从积极角度看陈万荣案

　　虽然我国法庭每年平均处理五到二十起逃兵事件，但像钢琴家陈万荣的案件一样引发逃兵议题的，实属罕见。不过，深一层看，这个议题的出现，其实有其更深层的意含。

　　最令公众人士，尤其是服过兵役的公民不满的，应该是陈万荣所受到的罚款处分。不少人质疑，他是不是因为名成利就而获得“优待”和轻罚？当然不是。

　　11月24日国防部的第一次回应，并没有消除疑虑，反而是激发了更多的情绪反应。国防部投函报章，一般性地指出，严正看待逃避服役事件，而逃役者也须面对后果，受到法律制裁，按《征召法令》，可被罚款高达五千元，或监禁不超过三年，或两者兼施，至于实际的处罚，由法庭决定。

　　这样的回应显然比民众在这个课题上的情绪慢了半拍。有人要国防部表明立场，到底逃役者是该罚款还是坐监？11月30日，国防部不得不再次回应，透露该部正在检讨《征召法令》，在检讨完毕后，将给予公众完整的回复。

　　有关方面接着也才透露，陈万荣的罚款数额是三千元，同时，当年他父母保送他出国的三万元保证金也被没收。随后则是国防部长张志贤在一个公开场合回答记者的问题，表示当局正在检讨有关法令，他个人倾向于对明知故犯的逃役者处以监刑。

　　一场风波总算暂时平息。但是，重要的疑问还是没有解开。最令许多人疑惑的，是《征召法令》中明明有规定，对逃役者可以处以最高五千元罚款，或最高三年监禁，或两者兼施。但为什么法庭一路来都只选择罚款了事，甚至只罚三千元，而不动用监刑？这是出于什么考量

　　有报道还说，曾有逃役者在地方法庭被处监，但上诉后都改为罚款，这是由于受到高庭判决先例的约束。？相信这种法律上的论说不是一般人可以理解和信服的。为什么这么多年来，国防部并没有寻求增加罚款额和监刑？一连串的疑问，都还有待解开。

　　撇开逃役与相关刑罚的争论，我想，陈万荣案最值得我们注意的，还是一般当过兵的公民对这一事件的心理和情绪反应。它所折射的信息是很清楚的，那就是，经过将近四十年的积淀，国民意识已非常的厚实，新加坡人已经普遍地把服役和对国家的效忠与牺牲紧密地联系在一起，并以服役为荣，逃役为耻。

　　服役之苦，军令之严，只有真正当过兵的阿兵哥们才有深刻的体验，少数人不幸在军训的事故中丧生，不少人因军训而受伤，在这些公民心目中，执干戈以卫社稷，乃是公民义务，无怨无悔，但他们肯定也希望得到国家和人民的体认与感激。

　　更重要的是，他们要求公正。国民服役是一视同仁的，不管你出身什么家庭背景，什么种族，什么宗教，都得接受同样的训练，穿同样的军服，吃同样的米饭，没有特权，没有优待。

　　正因为大家都经过这一过程，公平、公正的概念也就更加根深蒂固。陈万荣案之所以激起波澜，正因为它使许多服过兵役的国民有不公正之感，甚至愤慨。大家都觉得，三千块钱罚款与逃役的严重性落差太大了。因此，这次的经验，应该能使国防部更深切体察当过兵的公民心目中的这种公正感。

● 吴俊刚
·作者为《联合早报》评论员

===============================================

View Melvyn Tan case from a positive angle

About five to 20 National Service evaders go before the Singapore courts each year, but none has sparked a debate on the issue of punishment for NS defaulters as in the case of pianist Melvyn Tan.

When we look deeper into the controversy, we will understand better its underlying significance.

What the public, especially Singaporeans who have served NS, are most unhappy about is that Mr Tan has got away with a fine.

The question many have raised is this: Has he been given "special treatment" and let off with just a slap on the wrist because of his fame and achievements? Of course not.

When the Ministry of Defence first responded to the case on Nov 24, instead of clearing doubts, it generated more emotional reactions from the people.

In a letter to the press, Mindef said that it takes a serious stand on all defaulters who will have to bear the consequences of their action and will be dealt with by the courts under the Enlistment Act.

On conviction, they are liable for an imprisonment term not exceeding three years or a fine not exceeding $5,000, or both. But the exact sentence will be determined by the courts.

The reply obviously was not good enough and some began asking Mindef to state its position categorically - should defaulters be fined or jailed?

The ministry responded again on Nov 30 by saying that it is reviewing the Enlistment Act and will give a full response on the matter when the review is completed.

And then it was revealed by the relevant authorities that Mr Tan was fined $3,000 and that his parents also lost a $30,000 bond pledged as a guarantee that he would return to serve NS.

Subsequently, responding to media queries on the Melvyn Tan case earlier this month, Defence Minister Teo Chee Hean said that Mindef is reviewing the Enlistment Act. He also added that he is personally in favour of imposing custodial sentences for people who deliberately evade NS.

The furore may have died down. But one important question remains unanswered.

What the people find most puzzling is this: Since the punishment for failing to serve NS is an imprisonment term not exceeding three years or a fine not exceeding $5,000, or both, why have the courts so far chosen to impose only a fine ($3,000 in Melvyn Tan's case) and not a jail term? What are the considerations?

There have been news reports that some draft dodgers who were sentenced to jail by the Subordinate Courts managed to have it converted to a fine when they appealed because there is such a precedent in the High Court.

The average person may not understand the legal complexities involved. Neither would they be convinced.

Why has Mindef so far not sought to increase the maximum fine and jail term for NS evaders? This is yet another question that needs to be answered.

The issues of draft dodging and the penalties for it aside, what truly deserves our attention from the Melvyn Tan case is the reaction of Singaporeans who have served NS.

The message is clear. After close to 40 years, there is now a strong sense of national identity. For Singaporeans, our system of National Service is now intertwined with a sense of loyalty and the willingness to sacrifice for the country. To serve NS is an honour and to evade it is a disgrace.

Only people who have gone through NS understand what military training and discipline is. Many have suffered injuries in the course of training and a few have even lost their lives.

To them, to be trained to defend the country is a duty that they must fulfil. Naturally, they hope that what they have done will be recognised and appreciated by the nation and fellow Singaporeans.

More importantly, they want fairness. The same treatment should be extended to all who serve NS, regardless of family background, race or religion. Everyone goes through the same training, wears the same uniform and eats the same food. No one gets special privileges or favours.

This sense of fairness and justice has taken root precisely because everyone goes through the same process.

That the Melvyn Tan case has caused an uproar is because many who have served NS feel resentment at something they believe is unfair.

They feel strongly that a fine of $3,000 is inadequate for evading NS which is a serious offence.

This episode should help Mindef understand better this sense of fairness that Singaporeans who have served NS hold dear to their hearts.

By Goh Choon Kang. The writer is a leader writer of Lianhe Zaobao. Translated by Yap Gee Poh.