Dear Editor,
It is interesting to note that all the related observers are insistent on holding to a position that there is one form of (conclusive) dual citizenship, regardless of various attendant circumstances.
The commitment to this stance appears so irrevocable as to suggest that, if asked they would refuse to argue the proposition that there could be a type of citizenship that is legally defensible.
To date all have deliberately avoided addressing the unavoidable situation of being born in a foreign country; and advising on the logic of having to refute the place of birth.
In the meantime, there is this too passionate assertion that for parliamentarians only, dual citizenship automatically connotes a substantive deficit in allegiance to one’s country; without any reflection about the implications for that individual’s character whenever he or she may transition into a private business domain.
In this connection, one wonders how decision-makers in the private sector who function at levels comparable to, and even higher than, the parliamentarians, while also enjoying dual licence, are to be evaluated in terms of trust.
Arguably, their individual and collective decisions also impact on the social and economic welfare of the community, and perhaps, at times, moreso than do parliamentarians.
Why, therefore is this insistence on rushing to judgement, judicial or otherwise, without taking, more cautiously or broadly, into account the extenuating effect of outlawing critical competencies from a population known for such scarcity?
However immediate is the political issue, there are those who would perceive it to be a more critical human resources dilemma for the not too distant future.
Who is prepared to staunch the potential depletion?
Yours faithfully
E.B. John
