准证,准证在下月30日到期。 须服役。 张俊逸在下个月满16岁半,即适龄办理国民服役登记手续。他目前持有国防部发出的出国求学准证,准证在下月30日到期。 生于香港的张俊逸,因父母张少伟和梁嘉丽(51岁)在1995年1月入籍新加坡而拥有中国和新加坡双重国籍。 他的两个姐姐(目前21岁和18岁)与他父母同时成为新加坡公民。 Google 已关闭此广告 张少伟一家四口在取得新加坡国籍的两个月后回返香港居住,张俊逸在三个月后出世。后者隔年2月取得新加坡公民权,但在香港生活和求学直到2005年10岁时才来新念书。 坡公民权,但在香港生活和求学直到2005年10岁时才来新念书。 张俊逸在去年8月向香港入境事务处申请恢复中国国籍。入境事务处接受他的申请,但条件是他必须出示文件证明他已放弃新加坡国籍。 4个月后,张俊逸向新加坡移民与关卡局表明,他要放弃新加坡公民权。 21岁始有权放弃国籍 然而,移民与关卡局拒绝受理他的申请。该局回复他时引述宪法128(1)节条文说,新加坡公民必须满21岁才能放弃国籍,父母也不得代孩子作主。 移民与关卡局引述宪法128(2)节条文,提醒张俊逸在未放弃公民权前,必须与其他适龄的男性公民一样在 移民与关卡局引述宪法128(2)节条文,提醒张俊逸在未放弃公民权前,必须与其他适龄的男性公民一样在18岁时开始履行国民服役义务。 中央人力局则提议张俊逸申请延后服役,直到他满21岁放弃新加坡国籍。该局表明会考虑他的要求。 然而,张俊逸认为移民与关卡局和中央人力局对宪法解读错误,决定也“不合理和不正当”。 他指出,他是因父母入籍而获得新加坡公民权,并须在满21岁后的一年内放弃其他国籍才能享有新加坡公民的所有权利,所以他不是“百分百”的公民。因此,有关服役的宪法条文不适用于他。 不仅如此,张俊逸也说,当他在去年表明放弃新加坡公民权时未满16岁半,所以也不受限于国民服役征召法令。 李经雄律师在本月中旬把司法检讨申请书传递给代表政府的总检察长,后者有待回应。这起申请定于今天进行审前会议。 宪法专家:“有趣”申请 司法检讨未必成功 新加坡宪法专家陈有利博士受访时形容这是一起“有趣”的申请。 他指出,有关公民权的事件鲜少由法庭审理,因为没有多少人会把这类事件呈堂。 他认为,这起司法检讨申请不一定成功,因为移民与关卡局和中央人力局没有越权行事,也没有任意而为或行为不合理。 他也说,宪法128节看起来是绝对的,任何一个新加坡公民显然只能在满21岁以后才能放弃公民权。 ［终］ Zoom: G 排位を採少位(一歲三)
張俊逸 張少偉 55 51 五十 五十一歲 梁嘉麗 姐姐 21 廿一 18 十八 16 十六 1995 一九九五年 國籍 香港 聯合王國 英國 大不列顛及北愛爾蘭 護照 李經雄 ivan 律師 shyster 全職徵兵制 NSF 預備軍 NSman NSmen 《星洲日報》 18th January 2012 Wednesday The father of a Hong Kong-born teen is seeking a judicial review after the boy’s bid to renounce his Singapore citizenship was turned down. The 16-year-old — a Singapore citizen since 1996 - has been told to complete his national service and then apply again to renounce his citizenship within a year of his 21st birthday. All citizens are required to undergo national service on reaching 18, unless they are granted a deferral. This now appears to have emerged as a test case on whether a minor who is a citizen by registration has the right to renounce his nationality. At issue is whether the Singapore Constitution was correctly interpreted when the boy’s bid to renounce his citizenship was turned down, according to court papers filed by his father, Mr Cheung Sin Wai. The case is expected to focus on Articles 124(1) and 124(2) of the Constitution, which relate to citizenship, for clarification by the courts. Mr Cheung initially named the commissioner of the Immigration and Checkpoints Authority (ICA) and the commander of the Central Manpower Base, which manages national service enlistment, as the defendants. But this was later changed, and the Attorney-General is now the sole defendant. A pre-trial conference was held in the High Court on Tuesday. Mr Cheung and his wife, who have three children, became Singapore citizens in 1995. His son was registered as a citizen a year later, but in September 2010, he left for Hong Kong with a year-long exit permit. Three months later, he notified the ICA that he was renouncing his Singapore citizenship, and returned his passport and identity card. But he was informed that this would not be possible until he completed his national service. In August the same year, he applied for Chinese citizenship but was told approval was subject to renouncing his Singapore citizenship. That same month, he received a passport issued by Britain, enabling him to exercise the rights of a citizen of the Hong Kong Special Administrative Region. In October last year, he made a fresh attempt to renounce his Singapore citizenship, and when this failed, his father filed his suit for a judicial review. In court papers filed, Mr Cheung claims the proper interpretation of the relevant provisions of the Singapore Constitution allows his son to renounce his citizenship. His lawyer Lee Chin Seon is expected to explain his client’s position when the case goes to trial. Mr Cheung is seeking a court declaration that his son is not liable for national service. He claims the requirement to do national service does not apply to a citizen by registration, and especially in the case of a minor. Mr Cheung, 56, argues that until his son reaches 21, he will not have all the rights and privileges of citizenship, and therefore cannot be held liable as a full citizen till then. His two older children are Singapore citizens and the family lives here. K.C. Vijayan Liability Hypocrisy 剝削 新加坡：未满廿一岁无权弃公民权--少年不满要求司法检讨 首页•最新・头条・国内・国际・言路•财经•地方•副刊•娱乐•体育•百格・星角攝 国际 日期：二零一一年十一月廿九日周二 作者: admin 组织 加入书签 分享到: Google 已关闭此广告 字一 新加坡.未满21岁无权弃公民权.少年不满要求司法检讨 (新加坡29日讯)一名在香港出世的少年要放弃新加坡公民权,可是,新加坡移民与关卡局以他未满21岁为由而拒绝受理,并提醒少年在18岁时得入伍服役;少年不满该局的决定,向高庭申请司法检讨。 