Otherwise, very little is normative and instructive (telling someone that this what they should do instead of what I'd do in the same circumstances). So I am not sure how I am patronizing someone as opposed to stating deeply opinion.
I mentioned this in another comment, but John Rawls had the concept of a "decent state" -- which may have a radically different tradition than, e.g., US or UK, but one where basic civil rights are still honored and respected. Singapore fits this bill, so I don't think its system should be condemned in the same vein as many states (perhaps majority of the world today) where, e.g., civil wars flare and religious and ethnic persecution is a day-to-day reality.
> 2: People move to Singapore because they're narrowly selfish
Sivers did surrender his US citizenship, so I can assume taxation did have some reason that choice (although it could be simply to avoid double taxation -- .sg taxes plus US taxes on top -- rather only choosing lower taxes).
However, I never stated that all -- or even most -- immigrants to Singapore do this. I can only state this about Westerners moving there permanently (it's another matter about living there temporarily as part of a job, etc..), for most of whom taxation plays a determining role.
I am actually aware personally of many people who moved to Singapore for far different reasons (fleeing civil wars, seeking basic economic opportunity) -- but none of them were Westerners. For example, I attended high school and university with people who grew up in Singapore having fled grinding poverty in Burma or reeducation camps in Vietnam. In what I think is a huge criticism of US, their families were not initially allowed to enter the US: they were only able to move to the US once their parents established themselves in Singapore, obtained the right employment and education, and move to US on H1B visas.