Back to top
Response to "Address change: Aren't these rules contradictory?" (Today, 30 March 2008)
New rule helps check IC abuse; Providing proof of address can help safeguard your interests, says the ICA
Letter from Lim Jing Jing Deputy Head, Public and Internal Communications Immigration and Checkpoints Authority
17 April 2008
TODAY (Singapore)
English
(c) 2008. MediaCorp Press Ltd.
I REFER to the letter "Address change: Aren't these rules contradictory?" (March 31).
Goh Kian Huat has noted that under the new rules, a person must produce documentary evidence relating to the address which he seeks to have recorded in his national registration identity card (NRIC) as his place of residence.
The reason for the introduction of this new procedure is to act as a safeguard against a person changing his address to a place with which he has no connection.
In the past, there were cases where people had done this in order to present a false address for an improper purpose, such as borrowing money from a loan shark. This then caused great distress to the actual occupants of the reported address.
The Immigration and Checkpoints Authority (ICA) notes that there are situations where a person may legitimately use an address for purposes of correspondence, even though he is not physically living at the address at the time.
For example, it is not uncommon for a home-owner to apply for public utilities to facilitate renovations at his new residence before moving in. This is why we accept correspondences such as the utilities bill within the last three months.
The fact that a three-month-old utility bill is used does not necessarily mean that the owner has breached the rule whereby he is required to report a change of address within 28 days.
Goh Kian Huat has also pointed out that if an NRIC-holder does not have any of the required supporting documents, he can submit an application to the ICA for a letter to be mailed to his new address, which he can then use as documentary evidence for the address change.
In such cases, Goh Kian Huat notes that "it is possible for anyone to make arrangements with third parties to use their address."
In such cases, if the NRIC-holder is not in fact living at that address, he is liable to be punished under the National Registration Act for falsely reporting an address.
The penalty for not reporting or falsely reporting an address is a fine not exceeding $5,000 or a jail term not exceeding five years, or both.
The ICA will not hesitate to investigate or take action under the law should there be any suspicion of criminal wrongdoing.
Address change: Aren't these rules contradictory?
Letter from GOH KIAN HUAT
31 March 2008
TODAY (Singapore)
English
(c) 2008. MediaCorp Press Ltd.
I REFER to the report "Changed your address? Prove it" (March 26).
With effect from tomorrow, Singapore identity card (IC) holders who want to report a change in address will have to produce proof such as a bill, statement or letter sent to their new address.
This new procedure aims to prevent false reporting of address changes - some parents, for example, may make use of a third party address to secure a choice primary school for their children.
Bills within the last three months, including those from Internet service providers, insurance and telecommunications companies or Singapore Power, or statements within the last six to 12 months from the Housing and Development Board, Land Transport Authority (LTA) or the Central Provident Fund (CPF) Board can be accepted as documentary evidence.
But being able to provide these documents may also mean that the person has failed to report his change of residential address within 28 days as required under the National Registration Act.
Will the Immigration and Checkpoints Authority (ICA) take the offenders to task? If not, then how will the 28-day rule be enforced? Is it still relevant?
If anyone is unable to provide an acceptable document, he may submit an application to the ICA to enable a letter to be mailed to him, which he can then use as proof. Even then, it is still possible for anyone to make arrangements with third parties to use their address.
In addition, under the current one-stop reporting procedure, IC holders who report a change of address to the ICA or police are not required to make separate reports to other government agencies such as the CPF Board or the LTA.
Now, it appears that the new address has to be reported to these agencies first in order to get a statement billed to the new address - which would then be used as documentary proof for the ICA. Isn't this taking a step backwards?
What if the LTA or the CPF Board require an identity card to be produced first to effect the change of address at their end?
Letter from Lim Jing Jing Deputy Head, Public and Internal Communications Immigration and Checkpoints Authority
17 April 2008
TODAY (Singapore)
English
(c) 2008. MediaCorp Press Ltd.
I REFER to the letter "Address change: Aren't these rules contradictory?" (March 31).
Goh Kian Huat has noted that under the new rules, a person must produce documentary evidence relating to the address which he seeks to have recorded in his national registration identity card (NRIC) as his place of residence.
The reason for the introduction of this new procedure is to act as a safeguard against a person changing his address to a place with which he has no connection.
In the past, there were cases where people had done this in order to present a false address for an improper purpose, such as borrowing money from a loan shark. This then caused great distress to the actual occupants of the reported address.
The Immigration and Checkpoints Authority (ICA) notes that there are situations where a person may legitimately use an address for purposes of correspondence, even though he is not physically living at the address at the time.
For example, it is not uncommon for a home-owner to apply for public utilities to facilitate renovations at his new residence before moving in. This is why we accept correspondences such as the utilities bill within the last three months.
The fact that a three-month-old utility bill is used does not necessarily mean that the owner has breached the rule whereby he is required to report a change of address within 28 days.
Goh Kian Huat has also pointed out that if an NRIC-holder does not have any of the required supporting documents, he can submit an application to the ICA for a letter to be mailed to his new address, which he can then use as documentary evidence for the address change.
In such cases, Goh Kian Huat notes that "it is possible for anyone to make arrangements with third parties to use their address."
In such cases, if the NRIC-holder is not in fact living at that address, he is liable to be punished under the National Registration Act for falsely reporting an address.
The penalty for not reporting or falsely reporting an address is a fine not exceeding $5,000 or a jail term not exceeding five years, or both.
The ICA will not hesitate to investigate or take action under the law should there be any suspicion of criminal wrongdoing.
Address change: Aren't these rules contradictory?
Letter from GOH KIAN HUAT
31 March 2008
TODAY (Singapore)
English
(c) 2008. MediaCorp Press Ltd.
I REFER to the report "Changed your address? Prove it" (March 26).
With effect from tomorrow, Singapore identity card (IC) holders who want to report a change in address will have to produce proof such as a bill, statement or letter sent to their new address.
This new procedure aims to prevent false reporting of address changes - some parents, for example, may make use of a third party address to secure a choice primary school for their children.
Bills within the last three months, including those from Internet service providers, insurance and telecommunications companies or Singapore Power, or statements within the last six to 12 months from the Housing and Development Board, Land Transport Authority (LTA) or the Central Provident Fund (CPF) Board can be accepted as documentary evidence.
But being able to provide these documents may also mean that the person has failed to report his change of residential address within 28 days as required under the National Registration Act.
Will the Immigration and Checkpoints Authority (ICA) take the offenders to task? If not, then how will the 28-day rule be enforced? Is it still relevant?
If anyone is unable to provide an acceptable document, he may submit an application to the ICA to enable a letter to be mailed to him, which he can then use as proof. Even then, it is still possible for anyone to make arrangements with third parties to use their address.
In addition, under the current one-stop reporting procedure, IC holders who report a change of address to the ICA or police are not required to make separate reports to other government agencies such as the CPF Board or the LTA.
Now, it appears that the new address has to be reported to these agencies first in order to get a statement billed to the new address - which would then be used as documentary proof for the ICA. Isn't this taking a step backwards?
What if the LTA or the CPF Board require an identity card to be produced first to effect the change of address at their end?