The first paragraph of Jeff Ooi's letter No passports for tarnishing country

(April 23) already reveals his and Dr Jacob George's confusion in separating the concepts of "smearing motherland" and "Mahathir-bashing" from patriotism and citizens duties when one is abroad.

Nothing is further from the truth. Love and respect for one's country, homeland and countrymen is not inconsistent with the criticism of one's own government and its repressive policies, whether locally or abroad.

If patriotism or citizenship is not compromised by one's fair criticism of the government of the day when one is in the country, why should it be deemed compromised when the same criticism is now repeated abroad in international forums?

What is so wrong with this? Often, it is expressed abroad in the hope that international pressure will be brought to bear on the government to change its repressive policies for the betterment of the country and its peoples.

Citizens right to dissent from government's policies should not be circumscribed by geographical boundaries  whether they be at home or abroad. Truth is more important and one cannot desist from criticising even ones own parents when they fall in error. It is the way that one does it that exception may be taken  if it is not done with the degree of decorum and respect as the situation requires  but never the right itself to criticise.

A nation that silences dissent, whether by force or intimidation including the withholding of its citizen's passport invites disaster by creating a foggy intellectual climate among its citizens. With stunted minds, as with stunted citizens, no great thing can be accomplished by such a nation.

It is therefore the patriotic duty of a citizen to dissent wherever he is and whenever he is conscientiously convinced that his government's policies are contrary to its high ideals and should be changed for the good of the country.

I agree however that when a citizen is abroad, it is true that to a certain extent he is unwittingly an ambassador for the country and he should be certain that what he criticises of the government or the leaders must be measured, balanced and fair comment. This is basic decorum.

Subject to that, he should be allowed to criticise when he is abroad, as at home, and the peoples of the free world will adjudge the country and her peoples in an even better light when our citizens can freely criticise government's policies that he disagrees with and yet be able to freely return home without facing reprisals.

Reverse the situation. In the last occasion when American vice-president Al Gore visited us and rudely criticised our government, the host, for its handling of the Anwar episode, the American business community immediately criticised their own vice-president for lack of etiquette and decorum. Were they unpatriotic? Should the American government withdraw their passports?

To sum up. While dignity and image of one's country are important, fair criticism of the policies of the government or leader of the day is not inconsistent with such dignity and image. To improve the policies of the government or change its repressive ones by whatever lawful means (including persuasion in international forums) for the ultimate betterment of the country and its peoples is a higher patriotic duty.

Besides, nothing speaks better for the country's image than the democratic right of expression being accorded without fear of reprisals for its citizens who dissent even when they are abroad.