He has a goal in mind and he is trying to contribute to
Singapore, but he is often misunderstood.
First thing, it is not so much a case of loyalty. There are many
definitions of loyalty and it is very subjective in today's
globalized context. Unless you have a case of a North korean
escaping to the south, the subject would then be disloyal and
executed as a traitor. So, we do not really see 2 sides today. E.g.
countries pointing missles right at each other and make known their
intentions openly. Most they do is agree to disagree.
while there are disagreements on the rules/regulations or unique
practices of different countries, increasingly, ngos and many non
profit entities work together to strive for a 'better world'. this
group likes to think that the 'borderless world' today means that
every issues and individuals in any country are universal and
should be treated the same. To some extent, it is a good thing but
at the other spectrum, perhaps we have not reached that stage.
There could be so many factors that argue against same-ness; like
cultural, political, social, economicial context, national pride
etc. say, when the US went to war with Iraq, it rallied nations far
and wide into accepting the case on so called weapons of mass
destructions and the idea of 'universal freedom' for the ordinary
Iraqis and they would form a powerful pact. But in other cases that
work against their own interests, e.g. kyoto protocol, they would
swiftly withdraw even if the benefits were indeed global. So,
collaborations with external parties are a complicated relationship
and whether the interests/motives and outcomes are honestly made
known between those involved during the initial stages up to the
completion or decay, may differ.
In the case of Chee, it could be a tactical ploy to awaken
Singaporeans. He may think that most singaporeans are at one
extreme of not having a voice, and borrowing the other extreme of
western freedom, it would then realign the status quo. using the
media to its advantage, it would then offer an alternative view of
what people outside singapore think is good/bad, acceptable/wrong.
well, one would say that such standards are for singaporeans
themselves to make, true enough. but very often, ordinary
singaporeans do not even have the slightest view of the outside,
and have little say in policy matters or just be plain fatalistic,
they cannot do much just being cooped up in a tiny hdb nest. So, if
a broaded perspective is presented, it could then offer a more
balanced approach to making decisions. that seems logical, rather
than branding all foreign influences as negative.
But the way he does it as said earlier, is often misunderstood.
These could be due to the unpopular way he goes about seeking
change. Maybe, if one had a better insight into his personality and
previous background and why he does certain things, it would better
help explain what he is seeking for.
He may have held rallys and stuck his backside to some ministers
getting their 'honorary' doctorates, but that does not mean he is
not loyal to Singapore. He is just against the way the country is
being run. For example, if an Iraqi is disloyal to Saddam but loyal
to the country's people in his fight for reforms; and the general
consensus is that a change is good, would this be construed as
disloyalty to the despot but loyalty to the country?
Perhaps due to his academic background and blunt personality, he
may not have the PR credentials or people quotient as a 'be seen
and heard' politician. this is evident in the ways he chased some
ministers atop a pickup with blarring speakers 'harassing' them for
answers. rather comical, but you could see his convicition.
now it seems like he is focused more on seeking changes in other
ways like civil disobedience than pinning on an elected seat or a
popular opposition. If we looked at the highly educated and vocal
younger generations today, there must be quite a handful whom are
unhappy about the current affairs (this happens for every
generation, otherwise, there will be stagnation). So, strategically
and patiently, he may target more such individuals to join the
cause and in that sense, if we view change as a good thing, that is
his contribution. In going this path, his contributions will not be
immediately apparent or acknowledged and he may even face
persecutions and derision, but if his conviction is all that
matters and what that he claims for democracy, then all the best.
for it is not always that one have to be popular and mainstream to
make things or get them done. Thats why, we have the illegal
bookies vs IR casinos, or the illegal ahlong vs the big banks, it
is just the perception, and on what scale they contribute or affect
lives.
