A SINGAPOREAN who sought refugee status in Australia, claiming he could not express his political views in Singapore, has been refused a protection visa by a review tribunal in Melbourne.
The tribunal also rejected his claim that he faced a jail term for being a national service (NS) reservist defaulter if he returned to Singapore.
The tribunal held in a judgment released earlier this week that the Singapore laws in relation to NS obligations applied to all and did not single him out, and this was therefore not a valid ground to support his application.
Under Australian immigration rules, a person can apply for a protection visa if he is classified a refugee based on a well-founded fear of his political convictions or for other reasons indicated in the rules.
The 36-year-old Chinese Singaporean, whose name and personal particulars were withheld in the tribunal's grounds of decision, completed national service in December 1995.
In 1997, he went to Australia on a student visa to study for a degree in business and science. His parents live in Singapore.
He left Singapore on an exit permit but did not return as required when the permit expired in 2003.
Giving evidence before the initial tribunal in December 2009, he claimed he was thus classified a military deserter and stood to face court martial on his return and up to 10 years' jail if convicted.
He claimed that as a pacifist and someone who was 'conscientious', he did not want to return. He said his anti-war convictions had strengthened since being in Australia.
Although not religious himself, he claimed to have been influenced by family members who belong to the Jehovah's Witnesses group and do not subscribe to carrying arms.
The Singaporean, who has lived in Australia for 13 years, further claimed he was unable to express disagreement with political decisions in Singapore and had gained 'skills through political action in Australia whereby he will be able to voice his disagreement with government on his return'.
[I don't understand this part. He gained "political" skills in Australia so that he could use them against the government when he returns to Singapore. But now he does not want to return. Am I the only confused one?]
He also told the tribunal that he did not finish his studies because he let his student activities take priority.
[I think he should be MORE worried that he can find a decent job in Singapore without any qualifications!]
In 2007, he worked for an outfit that organised anti-war campaigns, among other things, and still works there.
When asked why he would be unable to express his political views in Singapore, he alleged that he would face problems and cited opposition politicians in Singapore who, he claimed, were unable to speak out for fear of defamation suits and disqualification from running for Parliament.
He admitted to living in Australia for more than seven years without a visa, and acknowledged he had not heard of any Singaporeans at risk because of their political activism abroad.
The tribunal found him to be a credible and cogent witness but held that the Enlistment Act in Singapore was of general application and would not be applied against him in a discriminatory or selective manner because of his political views or for other reasons.
[Rightfully, the Singapore government should be requesting for him to be extradicted from Australian. But I think it should not bother in this case and let him stay in Australia to continue his anti-war campaign.]
It accepted that, based on country information reports, space to voice political opinion in Singapore was restricted, among other things.
But this did not extend to threatening his prospects for making a living, which would amount to persecution.
Tribunal member Nicole Burns said that based on the tribunal's findings, the man's fear of being prosecuted was not 'well-founded' for now or in the reasonably foreseeable future.
'A fear is well-founded where there is a real or substantial basis for it but not if it is merely assumed or based on mere speculation,' wrote Ms Burns.
She added that this was a unique case given the man's longstanding and firmly held convictions against military service.
Although he did not qualify for refugee status, the harm he would face as a national service defaulter would impact on him greatly, said Ms Burns.
The tribunal recommended that the case be referred to the Immigration and Citizenship Minister, given that the man had integrated well into the Australian community in his 13 years there.
The tribunal also rejected his claim that he faced a jail term for being a national service (NS) reservist defaulter if he returned to Singapore.
The tribunal held in a judgment released earlier this week that the Singapore laws in relation to NS obligations applied to all and did not single him out, and this was therefore not a valid ground to support his application.
Under Australian immigration rules, a person can apply for a protection visa if he is classified a refugee based on a well-founded fear of his political convictions or for other reasons indicated in the rules.
The 36-year-old Chinese Singaporean, whose name and personal particulars were withheld in the tribunal's grounds of decision, completed national service in December 1995.
In 1997, he went to Australia on a student visa to study for a degree in business and science. His parents live in Singapore.
He left Singapore on an exit permit but did not return as required when the permit expired in 2003.
Giving evidence before the initial tribunal in December 2009, he claimed he was thus classified a military deserter and stood to face court martial on his return and up to 10 years' jail if convicted.
He claimed that as a pacifist and someone who was 'conscientious', he did not want to return. He said his anti-war convictions had strengthened since being in Australia.
Although not religious himself, he claimed to have been influenced by family members who belong to the Jehovah's Witnesses group and do not subscribe to carrying arms.
The Singaporean, who has lived in Australia for 13 years, further claimed he was unable to express disagreement with political decisions in Singapore and had gained 'skills through political action in Australia whereby he will be able to voice his disagreement with government on his return'.
[I don't understand this part. He gained "political" skills in Australia so that he could use them against the government when he returns to Singapore. But now he does not want to return. Am I the only confused one?]
He also told the tribunal that he did not finish his studies because he let his student activities take priority.
[I think he should be MORE worried that he can find a decent job in Singapore without any qualifications!]
In 2007, he worked for an outfit that organised anti-war campaigns, among other things, and still works there.
When asked why he would be unable to express his political views in Singapore, he alleged that he would face problems and cited opposition politicians in Singapore who, he claimed, were unable to speak out for fear of defamation suits and disqualification from running for Parliament.
He admitted to living in Australia for more than seven years without a visa, and acknowledged he had not heard of any Singaporeans at risk because of their political activism abroad.
The tribunal found him to be a credible and cogent witness but held that the Enlistment Act in Singapore was of general application and would not be applied against him in a discriminatory or selective manner because of his political views or for other reasons.
[Rightfully, the Singapore government should be requesting for him to be extradicted from Australian. But I think it should not bother in this case and let him stay in Australia to continue his anti-war campaign.]
It accepted that, based on country information reports, space to voice political opinion in Singapore was restricted, among other things.
But this did not extend to threatening his prospects for making a living, which would amount to persecution.
Tribunal member Nicole Burns said that based on the tribunal's findings, the man's fear of being prosecuted was not 'well-founded' for now or in the reasonably foreseeable future.
'A fear is well-founded where there is a real or substantial basis for it but not if it is merely assumed or based on mere speculation,' wrote Ms Burns.
She added that this was a unique case given the man's longstanding and firmly held convictions against military service.
Although he did not qualify for refugee status, the harm he would face as a national service defaulter would impact on him greatly, said Ms Burns.
The tribunal recommended that the case be referred to the Immigration and Citizenship Minister, given that the man had integrated well into the Australian community in his 13 years there.
