Now this is hitting the point right at home! Anyway, let me say it here, this is my opinion: Always referring to 'talent' means that our subconscious predilection is inclined towards the 'utilitarian' ethics – the teaching that we only 'accommodate' what is useful, or can be useful, to our existence. It shows all over our life – the way we live, our interaction with the people, the culture. And rightly so! Answer this question: Who brought up Singapore? History from long time ago will tell. Early settlers and the prevailing culture simply rubbed off to the then 'locals of the land'. Then it is passed down from one generation to the next. A spitting image indeed!


Letter from Jasmine Hong

05:55 AM Jun 04, 2009

I REFER to "The perils of dual citizenship" (June 3).

While I do agree with Mr M Lukshumayeh on being stringent with the dual citizenship law, I reckon Member of Parliament Cedric Foo's suggestion on this matter is not about luring top foreign talent to Singapore, but also about bringing local talent home.

As a matter of course, may I ask why do we keep emphasising on "talent"? We should lure anyone who feels (or still feels) "Singaporean" and wants to contribute to society here.

I would not say dual citizenship gives people the luxury of choice as Mr Lukshumayeh put it. Rather, dual citizenship gives people more choices and the freedom to choose.

Patriotism, commitment and responsibility to one's motherland goes beyond rules and regulations - these have to come from within one's self. These feelings can be nurtured but never dictated into being.

From; see the source article here.

Reblog this post [with Zemanta]


Post a Comment