NS Deferment for Sportsmen

Mr Darryl David asked the Minister for Defence (a) what are the criteria that are used to determine whether a sportsman can be deferred from National Service to pursue his sporting growth and development; (b) whether there are different criteria used to assess the potential of sportsmen who are taking part in sports where success is not easily measured using quantitative benchmarks; and (c) whether there are different criteria used for individual sportsmen and those participating in team sports and, if so, what are the criteria used for individuals participating in team sports.

Mr Darryl David asked the Minister for Defence whether the Government can consider deferring National Service for outstanding young male Singaporeans who have the potential to accomplish significant successes in fields other than sports if those successful achievements can also bring international fame and recognition for Singapore.

Mr Sitoh Yih Pin asked the Minister for Defence what are the criteria for a young outstanding athlete in a team sport to be granted deferment from National Service.

Ms Joan Pereira asked the Minister for Defence whether the Ministry will conduct a study to review its criteria for NS deferment for sporting talent, especially in light of more young Singaporeans showing potential and making their mark in regional and international sports.

Mr Muhamad Faisal Bin Abdul Manap asked the Minister for Defence (a) whether National Service deferments can be considered for team sports and not only for individual sports; (b) what documents and supporting evidence are required to meet the criteria for deferment; (c) what consultation is held with direct and supporting parties in evaluating deferment applications; (d) what types of cases does the Ministry deem to be exceptional; and (e) when was the deferment policy last reviewed and when will it be next reviewed.

Mr Speaker, I thank Members for their questions. It allows MINDEF to explain our policies. Singapore's founding leaders knew the strict conditions that National Service (NS) would impose on its citizens when they passed the National Service (Amendment) Bill. This was 51 years ago and the Enlistment Act in 1970. In 1984, just as he was about to retire, a reflective Dr Goh Keng Swee acknowledged it plain and simple, "National Service imposes (not only) a great sacrifice of time and money on the young men called up." But Dr Goh followed with the reason why this sacrifice was called for and why NS was crucial to our nation's survival. I continue, quote, Dr Goh's words, "deep in his heart, the average Singapore Citizen knows the danger he faces are real and not hypothetical, and that there is a need to defend ourselves."

The Appellate High Court also brought their minds to bear on our NS policy, just as recently as 2017, last year. This was during an appeal on the sentencing of NS defaulters. Their written judgment spelt out the reasons why more stringent sentencing benchmarks were justified but those same reasons lie at the heart of what various Members of Parliament (MPs) asked today – Dr Lim Wee Kiak, Mr Darryl David, Mr Sitoh Yih Pin, Ms Joan Pereira, Mr Muhamad Faisal Abdul Manap, and Dr Intan Mokhtar in her Question for Written Answer. In various forms, they asked these questions: how strict is this requirement for every male to serve his NS when required? What exceptions or flexibility can be given?

It was a landmark decision, presided over by the Chief Justice. The Appellate High Court referred to Deputy Prime Minister Teo Chee Hean's Ministerial Statement given in 2006 to this House, when he was Defence Minister. That Ministerial Statement, coupled with the written judgment of the Appellate High Court, illuminates the fundamentals on which our NS policy is based, that we must not unwittingly weaken lest we undo this nation’s foundations. I urge all Members to read them. It is crucial. The judges opined that, "In practical terms, what the three fundamental principles of national security, universality and equity mean is that in order to ensure Singapore's national survival, every male Singaporean must serve NS and at the time he is required to under the (Enlistment) Act, without regard to his personal convenience and considerations. When a person refuses to serve NS at the time that he is required to and instead returns to serve at a time of his own choosing, or worse, at an age when he can no longer serve, his actions strike at the very core of the principles of national security, universality and equity."

Thirteen NS defaulters were prosecuted after the new sentencing framework was established last year. In Court, in every case, each of them gave reasons why he did not enlist as required. Some wanted to complete their university degree first before NS. Others said they had to support their families. But in every case, in every judgment, the Courts dismissed these personal reasons, convicted and sentenced them to jail because, harsh as it is, the Enlistment Act is blind to "personal convenience and considerations", no matter how talented the individual, no matter how exceptional his circumstances. That is the core of the Enlistment Act. The critical need for a strong defence puts aside personal pursuits and mandates that each liable male performs his NS when required. This is the law our founding leaders and subsequent leaders passed in this House. We may have forgotten it or diluted it, but the Enlistment Act stands.

