I refer to Mr. Koh Buck Song's Perspective 'Come home call? Try overseas voting and dual citizenship' The Sunday Times, November 9, 1997. Mr. Koh's call for overseas voting should be applauded as I was one of the overseas Singaporeans who were unilaterally disenfranchised by the Government's decision not allow overseas Singaporeans to cast their ballots in the last General Elections in Janaury 1997.
There is this Janus-like Government, where one day, we have the happy face exhorting Singaporeans to regionalize & work overseas, establishing the Singapore International Foundation to look into the needs of overseas Singaporeans and even supporting the establishment of learning institutions like the Singapore School in Hong Kong. The next day, on matters of controlling the political destiny of our Republic, the Government shuts the door to overseas Singaporeans for nebulous reasons of logistic & administrative efficiency. With the wired age, I would think that it would hardly break a sweat for a consulate in New York City to double-check my NRIC number with the Voter Register Rolls and my constituency. The fact that the Government can get the Singapore Electoral Process wired up will be another feather in the cap of Government's march towards having the paradigm wired country in the universe.
The issue of dual citizenship should be addressed more cautiously. There are fundamental questions of loyalty and commitment to the Republic that have to be considered. In the past, a political candidate was attacked for having made an application for permanent resident for foreign country (not even dual citizenship) and baiting questions of loyalty, commitment and fidelity to the Republic was expolited for political gain. Although a government could legally make it possible for Singaporeans to have dual citizenship but what does it entail or pan out in the political discourse, if a Singaporean with dual citizenship ran for office gets labeled as a possible escape artist or can such a Singaporean run for public office?
Moreover, as much as some Singaporeans think that our laws can impact the world, the reality is far less rosy. Countries usually frame their citizenship laws with little or no regard for the citizenship laws of other countries. Sometimes a country will seek to restrict dual citizenship by requiring one of its citizens born with some other citizenship to renounce that citizenship upon reaching adulthood. Newly naturalized citizens may similarly be required to renounce their previous citizenship. In some cases, a country will automatically revoke the citizenship of one of its citizens who acquires another country's citizenship by naturalization, even if no explicit renunciation was involved. Therefore, benefit of dual citizenship in Singapore may be pyrrhic to an emigrating Singaporean who has to renounce his Singaporean citizenship in order to emigrate to the new country.
Therefore, it would be better to confine the discussion to the 'live issue' in this returning emigre debate is how to make it attractive for Singaporeans to stay or encourage them to return to Singapore. What could be considered is to simplify and greatly facilitate the repatriation and naturalization procedure for returning ex-Singaporeans who given up their Singapore citizenship.
Perhaps the best panacea to this problem is to remove the reasons why Singaporean emigrate and leave in the first place. Mr. Koh's parroting of the PAP's slam-dunk get-the-vote tangible material benefit is misplaced. No amount of repackaging of the Singapore carrot of an upgraded HDB flat or a new car lottery system can compete with the great ease which a Singaporean couple can purchase a 5000 sq. foot Perth property or buying a Park Avenue Buick luxury car in Manhattan.
Quality of life issues are concerned with more than material trappings - for Singapore to retain their people, a reinvention of how the social and civic discourse is conducted has to occur. News stories of the perpetuation of the power monopoly of how our home is run with the result of mercilessly ruining those with alternative ideas is not a come home call but a wake up call about the grim political reality that overseas or ex-Singaporeans can do without.
John A. Tessensohn, Esq.
New York, New York
======================================= Goh Yong Wah:
I feel that his comment has some good insight, however the last part of his comment seems to based on an assumption which I believe is rather narrow. He said:
"Quality of life issues are concerned with more than material trappings - for Singapore to retain their people, a reinvention of how the social and civic discourse is conducted has to occur. News stories of the perpetuation of the power monopoly of how our home is run with the result of mercilessly ruining those with alternative ideas is not a come home call but a wake up call about the grim political reality that overseas or ex-Singaporeans can do without."
If I am correct in interpreting his above comment, I gather that his view holds that by restructuring or reinventing 'how the social and civic discourse is conducted' and, perhaps on a macro level, the overall political atmosphere of Singapore, we may attract overseas and ex Singaporean to come home and prevent local from leaving Singapore. That seems to assume that one of the key reasons for people leaving the country is because of these less than satisfactory 'social and civic discourse factors' and perhaps the overall political atmosphere.
In a society that is made up of predominantly materially-motivated citizens who are preoccupied with monetory and material gains, climbing the social-economical ladder and chasing the illusive 'Singapore Dream', is it too naive to believe that the changes in social and civic discourse and political atmosphere can actually bring people back and retain those in the country? Are Singaporean truely concerned about the social and political development of our home land or are they interested in these issues so long as the latter affects their struggle for the "Singaporean Dream"? The recent election has indicated to us that material welfare matters. It is not inplausible that people leave Singapore for reasons such as the tremendous improvement in general geographical mobility of Singaporean, and that Singapore by its limitation and nature cannot outbeat other countries' offers and attractions in the areas of actual physical life style, career opportunities, intellectual and cultural atmosphere and others other than just or mainly political atmosphere.
"Material trapping" may well be the only way to retain Singaporean for now until the time comes when future Singaporean are taught to realised that what their parents look for in life may be too unrealistic to be fullfiled in Singapore. If Singaporean (Ex, overseas and local) are truelly concerned about the social and political development of our country then 'News stories of the perpetuation of the power monopoly of how our home is run with the result of mercilessly ruining those with alternative ideas' IS INFACT a come home call AND a wake up call about the grim political reality that politically and socially inclined overseas and Ex-Singaporean will take note and return. But why this is not the case?
Could it be due to a very simple fact that overseas have set up a better 'material trap' than Singapore?