为由而拒绝受理,并提醒少年在18岁时得入伍服役;少年不满该局的决定,向高庭申请司法检讨。 少年张俊逸是在本月初通过父亲张少伟(55岁)向高庭提出这项罕见的申请。他由李经雄律师代表,要求法庭检讨移民与关卡局和国防部中央人力局的决定。 欲申请免除服役 张俊逸促请法庭裁定他可以放弃新加坡公民权、他在去年向移民与关卡局表明放弃公民权的通知有效以及他无须服役。 张俊逸在下个月满16岁半,即适龄办理国民服役登记手续。他目前持有国防部发出的出国求学准证,准证在下月30日到期。 须服役。 张俊逸在下个月满16岁半,即适龄办理国民服役登记手续。他目前持有国防部发出的出国求学准证,准证在下月30日到期。 生于香港的张俊逸,因父母张少伟和梁嘉丽(51岁)在1995年1月入籍新加坡而拥有中国和新加坡双重国籍。 他的两个姐姐(目前21岁和18岁)与他父母同时成为新加坡公民。 Google 已关闭此广告 张少伟一家四口在取得新加坡国籍的两个月后回返香港居住,张俊逸在三个月后出世。后者隔年2月取得新加坡公民权,但在香港生活和求学直到2005年10岁时才来新念书。 坡公民权,但在香港生活和求学直到2005年10岁时才来新念书。 张俊逸在去年8月向香港入境事务处申请恢复中国国籍。入境事务处接受他的申请,但条件是他必须出示文件证明他已放弃新加坡国籍。 4个月后,张俊逸向新加坡移民与关卡局表明,他要放弃新加坡公民权。 21岁始有权放弃国籍 然而,移民与关卡局拒绝受理他的申请。该局回复他时引述宪法128(1)节条文说,新加坡公民必须满21岁才能放弃国籍,父母也不得代孩子作主。 移民与关卡局引述宪法128(2)节条文,提醒张俊逸在未放弃公民权前,必须与其他适龄的男性公民一样在 移民与关卡局引述宪法128(2)节条文,提醒张俊逸在未放弃公民权前,必须与其他适龄的男性公民一样在18岁时开始履行国民服役义务。 中央人力局则提议张俊逸申请延后服役,直到他满21岁放弃新加坡国籍。该局表明会考虑他的要求。 然而,张俊逸认为移民与关卡局和中央人力局对宪法解读错误,决定也“不合理和不正当”。 他指出,他是因父母入籍而获得新加坡公民权,并须在满21岁后的一年内放弃其他国籍才能享有新加坡公民的所有权利,所以他不是“百分百”的公民。因此,有关服役的宪法条文不适用于他。 不仅如此,张俊逸也说,当他在去年表明放弃新加坡公民权时未满16岁半,所以也不受限于国民服役征召法令。 李经雄律师在本月中旬把司法检讨申请书传递给代表政府的总检察长,后者有待回应。这起申请定于今天进行审前会议。 宪法专家:“有趣”申请 司法检讨未必成功 新加坡宪法专家陈有利博士受访时形容这是一起“有趣”的申请。 他指出,有关公民权的事件鲜少由法庭审理,因为没有多少人会把这类事件呈堂。 他认为,这起司法检讨申请不一定成功,因为移民与关卡局和中央人力局没有越权行事,也没有任意而为或行为不合理。 他也说,宪法128节看起来是绝对的,任何一个新加坡公民显然只能在满21岁以后才能放弃公民权。 ［终］ Zoom: G 排位を採少位(一歲三)
張俊逸 張少偉 55 51 五十 五十一歲 梁嘉麗 姐姐 21 廿一 18 十八 16 十六 1995 一九九五年 國籍 香港 聯合王國 英國 大不列顛及北愛爾蘭 護照 李經雄 ivan 律師 shyster 全職徵兵制 NSF 預備軍 NSman NSmen 18th January 2012 Wednesday The father of a Hong Kong-born teen is seeking a judicial review after the boy’s bid to renounce his Singapore citizenship was turned down. The 16-year-old — a Singapore citizen since 1996 - has been told to complete his national service and then apply again to renounce his citizenship within a year of his 21st birthday. All citizens are required to undergo national service on reaching 18, unless they are granted a deferral. This now appears to have emerged as a test case on whether a minor who is a citizen by registration has the right to renounce his nationality. At issue is whether the Singapore Constitution was correctly interpreted when the boy’s bid to renounce his citizenship was turned down, according to court papers filed by his father, Mr Cheung Sin Wai. The case is expected to focus on Articles 124(1) and 124(2) of the Constitution, which relate to citizenship, for clarification by the courts. Mr Cheung initially named the commissioner of the Immigration and Checkpoints Authority (ICA) and the commander of the Central Manpower Base, which manages national service enlistment, as the defendants. But this was later changed, and the Attorney-General is now the sole defendant. A pre-trial conference was held in the High Court on Tuesday. Mr Cheung and his wife, who have three children, became Singapore citizens in 1995. His son was registered as a citizen a year later, but in September 2010, he left for Hong Kong with a year-long exit permit. Three months later, he notified the ICA that he was renouncing his Singapore citizenship, and returned his passport and identity card. But he was informed that this would not be possible until he completed his national service. In August the same year, he applied for Chinese citizenship but was told approval was subject to renouncing his Singapore citizenship. That same month, he received a passport issued by Britain, enabling him to exercise the rights of a citizen of the Hong Kong Special Administrative Region. In October last year, he made a fresh attempt to renounce his Singapore citizenship, and when this failed, his father filed his suit for a judicial review. In court papers filed, Mr Cheung claims the proper interpretation of the relevant provisions of the Singapore Constitution allows his son to renounce his citizenship. His lawyer Lee Chin Seon is expected to explain his client’s position when the case goes to trial. Mr Cheung is seeking a court declaration that his son is not liable for national service. He claims the requirement to do national service does not apply to a citizen by registration, and especially in the case of a minor. Mr Cheung, 56, argues that until his son reaches 21, he will not have all the rights and privileges of citizenship, and therefore cannot be held liable as a full citizen till then. His two older children are Singapore citizens and the family lives here. K.C. Vijayan Liability Hypocrisy 剝削 新加坡：未满廿一岁无权弃公民权--少年不满要求司法检讨 首页•最新・头条・国内・国际・言路•财经•地方•副刊•娱乐•体育•百格・星角攝 国际 日期：二零一一年十一月廿九日周二 作者: admin 加入书签 分享到: Google 已关闭此广告 字一 新加坡.