The written judgment noted that everyone was asked to do his "fair share". "This entails every citizen who is required to serve NS making sacrifices or postponing individual goals to serve the nation when the nation needs his service". The sum of it – these arguments spell out in unequivocal terms the NS obligations for every Singaporean male.

So, deferment cannot be for the individual, no matter how talented, to pursue his own interests or career. In other words, because I am so exceptional in talent, I deserve to be deferred. This is not the Enlistment Act. No matter how talented, and even if it vicariously brings credit or fame to Singapore because that would be fundamentally wrong and goes against the core principle of equity.

The Enlistment Act is blind to talent, personal considerations, personal circumstances.

Some Singaporeans have voiced the same opinions over Mr Davis' application. I assume Members filed these questions as a result of that. Mr Suresh Nair, who wrote to our feedback unit and said this, "Let this Davis case be the right and timely reminder of the need for absolute fairness in applying laws regarding NS deferment". He has understood this.

Therefore, to preserve equity for all National Servicemen, MINDEF will only defer individuals very selectively if their deferment serves Singapore's interest first and foremost, never their own. That is the only basis. This was the only basis to defer three sportsmen, swimmers Joseph Schooling and Quah Zheng Wen, and sailor Maximilian Soh, from NS so that they could train and compete in the Olympics. The sportsmen who were deferred, knew this because clear expectations were laid out when deferment was given. We discussed it with the Ministry of Culture, Community and Youth (MCCY) on the standards required for their training. Neither was deferment open-ended nor unconditional. They will have to return to serve NS, and if they do not meet the standards agreed upon, deferment will be curtailed. These strict conditions are necessary because even for these individuals who can bring glory to Singapore, there are detractors, who think it is unfair for anyone to be deferred. Mr T Ng wrote to MINDEF, “Please be fair to all Singaporean males, who spent years serving NS. Every Singaporean male’s career is important from his own point of view.”

Disruption for individuals after they are enlisted for NS follows the same principles and is also given only for national reasons. We disrupt medical students to complete their medical studies because we need them to serve as Medical Officers during their NS to take care of their fellow soldiers. It is not a personal career choice. We need them. It is not an entitlement, and once the reasons are no longer valid, the disruption will end. No discussions. For example, we previously allowed overseas medical students to disrupt, but this was stopped in 1992, when we could produce enough doctors locally. You can appeal, but we will just say "no", because we have enough. Similarly, dental students were not disrupted after 1989, as there was no need for NS Dental Officers. And for transparency, MINDEF publishes a full list of all medical students who are disrupted every year.

Having stated the general principles, let me explain why the application by Mr Harvey Davis for his son's deferment was rejected even though MINDEF recognised his son, Mr Ben Davis' achievement in obtaining a senior contract with Fulham Football Club (FC).

First, Mr Ben Davis is playing for Fulham FC as an English national, not a Singaporean Citizen. MINDEF is not privy to the contract signed between them, but we assume this published information is correct and that the father must have his reasons for doing so.

Second, Mr Harvey Davis has consistently refused to indicate when his son would return to serve NS, if deferred. The father replied to MCCY, Sport Singapore (SportSG) and Football Association of Singapore (FAS), stating, "We are unable to commit to a date for his return should he be playing professional football in the United Kingdom or Europe. In addition, it is also a possibility that Ben could be offered a new two-year contract in 2019 after the first year of his pro contract just like he has been offered a new two-year pro contract halfway through his two-year scholarship contract. Or he could be sent out on loan or sold to another club. There are a lot of variables all dependent on his development and progression."

Third, if he was not granted deferment, the father indicated that Mr Ben Davis would still proceed to sign the contract, and he has done so. The reason given by the father was that his son would only return to fulfil his NS commitment if he is unsuccessful in his professional career. In fact, Mr Harvey Davis went further after MINDEF rejected the application – that he would consider the option for his son to renounce his Singapore citizenship in order to pursue his career.

