I was referring to giving up singapore citizenship. With regards to your statement that when one gives up his citizenship, he has given up all his rights, I agree that he has given up his legal rights, right to vote etc. But my point was actually referring to his right to care and his right to voice out his opinions.

With the above point, i was trying to say that family, friends, experiences and even singlish make us more singaporean than our NRIC, birth cert or passport can. Yes, i know this isn’t the case legally – but i’m sure you get what i’m driving at.

Now, i disagree with how you seem to have equated migrating somewhere with being a quitter and running away from problems. (Do correct me if i’ve misunderstood you) Many of the folks that i know and who migrated were very successful here. In fact, it is because of their success that they were able to move. Pastures could just have been greener overseas. Lets not judge them.

To answer your question at the end, Singapore is defintely not hopeless. But many in Singapore need a renewed sense of hope.

Regards.

The identity Card and Passport fundamentally defines which Sovereign Country you belong to unless you have other description.

When you say: “I will definitely remain Singaporean at heart even if I were to move somewhere else”, may I calrify you are referring to a PR status or? I believe you know there is aa obvious difference in surrendering your citizenship for another and obtaining a PR status in any country.

I cannot concur on your point if you have trade your citizenship for another. By this action, you have given up all your given rights (albeit not many of us “Singaporean” knew our basic rights including me, and some may argue it is not worth a thing). Do you call yourself American or Singaporean or whatever country that you have obtained your citizen through naturalization?

As far as I am concerned, I have lived and worked in the United States for over 5 years and could have continued to do so and become a PR or being naturalize, I too have lived and worked in Thailand and Hong Kong over a period of 10 years and could have continued to do so and become a PR or being naturalize but I still possess my pink IC and red passport even I do not fully endorse some of the many rules and policies. Why if you might ask? My humble answer to you is; I am not a quitter. You just don’t run away from problems. Do you? Is Singapore really that hopeless is my question to you.

With regards to your stand on G.N., are the pink IC and red passport the only things that make us Singaporean? I’ll definitely remain Singaporean at heart even if i were to move somewhere else. What about you?

Regards.

I felt that the conduct of the case, and the subsequent follow up actions failed to clear the doubts on the independence of our courts; and this failure is the loss of our judiciary, and the loss of Singapore.

Chee was never a real threat to begin with – the baggage of various mistakes has shattered any mainstream credibility he possessed when he first started. With Chee’s temperament, give him enough rope and he would have hung himself on the court of public opinion, and the judiciary would have come out smelling like roses.

Instead, we have senior government leaders stooping to exchange insults; and we have to kick a person when he’s down and on the floor – applying heavy fines to an already bankrupt to help him rouse public sympathy.

Let’s rope in the mass media too to vilify Chee too since we are at it – does anyone really think that Chua Lee Hoong’s article will persuade converts to condemn Chee? Or will her article provoke an adverse and opposite effect similar to the backlash to the establishment by the overkill on the James Gomez during the election form incident?

My impression is that our leaders are sorely lacking from lessons in subtlety. A nudge, some careful restrain and a step back at appropriate times will often reap more returns than blind headlong charges capitalizing solely on force superiority.

Yes, the world is getting ever smaller with the internet and it is exactly the point that for a small city state like Singapore, we have got to exercise our civic duty with due diligence and in a civic manner. Brawl actions will only make matters worse. Whether the majority of us agree or not, with no sizeable natural resources to back us up and only human resources, economic stability takes priority above other matters. However, does that mean we have lost our sensibility? I speak for myself and the answer is a resounding “NO”.

As to my point on balloting, it is up to indivdual voting Singaporean to decide. Again, regardless of how things are now, will it stay “as is” 5, 10, 20 years down the line? It very much depend on the quality of contesting candidates and their proposed election issues. Change that we all expressed, hope and wish for may or may not happen in one or two elections from now, but I have no doubt that it will change (I am still positive on this) and time will attest to it.

In any case, the notion of sovereignty is fluid and changing with times, as we speak.

You have a good point about the process of the ballot box, but the electoral process is but the procedural portion of democracy, and it does not do more than uphold procedural norms.