未满21岁无权弃公民权.少年不满要求司法检讨 作者: admin (新加坡29日讯)一名在香港出世的少年要放弃新加坡公民权,可是,新加坡移民与关卡局以他未满21岁为由而拒绝受理,并提醒少年在18岁时得入伍服役;少年不满该局的决定,向高庭申请司法检讨。 为由而拒绝受理,并提醒少年在18岁时得入伍服役;少年不满该局的决定,向高庭申请司法检讨。 少年张俊逸是在本月初通过父亲张少伟(55岁)向高庭提出这项罕见的申请。他由李经雄律师代表,要求法庭检讨移民与关卡局和国防部中央人力局的决定。 欲申请免除服役 张俊逸促请法庭裁定他可以放弃新加坡公民权、他在去年向移民与关卡局表明放弃公民权的通知有效以及他无须服役。 张俊逸在下个月满16岁半,即适龄办理国民服役登记手续。他目前持有国防部发出的出国求学准证,准证在下月30日到期。 须服役。 张俊逸在下个月满16岁半,即适龄办理国民服役登记手续。他目前持有国防部发出的出国求学准证,准证在下月30日到期。 生于香港的张俊逸,因父母张少伟和梁嘉丽(51岁)在1995年1月入籍新加坡而拥有中国和新加坡双重国籍。 他的两个姐姐(目前21岁和18岁)与他父母同时成为新加坡公民。 Google 已关闭此广告 张少伟一家四口在取得新加坡国籍的两个月后回返香港居住,张俊逸在三个月后出世。后者隔年2月取得新加坡公民权,但在香港生活和求学直到2005年10岁时才来新念书。 坡公民权,但在香港生活和求学直到2005年10岁时才来新念书。 张俊逸在去年8月向香港入境事务处申请恢复中国国籍。入境事务处接受他的申请,但条件是他必须出示文件证明他已放弃新加坡国籍。 4个月后,张俊逸向新加坡移民与关卡局表明,他要放弃新加坡公民权。 21岁始有权放弃国籍 然而,移民与关卡局拒绝受理他的申请。该局回复他时引述宪法128(1)节条文说,新加坡公民必须满21岁才能放弃国籍,父母也不得代孩子作主。 移民与关卡局引述宪法128(2)节条文,提醒张俊逸在未放弃公民权前,必须与其他适龄的男性公民一样在 移民与关卡局引述宪法128(2)节条文,提醒张俊逸在未放弃公民权前,必须与其他适龄的男性公民一样在18岁时开始履行国民服役义务。 中央人力局则提议张俊逸申请延后服役,直到他满21岁放弃新加坡国籍。该局表明会考虑他的要求。 然而,张俊逸认为移民与关卡局和中央人力局对宪法解读错误,决定也“不合理和不正当”。 他指出,他是因父母入籍而获得新加坡公民权,并须在满21岁后的一年内放弃其他国籍才能享有新加坡公民的所有权利,所以他不是“百分百”的公民。因此,有关服役的宪法条文不适用于他。 不仅如此,张俊逸也说,当他在去年表明放弃新加坡公民权时未满16岁半,所以也不受限于国民服役征召法令。 李经雄律师在本月中旬把司法检讨申请书传递给代表政府的总检察长,后者有待回应。这起申请定于今天进行审前会议。 宪法专家:“有趣”申请 司法检讨未必成功 新加坡宪法专家陈有利博士受访时形容这是一起“有趣”的申请。 他指出,有关公民权的事件鲜少由法庭审理,因为没有多少人会把这类事件呈堂。 他认为,这起司法检讨申请不一定成功,因为移民与关卡局和中央人力局没有越权行事,也没有任意而为或行为不合理。 他也说,宪法128节看起来是绝对的,任何一个新加坡公民显然只能在满21岁以后才能放弃公民权。 ［终］ Zoom: G 排位を採少位(一歲三)
張俊逸 張少偉 55 51 五十 五十一歲 梁嘉麗 姐姐 21 廿一 18 十八 16 十六 1995 一九九五年 國籍 香港 聯合王國 英國 大不列顛及北愛爾蘭 護照 李經雄 ivan 律師 shyster 全職徵兵制 NSF 預備軍 NSman NSmen 《星洲日報》 18th January 2012 Wednesday The father of a Hong Kong-born teen is seeking a judicial review after the boy’s bid to renounce his Singapore citizenship was turned down. The 16-year-old — a Singapore citizen since 1996 - has been told to complete his national service and then apply again to renounce his citizenship within a year of his 21st birthday. All citizens are required to undergo national service on reaching 18, unless they are granted a deferral. This now appears to have emerged as a test case on whether a minor who is a citizen by registration has the right to renounce his nationality. At issue is whether the Singapore Constitution was correctly interpreted when the boy’s bid to renounce his citizenship was turned down, according to court papers filed by his father, Mr Cheung Sin Wai. The case is expected to focus on Articles 124(1) and 124(2) of the Constitution, which relate to citizenship, for clarification by the courts. Mr Cheung initially named the commissioner of the Immigration and Checkpoints Authority (ICA) and the commander of the Central Manpower Base, which manages national service enlistment, as the defendants. But this was later changed, and the Attorney-General is now the sole defendant. A pre-trial conference was held in the High Court on Tuesday. Mr Cheung and his wife, who have three children, became Singapore citizens in 1995. His son was registered as a citizen a year later, but in September 2010, he left for Hong Kong with a year-long exit permit. Three months later, he notified the ICA that he was renouncing his Singapore citizenship, and returned his passport and identity card. But he was informed that this would not be possible until he completed his national service. In August the same year, he applied for Chinese citizenship but was told approval was subject to renouncing his Singapore citizenship. That same month, he received a passport issued by Britain, enabling him to exercise the rights of a citizen of the Hong Kong Special Administrative Region. In October last year, he made a fresh attempt to renounce his Singapore citizenship, and when this failed, his father filed his suit for a judicial review. In court papers filed, Mr Cheung claims the proper interpretation of the relevant provisions of the Singapore Constitution allows his son to renounce his citizenship. His lawyer Lee Chin Seon is expected to explain his client’s position when the case goes to trial. Mr Cheung is seeking a court declaration that his son is not liable for national service. He claims the requirement to do national service does not apply to a citizen by registration, and especially in the case of a minor. Mr Cheung, 56, argues that until his son reaches 21, he will not have all the rights and privileges of citizenship, and therefore cannot be held liable as a full citizen till then. His two older children are Singapore citizens and the family lives here. K.C. Vijayan Liability Hypocrisy 剝削 新加坡：未满廿一岁无权弃公民权--少年不满要求司法检讨 首页•最新・头条・国内・国际・言路•财经•地方•副刊•娱乐•体育•百格・星角攝 国际 日期：二零一一年十一月廿九日周二 作者: admin 加入书签 分享到: Google 已关闭此广告 字一 新加坡.