What tickles me the most is how he answered when he's asked why he became a Singapore citizen in 2006--quoted from that article:
"My family does not live in the city of my birth any more, and I've not been back there since I left for university at 17."
A practical reason, huh? The logic dictates that if his family still does live in the city of his birth, Mr. Kumar might have retained his Indian citizen.
But if he's really that tied to this city of his birth, should he not have made some visits there after he left for university?
Seriously, who else finds his reasoning, uhm, unconvincing?!