The father's responses made clear his intent for his son to pursue a professional football career to the fullest. If Mr Ben Davis will not give up his senior contract, which he is now offered, which provides for an allowance of a few hundred pounds a week, to serve his NS, it is even more unlikely that he will return to serve NS if he subsequently gets offered a contract worth many times more. And if he is not given a further contract with Fulham FC, the father has said that he may find other clubs which his son can be loaned to.

The application by Mr Harvey Davis for his son’s deferment is to further his son’s professional career first and to the longest extent possible. He has been quite open about this. And you would have read what he said. Singapore and her interests, including his son's NS obligations, are secondary considerations, if at all. There has been no indication, commitment or plans as to how Mr Ben Davis would help football standards in Singapore, if deferred. Mr Harvey Davis has urged MINDEF to approve deferment for his son so that it would serve as an inspiration, he tells us, for the 1,000 students registered with his company Junior Soccer School and League Singapore (JSSL Singapore), 500 or so who are local. For your information, JSSL Singapore is a youth football club and academy business run by Mr Harvey Davis and advertises itself as having links to Fulham FC.

MINDEF could not find any valid grounds to approve the application for deferment by Mr Harvey Davis for his son. There is no commitment to serve Singapore or our national interests. To grant deferment to Mr Ben Davis to pursue his personal development and professional career would be unfair to the many others who have served their NS dutifully as required, and not at a time of their choosing. It would also erode the basis on which our Courts have upheld the Enlistment Act passed by Parliament and punished those for not fulfilling their NS liabilities but instead pursue their own personal concerns and careers.

As a writer, Mr Patrick Tan Siong Kuan, wrote to The Straits Times Forum, "The defence of our country cannot be a matter of serving when it is most convenient. It is a responsibility that every man must take seriously when called upon, regardless of race, family connections or financial status. It takes personal sacrifice and putting the country before self. Otherwise, there will be no Singapore tomorrow."

Mr Suresh Nair who wrote to the MINDEF Feedback Unit said this, "If Davis is proud of his red passport, he must do what every Singapore teenager does, to dutifully observe the National Service obligations."

I know it must be difficult for a 17-year-old, Mr Ben Davis, to receive such public attention. It was never MINDEF's intent, but we had to respond to his father’s claims to the media to explain to Members of Parliament and Singaporeans the basis of our decision on this crucial national policy.

I have dealt with the application by Mr Harvey Davis for his son. Let me now address the important issue that Members of Parliament have asked – can we and how do we achieve sporting excellence, including for team sports, if National Service duties are to be fulfilled? I think that was the second thing most Members asked. National Service does require sacrifices, certainly personal ones, but performing one’s National Service duties and pursuing national aspirations for sports excellence need not be mutually exclusive.

Many talented sportsmen have served National Service as required and yet, at the same time, raised the level of their own skills and the teams they played with. To MINDEF's knowledge, there are three other footballers who have also been talent-spotted to take part in trials for professional leagues overseas. All three have completed their National Service as required – Saifullah Akbar, and Ikhsan and Irfan Fandi. In fact, Saifullah Akbar and Ikhsan Fandi asked to be enlisted early, presumably so that they could complete their NS first to pursue their professional careers.

Prior to enlisting, Saifullah played for the Under-16 national team and he was actually spotted by a professional Australian club at age 16 but he went ahead to enlist for NS. During their National Service, Irfan and Ikhsan trained and played for the Under-22 national team during the 2017 Southeast Asian (SEA) Games. They were supported by the Singapore Armed Forces (SAF) and Home Team. Irfan and Ikhsan are now playing for the Young Lions in the Singapore Premier League and representing Singapore in regional football competitions. I understand Irfan has gone for trials with European clubs, including an upcoming trial with Sporting Braga, and Saifullah and Ikhsan are slated to follow suit at CD Tenerife and Braga. I am not a football fan, so these clubs are quite foreign to me, but you would know it, football fans out there. This is a good sign for football in Singapore and talented footballers.

