SINGAPORE — A parliamentarian’s proposal to levy a financial duty on Permanent Residents (PRs) and foreigners in lieu of serving National Service (NS) — with the tax proceeds going towards a trust fund that will directly benefit NSmen — has sparked vigorous debate with some netizens lashing out against the practicality of the suggestion, even as other Members of Parliament (MPs) said they were generally receptive to what they saw as a “novel” suggestion.

Some observers, however, cautioned against the proposal, citing concerns over putting a price tag on NS and the impact on Singapore’s ability to attract talent.

In his Facebook post early yesterday, MP Hri Kumar Nair proposed to impose additional income and property tax on PRs and foreigners via a “National Defence Duty”, to address “a current imbalance”.

Pointing to the “sacrifice all Singaporean males make” in serving NS, Mr Nair argued that there is also “a significant economic cost we pay”, as he cited men lagging two years behind in terms of career prospects, pay and job experience, among others.

“The thing is everyone living in Singapore benefits from this sacrifice — including PRs and foreigners,” he said. “In short, we do duty, they pay a duty. The rationale is simple — since PRs and foreigners cannot contribute manpower to our SAF and Home Team, they make a financial contribution to the protection and preservation of their lives, families, jobs, investments and properties.”

PRs and foreigners who have sons liable for NS will be exempted, Mr Nair suggested. Those who send their sons away before enlistment will have to pay back taxes and penalties over and above the bond which is forfeited, he added.

“Taxation is not a fool-proof way of addressing this thorny issue, but at the very least, it ensures that everyone contributes to the defence and security of Singapore,” said Mr Nair, who chairs the Government Parliamentary Committee for Law and Home Affairs.

“Besides, I believe that if foreigners and PRs see that their financial contributions directly benefit NSmen, they will view the duty as less of a penalty, and more of an opportunity to make a meaningful contribution towards the security they enjoy thanks to our NSmen.”

Speaking to TODAY, Mr Nair, who previously penned a post on scrapping the Primary School Leaving Examination for other alternatives, explained that his latest post was intended to generate feedback and was not meant to suggest “anything harsh or punitive”.

He added that foreigners who earn a low income would not be targeted.

“This is really for those who are better off,” said Mr Nair, who intends to raise the proposal in the coming Budget debates.

Fellow MP Inderjit Singh backed Mr Nair’s suggestion and disagreed that the proposal might turn talent away. “I think some people may not mind paying a bit more tax for the rest of the infrastructure that we have, the connectivity that we have, the security that we have. So I think tax alone should not be a worry for attracting people,” Mr Singh said.

In his post, Mr Nair said that, even with an increase, the Republic’s tax rates will still be among “the lowest of developed countries”.

Academics Leong Chang-Hoong and Tan Ern Ser, meanwhile, cautioned against monetising the value of NS. Dr Leong stated: “We should not ... put a price tag to say that if you pay this amount of money you can get away with that.”

Such a view, however, “misreads the intent and substance of the proposal”, clarified Mr Nair in another Facebook post last night. “I will deal with this in detail at a later date.”

Other observers meanwhile felt that to collect a specific tax for defence would be difficult to implement as taxes collected by the state go into a central fund to be used for a wide range of purposes, which includes defence.

While he agreed that more could be done “in order to ensure that citizens come first”, MP Zaqy Mohamad cautioned that the proposal might project a very different image of Singapore”.

Former Nominated MP Paulin Straughan disagreed with the proposal. Noting that manpower shortages are hitting several developed Asian countries, Associate Professor Straughan said she expects “very keen competition especially for skilled labour in certain sectors” by 2030.

“Let’s be cautious about the tone that we take,” she added.

“Yes, it is important for us to distinguish Singaporeans from non-Singaporeans, because citizenship should matter in any country. But in doing so we have to be careful … the tone with which we introduce it is important and also how we differentiate should not stand out from what other countries do so much so that we stand out as a place where if you go there as a foreigner you will be short-changed.”