未满21岁无权弃公民权.少年不满要求司法检讨 作者: admin (新加坡29日讯)一名在香港出世的少年要放弃新加坡公民权,可是,新加坡移民与关卡局以他未满21岁为由而拒绝受理,并提醒少年在18岁时得入伍服役;少年不满该局的决定,向高庭申请司法检讨。 为由而拒绝受理,并提醒少年在18岁时得入伍服役;少年不满该局的决定,向高庭申请司法检讨。 少年张俊逸是在本月初通过父亲张少伟(55岁)向高庭提出这项罕见的申请。他由李经雄律师代表,要求法庭检讨移民与关卡局和国防部中央人力局的决定。 欲申请免除服役 张俊逸促请法庭裁定他可以放弃新加坡公民权、他在去年向移民与关卡局表明放弃公民权的通知有效以及他无须服役。 张俊逸在下个月满16岁半,即适龄办理国民服役登记手续。他目前持有国防部发出的出国求学准证,准证在下月30日到期。 须服役。 张俊逸在下个月满16岁半,即适龄办理国民服役登记手续。他目前持有国防部发出的出国求学准证,准证在下月30日到期。 生于香港的张俊逸,因父母张少伟和梁嘉丽(51岁)在1995年1月入籍新加坡而拥有中国和新加坡双重国籍。 他的两个姐姐(目前21岁和18岁)与他父母同时成为新加坡公民。 Google 已关闭此广告 张少伟一家四口在取得新加坡国籍的两个月后回返香港居住,张俊逸在三个月后出世。后者隔年2月取得新加坡公民权,但在香港生活和求学直到2005年10岁时才来新念书。 坡公民权,但在香港生活和求学直到2005年10岁时才来新念书。 张俊逸在去年8月向香港入境事务处申请恢复中国国籍。入境事务处接受他的申请,但条件是他必须出示文件证明他已放弃新加坡国籍。 4个月后,张俊逸向新加坡移民与关卡局表明,他要放弃新加坡公民权。 21岁始有权放弃国籍 然而,移民与关卡局拒绝受理他的申请。该局回复他时引述宪法128(1)节条文说,新加坡公民必须满21岁才能放弃国籍,父母也不得代孩子作主。 移民与关卡局引述宪法128(2)节条文,提醒张俊逸在未放弃公民权前,必须与其他适龄的男性公民一样在 移民与关卡局引述宪法128(2)节条文,提醒张俊逸在未放弃公民权前,必须与其他适龄的男性公民一样在18岁时开始履行国民服役义务。 中央人力局则提议张俊逸申请延后服役,直到他满21岁放弃新加坡国籍。该局表明会考虑他的要求。 然而,张俊逸认为移民与关卡局和中央人力局对宪法解读错误,决定也“不合理和不正当”。 他指出,他是因父母入籍而获得新加坡公民权,并须在满21岁后的一年内放弃其他国籍才能享有新加坡公民的所有权利,所以他不是“百分百”的公民。因此,有关服役的宪法条文不适用于他。 不仅如此,张俊逸也说,当他在去年表明放弃新加坡公民权时未满16岁半,所以也不受限于国民服役征召法令。 李经雄律师在本月中旬把司法检讨申请书传递给代表政府的总检察长,后者有待回应。这起申请定于今天进行审前会议。 宪法专家:“有趣”申请 司法检讨未必成功 新加坡宪法专家陈有利博士受访时形容这是一起“有趣”的申请。 他指出,有关公民权的事件鲜少由法庭审理,因为没有多少人会把这类事件呈堂。 他认为,这起司法检讨申请不一定成功,因为移民与关卡局和中央人力局没有越权行事,也没有任意而为或行为不合理。 他也说,宪法128节看起来是绝对的,任何一个新加坡公民显然只能在满21岁以后才能放弃公民权。 ［终］ Zoom: G 排位を採少位(一歲三)
張俊逸 張少偉 55 51 五十 五十一歲 梁嘉麗 姐姐 21 廿一 18 十八 16 十六 1995 一九九五年 國籍 香港 聯合王國 英國 大不列顛及北愛爾蘭 護照 李經雄 ivan 律師 shyster 全職徵兵制 NSF 預備軍 NSman NSmen 《星洲日報》 18th January 2012 Wednesday The father of a Hong Kong-born teen is seeking a judicial review after the boy’s bid to renounce his Singapore citizenship was turned down. The 16-year-old — a Singapore citizen since 1996 - has been told to complete his national service and then apply again to renounce his citizenship within a year of his 21st birthday. All citizens are required to undergo national service on reaching 18, unless they are granted a deferral. This now appears to have emerged as a test case on whether a minor who is a citizen by registration has the right to renounce his nationality. At issue is whether the Singapore Constitution was correctly interpreted when the boy’s bid to renounce his citizenship was turned down, according to court papers filed by his father, Mr Cheung Sin Wai. The case is expected to focus on Articles 124(1) and 124(2) of the Constitution, which relate to citizenship, for clarification by the courts. Mr Cheung initially named the commissioner of the Immigration and Checkpoints Authority (ICA) and the commander of the Central Manpower Base, which manages national service enlistment, as the defendants. But this was later changed, and the Attorney-General is now the sole defendant. A pre-trial conference was held in the High Court on Tuesday. Mr Cheung and his wife, who have three children, became Singapore citizens in 1995. His son was registered as a citizen a year later, but in September 2010, he left for Hong Kong with a year-long exit permit. Three months later, he notified the ICA that he was renouncing his Singapore citizenship, and returned his passport and identity card. But he was informed that this would not be possible until he completed his national service. In August the same year, he applied for Chinese citizenship but was told approval was subject to renouncing his Singapore citizenship. That same month, he received a passport issued by Britain, enabling him to exercise the rights of a citizen of the Hong Kong Special Administrative Region. In October last year, he made a fresh attempt to renounce his Singapore citizenship, and when this failed, his father filed his suit for a judicial review. In court papers filed, Mr Cheung claims the proper interpretation of the relevant provisions of the Singapore Constitution allows his son to renounce his