Talented footballers, Ben Davis included, can emulate the example of Irfan, Saifullah and Ikhsan to complete their National Service duties as required and also advance their professional football careers. In fact, Saifullah Akbar will finish his National Service today and he is going to try out for a European club. You may have read his interviews, they asked him, "How did you feel when you were called up for National Service?" He said, "I tried to have a positive attitude. I told myself that army training will strengthen me. And now that I have finished NS, I can go on to pursue my dreams". For him, it was never a choice that he had to make not to fulfil his National Service obligations like everyone else. He said, "I had to train harder" but he kept a positive attitude. That is the kind of example we want young Singaporeans to emulate.

For the recent SEA Games in 2015 and 2017, MINDEF supported those competing, whether they were competing individually or as a team. We adjusted some enlistment dates for National Servicemen, so that they could participate in the Games first and enlist later. This included some footballers. Those who were already enlisted were given time off to train and maintain their peak performance. For the upcoming Asian Games later this month, so far, 10 of our National Servicemen have been given a short postponement of their enlistment of a few weeks, or if they have been enlisted, they have been given time off to train for the Games. This includes a member of the Water Polo team who clinched their 27th straight SEA Games Gold last year. We wish all these sportsmen every success and hope that they can continue to do well for Singapore in the Asian Games and beyond.

MINDEF has done more. Beyond these provisions, we have offered disruption to Full-time National Servicemen (NSFs) competing in these games. But very few have chosen to disrupt, presumably because they are able to train adequately in the SAF.

These many examples show that MINDEF has exercised flexibility towards sportsmen competing in team sports, a question asked by Dr Intan Mokhtar, Mr Muhamad Faisal and others. But we have done so without transgressing the fundamentals of National Service and still maintaining equity for all National Servicemen. MINDEF will work with MCCY, SportSG and other relevant agencies through various pathways that can allow sportsmen to do well and still fulfil their National Service obligations, whether it is individual or team sports.

Mr Speaker, let me thank the Minister for the very, very long and elaborate explanation. I think we all agree that National Service is pivotal and essential to our national security.

I would like to just seek a clarification from the Minister now. Currently, is there a rising trend in terms of application for deferment or disruption for NS with regard to sports excellence over the last few years? That is one.

Two, if Ben Davis had given a date to say that he would return, would MINDEF consider his deferment?

Mr Speaker, as Member of Parliament Dr Lim Wee Kiak noted, I have given a long reply. Because this is crucial to state the fundamentals of our National Service policy and from that, whether deferment or disruption can be given. We have to understand that our Courts have upheld it. I said, after the revision of the sentencing benchmarks, 13 defaulters went to jail. So, the Courts take it very seriously and I know Members here, too.

The Member asked specifically whether there has been a trend in increased applications. I do not have the figures but I do not think so. What MINDEF has done is to, on its own, work with MCCY and SportSG to increase flexibility, and I gave some details in terms of adjusting enlistment dates, disruptions, time off. And the fact that we have fewer people disrupting or taking up the offers to disrupt indicates to me that they probably have weighed what they wanted to do and did not see the need to disrupt.

Dr Lim Wee Kiak asked a hypothetical question: if someone like Mr Davis had said that they would come back, would it have affected our judgement? I have spent a long time explaining how we decide. If you come back to serve your NS, it is your duty. But the main considerations are: is there a national interest? It can never be for personal pursuits, it must be for national interest, first and foremost.

In the last 15 years, we have agreed to long-term deferments for three sportsmen who met that, and we will continue to keep to those standards so that we can be fair to other National Servicemen who do their NS dutifully, who put aside their own careers to do NS, as well as not undermine the Court's basis for sentencing those who default their National Service.

I thank the Minister for the clarification. I just wanted to clarify two further points.

First, I understand that Ben Davis was called up to play for Singapore but he was never capped, which meant he was never fielded for Singapore. But is it correct that all those who, in fact, played for Singapore have found a way to do their National Service duties alongside representing the country? That is the first question.

Second, even where national athletes are deferred, is it always pegged to representing the country at a specific game, for example, rather than just open-ended?

