|
I REFER to Ms Lynne Tan's Forum Online letter last Friday, "Not much of a gap between 'pink' and 'blue' - so offer dual citizenship".
One should not assess the value of citizenship versus permanent residence status by comparing benefits and obligations. If so, everyone who can afford it might as well shop for citizenship that provides maximum benefit relative to obligations. The reliability of such "citizens" would, however, be doubtful.
Second, the notion of dual citizenship is paradoxical. As a citizen, one has distinct national obligations to one's country which take precedence over any obligation to another country.
Having more than one citizenship means that national obligation to one country has to give way to another, for no one can give the highest commitment to separate entities.
To illustrate, if both face a crisis, for which country will one be there?
Pragmatically, only nations with enough resources can afford to be indifferent to the risk of some of their citizens giving priority to the welfare of other countries. The other countries allowing multiple citizenship are those that operate like mercenary country clubs seeking mainly wealthy clients as new citizens.
When Singapore faces a crisis, we cannot afford unreliable citizens who may abandon the country, claiming their other country needs them.
As a parallel, my wife and children know they can depend on me to put them first because I do not have another family elsewhere who might compete for attention in a crisis.
Third, with reference to Ms Tan's children's future nationality, I submit that nationality is the choice of each individual. No one is obliged to keep the citizenship of his parents.
That is also my counter to a previous suggestion that dual citizenship be allowed for children from mixed-nationality
parentage. We can maintain ties with the countries of our ancestors and inherit cultural legacies from more than one country without being citizens of those countries.
Chen Junyi
This article was first published in The Straits Times.
|