citizenship. His lawyer Lee Chin Seon is expected to explain his client’s position when the case goes to trial. Mr Cheung is seeking a court declaration that his son is not liable for national service. He claims the requirement to do national service does not apply to a citizen by registration, and especially in the case of a minor. Mr Cheung, 56, argues that until his son reaches 21, he will not have all the rights and privileges of citizenship, and therefore cannot be held liable as a full citizen till then. His two older children are Singapore citizens and the family lives here. K.C. Vijayan Liability Hypocrisy 剝削 新加坡：未满廿一岁无权弃公民权--少年不满要求司法检讨 首页•最新・头条・国内・国际・言路•财经•地方•副刊•娱乐•体育•百格・星角攝 国际 日期：二零一一年十一月廿九日周二 作者: admin 加入书签 分享到: Google 已关闭此广告 字一 新加坡.未满21岁无权弃公民权.少年不满要求司法检讨 作者: admin (新加坡29日讯)一名在香港出世的少年要放弃新加坡公民权,可是,新加坡移民与关卡局以他未满21岁为由而拒绝受理,并提醒少年在18岁时得入伍服役;少年不满该局的决定,向高庭申请司法检讨。 为由而拒绝受理,并提醒少年在18岁时得入伍服役;少年不满该局的决定,向高庭申请司法检讨。 少年张俊逸是在本月初通过父亲张少伟(55岁)向高庭提出这项罕见的申请。他由李经雄律师代表,要求法庭检讨移民与关卡局和国防部中央人力局的决定。 欲申请免除服役 张俊逸促请法庭裁定他可以放弃新加坡公民权、他在去年向移民与关卡局表明放弃公民权的通知有效以及他无须服役。 张俊逸在下个月满16岁半,即适龄办理国民服役登记手续。他目前持有国防部发出的出国求学准证,准证在下月30日到期。 须服役。 张俊逸在下个月满16岁半,即适龄办理国民服役登记手续。他目前持有国防部发出的出国求学准证,准证在下月30日到期。 生于香港的张俊逸,因父母张少伟和梁嘉丽(51岁)在1995年1月入籍新加坡而拥有中国和新加坡双重国籍。 他的两个姐姐(目前21岁和18岁)与他父母同时成为新加坡公民。 Google 已关闭此广告 张少伟一家四口在取得新加坡国籍的两个月后回返香港居住,张俊逸在三个月后出世。后者隔年2月取得新加坡公民权,但在香港生活和求学直到2005年10岁时才来新念书。 坡公民权,但在香港生活和求学直到2005年10岁时才来新念书。 张俊逸在去年8月向香港入境事务处申请恢复中国国籍。入境事务处接受他的申请,但条件是他必须出示文件证明他已放弃新加坡国籍。 4个月后,张俊逸向新加坡移民与关卡局表明,他要放弃新加坡公民权。 21岁始有权放弃国籍 然而,移民与关卡局拒绝受理他的申请。该局回复他时引述宪法128(1)节条文说,新加坡公民必须满21岁才能放弃国籍,父母也不得代孩子作主。 移民与关卡局引述宪法128(2)节条文,提醒张俊逸在未放弃公民权前,必须与其他适龄的男性公民一样在 移民与关卡局引述宪法128(2)节条文,提醒张俊逸在未放弃公民权前,必须与其他适龄的男性公民一样在18岁时开始履行国民服役义务。 中央人力局则提议张俊逸申请延后服役,直到他满21岁放弃新加坡国籍。该局表明会考虑他的要求。 然而,张俊逸认为移民与关卡局和中央人力局对宪法解读错误,决定也“不合理和不正当”。 他指出,他是因父母入籍而获得新加坡公民权,并须在满21岁后的一年内放弃其他国籍才能享有新加坡公民的所有权利,所以他不是“百分百”的公民。因此,有关服役的宪法条文不适用于他。 不仅如此,张俊逸也说,当他在去年表明放弃新加坡公民权时未满16岁半,所以也不受限于国民服役征召法令。 李经雄律师在本月中旬把司法检讨申请书传递给代表政府的总检察长,后者有待回应。这起申请定于今天进行审前会议。 宪法专家:“有趣”申请 司法检讨未必成功 新加坡宪法专家陈有利博士受访时形容这是一起“有趣”的申请。 他指出,有关公民权的事件鲜少由法庭审理,因为没有多少人会把这类事件呈堂。 他认为,这起司法检讨申请不一定成功,因为移民与关卡局和中央人力局没有越权行事,也没有任意而为或行为不合理。 他也说,宪法128节看起来是绝对的,任何一个新加坡公民显然只能在满21岁以后才能放弃公民权。 ［终］ Zoom: G 排位を採少位(一歲三)
香港 舞男 李經雄 律師 shyster E-20240830-7049 E/20240830/7049 telephone +65-6391-4772 singapore police force spf report reference number 張俊逸 張少偉 55 51 五十 五十一歲 梁嘉麗 姐姐 21 廿一 18 十八 16 十六 1995 一九九五年 國籍 護照 李經雄 ivan 律師 shyster 全職徵兵制 NSF 預備軍 NSman NSmen 剝削 新加坡：未满廿一岁无权弃公民权--少年不满要求司法检讨 首页 最新 头条 国内 国际 言路 财经 地方 副刊 娱乐 体育 百格 星角攝 《星洲日报》 国际 日期：二零一一年十一月廿九日周二 作者: admin 组织 加入书签 分享到: Google 已关闭此广告 字一 新加坡.未满21岁无权弃公民权.少年不满要求司法检讨 作者: admin (新加坡29日讯)一名在香港出世的少年要放弃新加坡公民权,可是,新加坡移民与关卡局以他未满21岁为由而拒绝受理,并提醒少年在18岁时得入伍服役;少年不满该局的决定,向高庭申请司法检讨。 为由而拒绝受理,并提醒少年在18岁时得入伍服役;少年不满该局的决定,向高庭申请司法检讨。 少年张俊逸是在本月初通过父亲张少伟(55岁)向高庭提出这项罕见的申请。他由李经雄律师代表,要求法庭检讨移民与关卡局和国防部中央人力局的决定。 欲申请免除服役 张俊逸促请法庭裁定他可以放弃新加坡公民权、他在去年向移民与关卡局表明放弃公民权的通知有效以及他无须服役。 张俊逸在下个月满16岁半,即适龄办理国民服役登记手续。他目前持有国防部发出的出国求学准证,准证在下月30日到期。 须服役。 张俊逸在下个月满16岁半,即适龄办理国民服役登记手续。他目前持有国防部发出的出国求学准证,准证在下月30日到期。 生于香港的张俊逸,因父母张少伟和梁嘉丽(51岁)在1995年1月入籍新加坡而拥有中国和新加坡双重国籍。 他的两个姐姐(目前21岁和18岁)与他父母同时成为新加坡公民。 Google 已关闭此广告 张少伟一家四口在取得新加坡国籍的两个月后回返香港居住,张俊逸在三个月后出世。后者隔年2月取得新加坡公民权,但在香港生活和求学直到2005年10岁时才来新念书。 坡公民权,但在香港生活和求学直到2005年10岁时才来新念书。 张俊逸在去年8月向香港入境事务处申请恢复中国国籍。入境事务处接受他的申请,但条件是他必须出示文件证明他已放弃新加坡国籍。 4个月后,张俊逸向新加坡移民与关卡局表明,他要放弃新加坡公民权。 21岁始有权放弃国籍 然而,移民与关卡局拒绝受理他的申请。该局回复他时引述宪法128(1)节条文说,新加坡公民必须满21岁才能放弃国籍,父母也不得代孩子作主。 移民与关卡局引述宪法128(2)节条文,提醒张俊逸在未放弃公民权前,必须与其他适龄的男性公民一样在 移民与关卡局引述宪法128(2)节条文,提醒张俊逸在未放弃公民权前,必须与其他适龄的男性公民一样在18岁时开始履行国民服役义务。 中央人力局则提议张俊逸申请延后服役,直到他满21岁放弃新加坡国籍。该局表明会考虑他的要求。 然而,张俊逸认为移民与关卡局和中央人力局对宪法解读错误,决定也“不合理和不正当”。 他指出,他是因父母入籍而获得新加坡公民权,并须在满21岁后的一年内放弃其他国籍才能享有新加坡公民的所有权利,所以他不是“百分百”的公民。因此,有关服役的宪法条文不适用于他。 不仅如此,张俊逸也说,当他在去年表明放弃新加坡公民权时未满16岁半,所以也不受限于国民服役征召法令。 李经雄律师在本月中旬把司法检讨申请书传递给代表政府的总检察长,后者有待回应。这起申请定于今天进行审前会议。 宪法专家:“有趣”申请 司法检讨未必成功 新加坡宪法专家陈有利博士受访时形容这是一起“有趣”的申请。 他指出,有关公民权的事件鲜少由法庭审理,因为没有多少人会把这类事件呈堂。 他认为,这起司法检讨申请不一定成功,因为移民与关卡局和中央人力局没有越权行事,也没有任意而为或行为不合理。 他也说,宪法128节看起来是绝对的,任何一个新加坡公民显然只能在满21岁以后才能放弃公民权。 ［终］ 排位を採少位(一歲三) Wednesday, 18th January 2012 The father of a Hong Kong-born teen is seeking a judicial review after the boy’s bid to renounce his Singapore citizenship was turned down. The 16-year-old — a Singapore citizen since 1996 - has been told to complete his national service and then apply again to renounce his citizenship within a year of his 21st birthday. All citizens are required to undergo national service on reaching 18, unless they are granted a deferral. This now appears to have emerged as a test case on whether a minor who is a citizen by registration has the right to renounce his nationality. At issue is whether the Singapore Constitution was correctly interpreted when the boy’s bid to renounce his citizenship was turned down, according to court papers filed by his father, Mr Cheung Sin Wai. The case is expected to focus on Articles 124(1) and 124(2) of the Constitution, which relate to citizenship, for clarification by the courts. Mr Cheung initially named the commissioner of the Immigration and Checkpoints Authority (ICA) and the commander of the Central Manpower Base, which manages national service enlistment, as the defendants. But this was later changed, and the Attorney-General is now the sole defendant. A pre-trial conference was held in the High Court on Tuesday. Mr Cheung and his wife, who have three children, became Singapore citizens in 1995. His son was registered as a citizen a year later, but in September 2010, he left for Hong Kong with a year-long exit permit. Three months later, he notified the ICA that he was renouncing his Singapore citizenship, and returned his passport and identity card. But he was informed that this would not be possible until he completed his national service. In August the same year, he applied for Chinese citizenship but was told approval was subject to renouncing his Singapore citizenship. That same month, he received a passport issued by Britain, enabling him to exercise the rights of a citizen of the Hong Kong Special Administrative Region. In October last year, he made a fresh attempt to renounce his Singapore citizenship, and when this failed, his father filed his suit for a judicial review. In court papers filed, Mr Cheung claims the proper interpretation of the relevant provisions of the Singapore Constitution allows his son to renounce his citizenship. His lawyer Lee Chin Seon is expected to explain his client’s position when the case goes to trial. Mr Cheung is seeking a court declaration that his son is not liable for national service. He claims the requirement to do national service does not apply to a citizen by registration, and especially in the case of a minor. Mr Cheung, 56, argues that until his son reaches 21, he will not have all the rights and privileges of citizenship, and therefore cannot be held liable as a full citizen till then. His two older children are Singapore citizens and the family lives here. K.C. Vijayan
香港 舞男 李經雄 律師 shyster E-20240830-7049 E/20240830/7049 telephone +65-6391-4772 singapore police force spf report reference number 張俊逸 張少偉 55 51 五十 五十一歲 梁嘉麗 姐姐 21 廿一 18 十八 16 十六 1995 一九九五年 國籍 護照 李經雄 ivan 律師 shyster 全職徵兵制 NSF 預備軍 NSman NSmen 剝削 新加坡：未满廿一岁无权弃公民权--少年不满要求司法检讨 首页 最新 头条 国内 国际 言路 财经 地方 副刊 娱乐 体育 百格 星角攝 国际 日期：二零一一年十一月廿九日周二 加入书签 分享到: Google 已关闭此广告 字一 新加坡.未满21岁无权弃公民权.少年不满要求司法检讨 作者: admin 组织 (新加坡29日讯)一名在香港出世的少年要放弃新加坡公民权,可是,新加坡移民与关卡局以他未满21岁为由而拒绝受理,并提醒少年在18岁时得入伍服役;少年不满该局的决定,向高庭申请司法检讨。 为由而拒绝受理,并提醒少年在18岁时得入伍服役;少年不满该局的决定,向高庭申请司法检讨。 少年张俊逸是在本月初通过父亲张少伟(55岁)向高庭提出这项罕见的申请。他由李经雄律师代表,要求法庭检讨移民与关卡局和国防部中央人力局的决定。 欲申请免除服役 张俊逸促请法庭裁定他可以放弃新加坡公民权、他在去年向移民与关卡局表明放弃公民权的通知有效以及他无须服役。 张俊逸在下个月满16岁半,即适龄办理国民服役登记手续。他目前持有国防部发出的出国求学准证,准证在下月30日到期。 须服役。 张俊逸在下个月满16岁半,即适龄办理国民服役登记手续。他目前持有国防部发出的出国求学准证,准证在下月30日到期。 生于香港的张俊逸,因父母张少伟和梁嘉丽(51岁)在1995年1月入籍新加坡而拥有中国和新加坡双重国籍。 他的两个姐姐(目前21岁和18岁)与他父母同时成为新加坡公民。 Google 已关闭此广告 张少伟一家四口在取得新加坡国籍的两个月后回返香港居住,张俊逸在三个月后出世。后者隔年2月取得新加坡公民权,但在香港生活和求学直到2005年10岁时才来新念书。 坡公民权,但在香港生活和求学直到2005年10岁时才来新念书。 张俊逸在去年8月向香港入境事务处申请恢复中国国籍。入境事务处接受他的申请,但条件是他必须出示文件证明他已放弃新加坡国籍。 4个月后,张俊逸向新加坡移民与关卡局表明,他要放弃新加坡公民权。 21岁始有权放弃国籍 然而,移民与关卡局拒绝受理他的申请。该局回复他时引述宪法128(1)节条文说,新加坡公民必须满21岁才能放弃国籍,父母也不得代孩子作主。 移民与关卡局引述宪法128(2)节条文,提醒张俊逸在未放弃公民权前,必须与其他适龄的男性公民一样在 移民与关卡局引述宪法128(2)节条文,提醒张俊逸在未放弃公民权前,必须与其他适龄的男性公民一样在18岁时开始履行国民服役义务。 中央人力局则提议张俊逸申请延后服役,直到他满21岁放弃新加坡国籍。该局表明会考虑他的要求。 然而,张俊逸认为移民与关卡局和中央人力局对宪法解读错误,决定也“不合理和不正当”。 他指出,他是因父母入籍而获得新加坡公民权,并须在满21岁后的一年内放弃其他国籍才能享有新加坡公民的所有权利,所以他不是“百分百”的公民。因此,有关服役的宪法条文不适用于他。 不仅如此,张俊逸也说,当他在去年表明放弃新加坡公民权时未满16岁半,所以也不受限于国民服役征召法令。 李经雄律师在本月中旬把司法检讨申请书传递给代表政府的总检察长,后者有待回应。这起申请定于今天进行审前会议。 宪法专家:“有趣”申请 司法检讨未必成功 新加坡宪法专家陈有利博士受访时形容这是一起“有趣”的申请。 他指出,有关公民权的事件鲜少由法庭审理,因为没有多少人会把这类事件呈堂。 他认为,这起司法检讨申请不一定成功,因为移民与关卡局和中央人力局没有越权行事,也没有任意而为或行为不合理。 他也说,宪法128节看起来是绝对的,任何一个新加坡公民显然只能在满21岁以后才能放弃公民权。 ［终］ 排位を採少位(一歲三)
This information is in Canberra NOW — & YES, I KNOW who filed it!