Mr Speaker, I am not privy to all the facts for Mr Davis – or MINDEF is not privy to all the facts – as I understand it. By the Fédération Internationale de Football Association (FIFA) rules, he has not played for Singapore. So, he is still free to choose which country he wants to play for. FIFA rules are quite interesting, and this is from my understanding; I stand corrected, but you can only choose one country for the rest of your life. That particular shirt you wear can never be changed. Even if you change your citizenship, you can only represent one country. In that sense, I think they have taken a particular philosophy.

The question is: do you peg those deferred? The key consideration is national interest. There is a misconception that you can be deferred if you are exceptionally talented. That is not the Enlistment Act. How do you decide between one who is exceptionally talented versus another with exceptional circumstances? Someone who is poor who needs to work to support his family because the parents are sick. From the Court's point of view, they have ruled that personal considerations – put aside. That has been the basis and I think that is correct.

Now, obviously, you need some talent, exceptional talent, to be able to compete and bring glory to the country. That is a given. We judge it on that basis. It is never easy, it is not a science. We will consider each case with all the facts and make a decision and tell the public, if not satisfy the majority of National Servicemen, who put aside personal considerations to do their National Service duties.

I thank the Minister for the reply. I think we all agree on the critical importance of National Service and the sanctity of serving the country. I have a couple of supplementary questions, Mr Speaker.

First of all, will the Minister or MINDEF be prepared to consider sports that perhaps cannot be so quantitatively assessed? For example, should a Singaporean sportsman one day win the Australian Junior Open Tennis Championship and have a real possibility of achieving success on a global stage, thereby playing under the Singapore flag, would we be able to consider something like that?

My second question is, would we be able to consider outstanding achievement in activities other than sports, say, in performing arts or perhaps even in music?

Dr Ng Eng Hen: The answer is yes, if it satisfies the criteria that I talked about, that we maintain equity for all other National Servicemen, and that it serves the national interest, never their own. The first example the Member gave was that he competes in tennis and then he decides he wants to be a professional tennis player before he comes back, obviously, that will affect our considerations.

The second question is outstanding achievements. Yes, in fact, we have. We have gone on record to say that we have deferred some very exceptional musicians. And as I have said, it is not a science and, for the cases that we have deferred, they went on to their development and enlisted either at the same time or very soon after their cohorts were also enlisted. So, there was equity maintained. Similarly, for academic. I know that we have on record somebody who entered university in his teens but completed his university education at the same time that his cohorts went to the army and he went in together with them. So, those considerations are maintained.

So, the key considerations are how do we maintain equity for all National Servicemen, and for national interests.

Mr Pritam Singh (Aljunied): I thank the Minister for the clarification on the deferment policy. I asked a question on deferment during the Committee of Supply in 2012 and I asked my question in relation to the Olympics because there is this constant reference to a high watermark sporting event before deferment is considered by MINDEF, or at least that is the popular perception. In the 2012 reply given by the Minister, it was stated that 13 athletes were deferred for a period of two to six months to participate in the 2011 SEA Games and the 2010 Asian Games. Can I confirm that, with the Minister's statement, there is no change in the policy for NS deferment?

The second question actually is picking up from what Dr Lim Wee Kiak said about a two-year contract. For example, if a Singaporean commits to return to performing his NS after his cohort has been called up, let us, say, at the age of 18, and that individual says, "At the age of 20, no matter how this training contract goes, I will come back to serve", would MINDEF allow deferment in that particular case?

Dr Ng Eng Hen: Let me answer the first question, which is more factual. If I said so in Parliament, it must be so. The Hansard says so and there is no change in our deferment policy. On the fundamental principles, we must maintain equity for all National Servicemen, and it must be for national interest, never for personal interest. So, that has not changed. In fact, it has not changed over the time that MINDEF has administered this policy.

On the second question, my reply to Dr Lim Wee Kiak is that I really do not want to engage in hypothetical circumstances. We assess the individual as it is. It is hypothetical, indeed. If you are not willing to come back to serve your NS when you are earning a few hundred pounds a week, how is MINDEF to believe that you would come back when you are earning many times more? So, that has to come into consideration. And also he has to serve the purposes for deferment based on our current policy.