Dear Editor,
In 1986, Professor Ken Dans asked my sociology class for a show of hands of all without a relative in North America. The class had over 100 students and not one hand went into the air. It saddens me that in 2019 our Government is challenging the legality of the actions of one of its own Members of Parliament on the basis of his dual citizenship.
Editor, I will leave the interpretation of the various Articles of the Constitution to the lawyers and offer instead my opinion. Since 1992, successive administrations have asked members of the diaspora to return and serve our nation in various capacities, the political parties have not been shy about asking for funds at well-organised diaspora events, where grandiose plans and schemes are unveiled, and involvement and support solicited. We have re-migrant incentives to lure Guyanese home. Is the APNU/AFC Administration now saying that your money and labor is appreciated, but any thought of contributing by way of service as an MP, must be accompanied by relinquishing your hard-earned citizenship of a foreign country, along with pension, health care and other social security benefits? I believe that to be an expedient position that cannot benefit our nation now or in the future.
Editor, I have always taken the position that we should not have different levels of ‘rights’ for our Guyanese citizens. No one should enjoy less or more. Denial of the right to be of service in any capacity can be regulated by way of stipulated residency requirements. There exists no need to shut Guyanese out of Guyana. In their desperation to hold onto the perks of office, the APNU/AFC seem to have lost their morals and ethical compass.
Should the courts ultimately decide that dual citizenship holders are barred from becoming Members of our Parliament, I would respectfully beg that the next Administration introduce legislation that corrects this inherent injustice.
Respectfully,
Robin Singh