新航六號 中正國際機場 CKS 墜機 致命 騙子 陳萬榮 彈 鋼琴 師 richard rick clements 聯合王國 國籍 英國 大不列顛 印度 DBS' CEO Piyush Gupta is unsackable even with so many mishaps. Why? Because he makes so much money for Temasek. A History Of DBS Glitches​ Singapore Airlines' ang moh VP of Public Affairs Rick Clements was heard live on CNN 31st Oct 2000, the night of the Taipei Boeing 747 crash which claimed 81 lives, telling the world, "There are no fatalities". Speaking on the meltdown of DBS' banking systems which triggered an island-wide breakdown of over 1,000 DBS and POSB automated teller machines (ATMs), chief executive Piyush Gupta said, "Actually we have very good safeguards. We have multiple redundancies built into our systems". Either these Foreign Talents are lying through their teeth, or they are clueless about the organisation that hired them. David Gledhill, DBS' head of Group Technology and Operations, even boasted, "...this is the first time a problem of this nature has occurred." Once again, white man speak with forked tongue. Straits Times has listed the ocurrences of "a problem of this nature" in today's paper: September 2000: All branch computers and 900 DBS/POSB ATMs and Nets services went on the blink for 1 1/2 hours; February 2001: All DBS ATMs, Nets services and Internet banking were knocked out at lunchtime for 45 minutes; September 2009: Computers at DBS branches went bonkers, preventing customers from withdrawing more than $2,000 or updating passbook; October 2009: DBS Internet banking services were kaput for 3 whole hours. The IT failures disrupted and inconvenienced businesses and the public. It could have been worse. Under the watch of Randolph Sullivan, Chief Executive Officer of DBS Bank (Hong Kong), 83 customer safe deposit boxes at its Mei Foo branch were removed, sent to a scrapyard and crushed in October 2004, due to "a combination of human error, inadequate project oversight and the lack of formalised procedures for safe deposit box removal". Singapore bank suffers massive IT failure​ Reuters Wednesday 7th July 2010 One of Singapore’s biggest banks suffered a major IT outage on Monday that took down its computer systems for seven hours. The outage knocked DBS Bank’s back-end computer systems offline, leaving its customers unable to withdraw cash from ATM machines on Monday morning. “We first knew of the problem at 3:00 a.m. (Singapore time) and by 10:00 a.m., all our branches and ATMs were fully operational. We are conducting a full investigation into the cause of yesterday’s problem, thus will not be in a position to comment much about the cause at this point in time,” wrote Jenny Lee, a spokeswoman for the bank, in an e-mail response to questions on Tuesday. The outage affected all of DBS’ consumer and commercial banking systems, but no data was lost during the system failure, she said. When DBS branches opened at 8:30 a.m. Monday, the bank was able to accept cash checks -- personal checks made out to ‘cash’ -- worth up to S$500 (US$359) until systems were restored, DBS said in a statement. Customers could also make cash withdrawals over the counter, and branches stayed open for an extra two hours, until 6:30 p.m. While the root cause of the outage remains uncertain, DBS is investigating the system failure with help from IBM, which runs some of the bank’s IT operations under an outsourcing contract. “The bank has multiple levels of redundancy to protect against such occurrences and this is the first time a problem of this nature has occurred. We are now conducting a full scale investigation with our main vendor IBM,” said David Gledhill, managing director and head of group technology and operations at DBS, in the statement. It wasn’t immediately clear why the bank’s backup systems didn’t prevent the outage. DBS signed a 10-year outsourcing deal with IBM valued at S$1.2 billion in November 2002. That deal included the transfer to IBM of 500 DBS IT staff based in Singapore and Hong Kong. The scope of the agreement was broad, with IBM agreeing to “provide an integrated 24/7 customer help desk support, manage many of DBS’ current applications, and provide systems management disciplines across the bank,” according to a press release announcing the deal. As part of the agreement, IBM also built new IT facilities in Hong Kong and Singapore, which used “the very latest computer technologies to further improve the processing power, security and back up capability of DBS’ IT operations,” the statement said. DBS retained direct control over many key IT functions, including IT strategy and architecture, IT security and “strategic projects,” it said. IBM was closely involved in efforts to bring DBS’ computers back online after Monday’s failure, the company said. “IBM worked with DBS immediately to restore services disrupted by an outage in the bank’s systems on Monday. IBM is committed to working with DBS on a full scale investigation and supporting the bank in providing high quality services to its customers,” IBM spokesman Alvin Lai said in an e-mail. The collapse of DBS’ IT systems caught the attention of the Monetary Authority of Singapore (MAS), the country’s central bank, which oversees the financial services industry in the Southeast Asian city-state. “As part of IT and operational risk management, banks are required to investigate promptly the causes of system breakdowns and take immediate measures to rectify system failures and restore customer services. Subsequent action is also required to strengthen the system and prevent future recurrence,” an MAS spokeswoman said via e-mail. Banks in Singapore are required to follow technology risk management and computer security guidelines issued by MAS that are designed to ensure the “robustness and resiliency” of banking and finance-related computer systems. “As part of its supervision of banks, MAS assesses banks’ compliance with these requirements, and will take appropriate supervisory action where necessary,” the spokeswoman said. पीयूष गुप्ता को गर्व होगा। 手機： +65-9752-8316 電郵： < rclements@rcapr.com > 附言：順便喚起，我知道 melvyn tan 還是妳的同胞！ 350570
Clue.
新航六號 中正國際機場 CKS 墜機 致命 騙子 陳萬榮 彈 鋼琴 師 richard rick clements 聯合王國 國籍 英國 大不列顛 印度 DBS' CEO Piyush Gupta is unsackable even with so many mishaps. Why? Because he makes so much money for Temasek. A History Of DBS Glitches​ Singapore Airlines' ang moh VP of Public Affairs Rick Clements was heard live on CNN 31st Oct 2000, the night of the Taipei Boeing 747 crash which claimed 81 lives, telling the world, "There are no fatalities". Speaking on the meltdown of DBS' banking systems which triggered an island-wide breakdown of over 1,000 DBS and POSB automated teller machines (ATMs), chief executive Piyush Gupta said, "Actually we have very good safeguards. We have multiple redundancies built into our systems". Either these Foreign Talents are lying through their teeth, or they are clueless about the organisation that hired them. David Gledhill, DBS' head of Group Technology and Operations, even boasted, "...this is the first time a problem of this nature has occurred." Once again, white man speak with forked tongue. Straits Times has listed the ocurrences of "a problem of this nature" in today's paper: September 2000: All branch computers and 900 DBS/POSB ATMs and Nets services went on the blink for 1 1/2 hours; February 2001: All DBS ATMs, Nets services and Internet banking were knocked out at lunchtime for 45 minutes; September 2009: Computers at DBS branches went bonkers, preventing customers from withdrawing more than $2,000 or updating passbook; October 2009: DBS Internet banking services were kaput for 3 whole hours. The IT failures disrupted and inconvenienced businesses and the public. It could have been worse. Under the watch of Randolph Sullivan, Chief Executive Officer of DBS Bank (Hong Kong), 83 customer safe deposit boxes at its Mei Foo branch were removed, sent to a scrapyard and crushed in October 2004, due to "a combination of human error, inadequate project oversight and the lack of formalised procedures for safe deposit box removal". Singapore bank suffers massive IT failure​ Reuters Wednesday 7th July 2010 One of Singapore’s biggest banks suffered a major IT outage on Monday that took down its computer systems for seven hours. The outage knocked DBS Bank’s back-end computer systems offline, leaving its customers unable to withdraw cash from ATM machines on Monday morning. “We first knew of the problem at 3:00 a.m. (Singapore time) and by 10:00 a.m., all our branches and ATMs were fully operational. We are conducting a full investigation into the cause of yesterday’s problem, thus will not be in a position to comment much about the cause at this point in time,” wrote Jenny Lee, a spokeswoman for the bank, in an e-mail response to questions on Tuesday. The outage affected all of DBS’ consumer and commercial banking systems, but no data was lost during the system failure, she said. When DBS branches opened at 8:30 a.m. Monday, the bank was able to accept cash checks -- personal checks made out to ‘cash’ -- worth up to S$500 (US$359) until systems were restored, DBS said in a statement. Customers could also make cash withdrawals over the counter, and branches stayed open for an extra two hours, until 6:30 p.m. While the root cause of the outage remains uncertain, DBS is investigating the system failure with help from IBM, which runs some of the bank’s IT operations under an outsourcing contract. “The bank has multiple levels of redundancy to protect against such occurrences and this is the first time a problem of this nature has occurred. We are now conducting a full scale investigation with our main vendor IBM,” said David Gledhill, managing director and head of group technology and operations at DBS, in the statement. It wasn’t immediately clear why the bank’s backup systems didn’t prevent the outage. DBS signed a 10-year outsourcing deal with IBM valued at S$1.2 billion in November 2002. That deal included the transfer to IBM of 500 DBS IT staff based in Singapore and Hong Kong. The scope of the agreement was broad, with IBM agreeing to “provide an integrated 24/7 customer help desk support, manage many of DBS’ current applications, and provide systems management disciplines across the bank,” according to a press release announcing the deal. As part of the agreement, IBM also built new IT facilities in Hong Kong and Singapore, which used “the very latest computer technologies to further improve the processing power, security and back up capability of DBS’ IT operations,” the statement said. DBS retained direct control over many key IT functions, including IT strategy and architecture, IT security and “strategic projects,” it said. IBM was closely involved in efforts to bring DBS’ computers back online after Monday’s failure, the company said. “IBM worked with DBS immediately to restore services disrupted by an outage in the bank’s systems on Monday. IBM is committed to working with DBS on a full scale investigation and supporting the bank in providing high quality services to its customers,” IBM spokesman Alvin Lai said in an e-mail. The collapse of DBS’ IT systems caught the attention of the Monetary Authority of Singapore (MAS), the country’s central bank, which oversees the financial services industry in the Southeast Asian city-state. “As part of IT and operational risk management, banks are required to investigate promptly the causes of system breakdowns and take immediate measures to rectify system failures and restore customer services. Subsequent action is also required to strengthen the system and prevent future recurrence,” an MAS spokeswoman said via e-mail. Banks in Singapore are required to follow technology risk management and computer security guidelines issued by MAS that are designed to ensure the “robustness and resiliency” of banking and finance-related computer systems. “As part of its supervision of banks, MAS assesses banks’ compliance with these requirements, and will take appropriate supervisory action where necessary,” the spokeswoman said. पीयूष गुप्ता को गर्व होगा। 手機： +65-9752-8316 電郵： < rclements@rcapr.com > 附言：順便喚起，我知道 melvyn tan 還是妳的同胞！ 350570
Anyway, Yours Truly just acknowledged the “spf” statement — I’d better inform Canberra. UPDATE: DONE!