If this is my fellow “Singaporean” conducting such inhumane act within “SIngapore”, you bet I will interfer without a finch. I am sure you or Mun Kit or any caring fellowman will not hestitate to do so. As to how I interfer, it will depend on the severity and the facts behind the cause. It could be reasoning, it could be getting the appropriate authority to handle the situation. Afterall, it is still a fellow citizen’s dispute and the best I can do is to try to prevent further damage caused to the poor kid “in context”.

The difference of the matter cited is the Sovereign right of a country (that is my POV and you have every right to differ). So you are telling me that it is okay for an outsider (outsider means non-Singaporean) to interfer in Singapore Sovereign Issue? If this is advocated by the majority of Singaprean or for that matter reader of this blog, then I think we will be very busy voicing our concerns on a mountain of human rights or judiciary issues happening in the world.

As I have clearly stated that there will be difference in POV in any issues, that is part and parcel of life. There are obviously many national issues in our mind that we hope to get resolve, however, these should remain issues to be resolve by no one except Singaporean. Do I see any immediate change even after so many concerned citizens had voiced their opinions (some constructive, some just vend their anger and what not)? The answer is “No”, but do I loose faith and will I not continue to live my life without these changes that we hope for? Life goes on. Given time and enough of constructive input, be it through blogging or in other avenues, if it is warranted for, it will find its way. You cannot deny the fact that Singapore has changed from decades ago. Its progressive but may be not as fast as many impatient citizens would like to see.

I said it before in my other comment on other blog topic and I will repeat it here with an extended view. A country will never survive without the support of its citizens. A political party will never survive without its constituencies. If the government voted in is constantly defying the citizens who had voted them in and if they persist in deploying policies that are hurting its voting citizens, and if the citizens somehow found worthy alternative (meaning contesting political party with issues that are of substance, contestant that are upright, genuinely public minded), I believe the ballot is the best answer.

If your neighbour is beating his child half to death, will you stand by your words of non-interference?

If there is a capability gap, shouldn’t there be reason for external assistance to solve that gap so that internal capabilities can be strengthened in the long term for the good of all parties concern

I have made my comments in Farquhar’s “The Courtroom as theatre”. I hope that may shed light to your aforesaid concern.

Mun Kit,
I respect your POV. Likewise, I reserved the rights on mine as a SIngaporean. Yes, as much as I do not support the current governing party’s many other policies imposed, or whether I have reservations on the opposition parties or Singapore’s Judiciary System, it is nonetheless Singapore’s internal issues. With due respect and by no mean an antagonistic comment, I assume you would not like others to meddle with your internal family issues. Do you?

I have written in one of my recent blog posting on how the Singapore’s judiciary has totally failed in this aspect. Let us be really critical of what is going on instead of assuming that the problem lies with the nature of defamation laws…

- Rule Alpha 1> EVERYONE, MUST DIE.

“What a man believes upon grossly insufficient evidence is an index into his desires — desires of which he himself is often unconscious. If a man is offered a fact which goes against his instincts, he will scrutinize it closely, and unless the evidence is overwhelming, he will refuse to believe it. If, on the other hand, he is offered something which affords a reason for acting in accordance to his instincts, he will accept it even on the slightest evidence. The origin of myths is explained in this way.”
– Bertrand Russell

Anyway, let’s say we argue by way of hypothetical or analogous examples:

A is a judge but his salary and career is dependent on B. Suppose now that there’s a court trial involving the interests of B in which A is the judge. Normally, there is already a conflict of interest and wherever possible (tho in SIN it’s not), A can request to be recused from being the trial judge. As that is no longer possible, the system must be changed in such a way that A’s career and employment future is not dependent (or beholden, used by JBJ), on B. Or B’s controlling influence over A has not only to be seen to be but is actually broken.

Now that I have pointed out this, does it mean that I should face a defamation or libel suit from B or a contempt of court charge from A?

One can correct me and say in SIN’ case, that the PM recommends and the President approves. But that’s just being pedantic. Even the Prez is….oops!