Speaker and event organiser Han Hui Hui

hanhuihui
By Ariffin Sha
A petition circulating online, directed at the Singapore Government, seeks to convince the Government to revoke Ms Han Hui Hui’s Singapore citizenship.
Ms Han is the organiser of the Return Our CPF protests, and has been criticised for the last protest where she and her compatriots and supporters clashed with a YMCA charity event for special needs children. Ms Han is a new citizen who took her oath in 2012.
The petition was started by MrTerry Lim, who wrote:

“Han Hui Hui is a new citizen who is passionate about propagating and fuelling hate messages in Singapore. Recently, not only has she crossed the boundaries by writing hate-filled messages about Singapore’s founding father, Mr Lee Kuan Yew on her Facebook page, she has also led a mob of protesters to heckle kids with special needs from YMCA at Hong Lim Park.
Singapore does not need a non-contributing citizen who spreads hate and negativity in the country. We urge you to sign our petition and convince the government to revoke her citizenship.”

This petition has already gathered close to 6,000 signatures, surpassing the number of signatures on the petition by Roy Ngerng for the Government to “Return Our CPF” which has less than 3,400 signatures. However, it still is far behind the petition to remove Ms Tin Pei Ling as a MP and the petition to shut down STOMP which has almost 20,000 and 23,000 signatures respectively.
The number of signatures on the petition, however, is not as important as the actual cause it professes to champion. On what grounds can one’s citizenship be revoked?
Here’s where the law stands. The Constitution of Singapore dictates the situations where a citizen might have his or her citizenship revoked:

“129.—(1)  A citizen of Singapore who is a citizen by registration or by naturalisation shall cease to be such a citizen if he is deprived of his citizenship by an order of the Government made in accordance with this Article.
(2) The Government may, by order, deprive any such citizen of his citizenship if the Government is satisfied that the registration or the certificate of naturalisation —

(a) was obtained by means of fraud, false representation or the concealment of any material fact; or

(b) was effected or granted by mistake.

(3) The Government may, by order, deprive of his citizenship —

(a) any person who is a citizen of Singapore by naturalisation if the Government is satisfied —

(i) that he has shown himself by act or speech to be disloyal or disaffected towards Singapore; or

(ii) that he has, during any war in which Singapore is or was engaged, unlawfully traded or communicated with an enemy or been engaged in or associated with any business which to his knowledge was carried on in such manner as to assist an enemy in that war; or

(b) any citizen of Singapore by registration or by naturalisation if the Government is satisfied —

(i) that he has, within the period of 5 years after registration or naturalisation, been sentenced in any country to imprisonment for a term of not less than one year or to a fine of not less than $5,000 or the equivalent in the currency of that country, and has not received a free pardon in respect of the offence for which he was so sentenced; or

(ii) that he has, at any time after registration or naturalisation, been engaged in any activities which are prejudicial to the security of Singapore, or the maintenance of public order therein, or the maintenance therein of essential services, or in any criminal activities which are prejudicial to the interests of public safety, peace or good order.”

As such, to have her citizenship revoked, Ms Han need necessarily do something seriously wrong, such as openly expressing disloyalty, getting imprisoned overseas or selling state secrets, before the Government can consider revoking her citizenship.
Heckling special needs children (which did not happen), reprehensible as that sounds, writing hate-filled messages about a senior statesman, and generally “spreading hate and negativity in the country” would not likely make the mark.
In fact, searching online for a similar case would turn up naught. A related case was that of Mr Vadiveloo Rajamuthi, who in 2003 lost his right to citizenship. The reason: He did not take the oath of renunciation.
From a legal perspective, it would be difficult for Ms Han’s citizenship to be revoked, much less based on a petition.
The other questions that has been raised by many online commenters is a moral one: Should there even be a call to revoke a person’s citizenship?
My view is a resolute “no”.
What Ms Han did may be wrong and distasteful in the eyes of many. However, this should not set the precedent for citizenships to be revoked, even if a sizeable group of people start petitioning for it.
Citizenship represents a prestigious status, as much as a symbol of home and belonging. It shouldn’t be taken away easily.
We must embrace diversity, and learning how to tolerate the views of those like Ms Han’s is part of embracing diversity. If we do not agree with her, we should attack her arguments and her actions, but not her personally.
What Mr Terry Lim and his supporters are doing could possibly even amount to cyber-bullying.
Starting the practice of revoking someone’s citizenship, even by popular demand, is the first step down a slippery slope, which I strongly hope we don’t go down. As much as there are legal grounds against it, the value of citizenship, the moral imperative and the need to accept diversity should rank much higher in our minds than mere right and wrong.

Subscribe
Notify of
94 Comments
Newest
Oldest Most Voted
Inline Feedbacks
View all comments
You May Also Like

Man found guilty of abusing pet husky, fined $8,000

Chiam Choon San Alan (41) was fined $8,000 on Monday (23 Jan)…

250 grammes of ‘Ice’ seized at Woodlands Checkpoint

Two packets of substances, believed to be ‘Ice’, were seized at the…

GrabCar, Uber drivers may require vocational licence to pick up passengers, legally

Private car hire drivers for Uber and GrabCar may soon be required…

新加坡在最宜居城市排行榜中下滑至第40位

新加坡在今年最宜居城市排行榜中,下降三位,由37名下降至40名。 据经济学人智库(EIU)公布的2019年全球宜居城市排行榜中,不仅仅是新加坡排名下跌,其他金融中心也无一幸免,例如伦敦排行第48、纽约则是58。而最近正经历政治动荡的香港,由35名下跌至38名。 据悉,排行榜内的并没有将香港最近的政治动荡纳入考量,但其示威运动可能会影响下一年度的排名。 对此,经济学人智库亚洲区域主管英尼斯克尔认为,“可以铁定的是,香港的排名将会有所影响。 其排行榜是衡量140个城市的5项指标,包括健康医疗、文化与环境、教育、稳定性以及基础建设。每个城市必须被评分逾30中不同的指标,最终在加总所有分数排名。 奥地利首都维也纳首度打败蝉联7年冠军的澳大利亚墨尔本,登上榜首,而澳大利亚和加拿大各有3城市入前十。另外上榜的还有大阪、东京和哥本哈根;而澳大利亚墨尔本、悉尼与阿德莱德也被评为提供最佳生活品质的城市;加拿大的卡尔加里、温哥华以及多伦多则是在北美洲众多国家中上榜的城市。 “整体而言,这次的排行榜多由富裕国家中的中等城市上榜。报告指出,这些城市的人口大约在30万至100万左右,处于过度拥挤和待发展中最理想的位置。 “最宜居城市的条件必须有良好的文化活动、医疗制度和教育,同时不能拥有如大城市般拥挤杂乱,例如交通堵塞、犯罪问题耗损城市能量的问题。” 英尼斯克尔表示。 报告也指出,生活品质的增值有赖于城市的稳定性,以及教育和医疗系统,尤其是正在发展中国家。 不过报告也指出,气候变迁也是危及城市稳定性的主要因素之一,并以新德里和开罗作为例子,近几年因为污染加剧导致其排名下滑。于排行榜中最后则由达卡、拉各斯与大马士革列为,而敬陪末座的城市则属连年战争的叙利亚,该城市已蝉联7年的最后排位。