Okay, for the curious, it was the Tanglin Police Division. Inquistive which is currently on my tail Wednesday, 6th April 1960 சுப்பிரமணியம் ஈஸ்வரன் Stanislas Houston 2 Two months ago The plot thickens. Iswaran daughter migrate to safeguard his overseas hidden spoils. Wonder how much he kope i.e. secure for himself, the charge paper only a per-cent percentage of the full amount. Up-vote 76 Down-vote Reply Share mach8mc • 2 Two months ago “Under Article 135(1)(b) of the Singapore Constitution, a citizen may be deprived of citizenship if they have, while aged 18 or over and after Wednesday, 6th April 1960, applied for or used a foreign passport.” I have already said many times that all the elites and cronies’ children hold multiple passports, especially the United States of America (USA) i.e. the US and Australia. While they reap millions from daft sinkies in a crony capitalist renter state, they prepare their exit & stash. Up-vote 26 Down-vote Reply Share u/smile_politely avatar smile politely 2 month ago Not just elites. For many, sinkie passport is just for convenience, not for security. Usually to jump over better passport, and in many cases, people who do that hold it until they get caught. Up-vote 7 Down-vote Reply Share Edited 2 months ago Profile Badge for the Achievement Top 1% Commenter Top 1% Commenter Was not his trial affected too, because he needed to help his son settle down overseas? Up-vote 13 Down-vote Reply Share u/I-am-rather-big avatar I-am-rather-big 2 Two months ago All the rats leaving the ship after the feather light strokes on the wrist u/ArthurCurryWayne avatar Arthur Curry Wayne 2 Two months ago At the moment no proof that she is சுப்பிரமணியம் ஈஸ்வரன்’s daughter. But seems like Monisha Catherine might have acquired Australian citizenship (passport) at some point. Maybe after studying overseas in Australia. Perhaps
元首 女王伊莉莎白 伊麗莎白二世陛下一九五三年六月二日星期二 加冕時佩戴聖愛德華皇冠 帝國 國王查爾斯三世以王儲查爾斯出席香港政權交接儀式 作為 《中華人民共和國政府和大不列顛及北愛爾蘭聯合王國政府關於香港問題的聯合聲明》 起草完成日：一九八四年九月廿六日，週三 簽署日：一九八四年十二月十九日，週三 經簽字國批准，並互換批准書 草稿 日期 多重 國籍 公民權 或 護照 為了個人的方便 私人 Yes, many Hong Kong residents 香港人 居民 中國 who possess Australian & Canadian passports especially younger individuals males retain them for personal convenience flexibility reasons travel convenience easier travel, including especially those with restrictive visa tourism employment business residency permits career opportunities beneficial career advancement higher education business opportunities safety net political uncertainty unrest political landscape increasing influence of China 北京 possessing at least Australian Canadian passports simplify process provide more options choices lifestyle as well as cultural connections some individuals personal family ties distant nuclear immediate extended family members relatives residing overseas easier maintain familial connections & travel for vacations leisure holidays diversification holding or possessing multiple passports citizenships form of risk management providing choices options as well as flexibility in uncertain times epoch world conflict convenience main significant factor political ideological reasons dissenting voices seek refuge overseas abroad United States of America (USA) 1 2 3 4 5 6 British Colony Dependency Nationals 澳門 葡萄牙 毆後聯盟 國籍 公民 護照 Is not media many rich i.e. affluent or wealthy 州府仔 JHK remain as permanent residents (PR) — i.e. they still technically are foreigners even though taking, i.e. earning in SGD for decades but never ever wanted to be Singaporean, i.e. convert to citizenship? Status Quo compared to MYR 國際套匯 Arbitraj Antarabangsa These are what national service (NS) and Singapore defence protecting and enriching while many citizen ORD (operationally ready date) jobless & no home, ironic? Mandatory full-time conscription (NSF) lifelong reservist liability i.e. NSman or NSmen. Homelessness Dependency People are just “gaming” the system here as well as leech as much & watch our national service show national day parade (ndp) yearly? Individualistic, vested, self-centred interests fine no incarceration Similar as super rich 王明星 JHK 州府仔 permanent resident who corrupted one of Singaporean minister? JHK PR 永久居民 ong beng seng Australian Passports Wife Spouse Sons Daughters Exploitation Trail 馬國 大馬 大便 馬來西亞 聯邦 Singapore government even take care of permanent residents (PRs) — who still technically are foreigners — so well by giving ActiveSG $$ budgeted from Singapore’s Finance Ministry ? Really care a lot for foreigners? Brazen hypocrisy hypocrite சுப்பிரமணியம் எஸ் ஈஸ்வரன் Trial காசிவிஸ்வநாதன் கா கே சண்முகம் city not country doctor & bastard & father as well as paternal uncle sell-out ஜனில் ஆருஷா புதுச்சேரி 剝削 法律空隙 漏洞

《加菲貓》，一九七九年七月廿一日，週六 盧政平 Dear Brother-Cum-Expert-In-Everything-Especially-The-World’s-Biggest-Continent considering what you know as well as i do, kindly therefore ∴ inform me if you require any of my strong-arming! Because ∵ 亞洲 剝削

DEAR BROTHER — to conclude — thank you very much for making me PROUD of MY CONTEMPORARY (EMPHASIS MINE!) HEAD OF STATE!


 
 
 

Comments

Commenting on this post isn't available anymore. Contact the site owner for more info.
Donate with PayPal
Donate with PayPal
Donate with PayPal
bottom of page