Exemplary citizens from 'Down Under'

From 'Down Under' comes an edifying example of what should essentially constitute citizenship. The debate on citizenship has revolved around rights and duties of the citizen, among other vital issues. But the true measure of citizenship-most public-spirited citizens would argue-is loyalty to one's country.

Unfortunately, what Australia is longing to have, we in Sri Lanka have not even begun to visualize. Our citizenship laws, basically centre around the test of proving that one's immediate forefathers were born in Sri Lanka. This is what citizenship by birth boils down to.

There is also citizenship by registration but we would be concentrating here on only our principal citizenship laws, although we warmly welcome into our fold all Lankans, regardless of the legal mode of acquiring citizenship.

Coming back to the issue of loyalty to one's country, it is amply clear that citizenship of Sri Lanka is not based on this bond and our link to our country goes untested.

This is in contrast to Australia which intends testing prospective citizens' commitment and loyalty to the country through a series of questions which they would be expected to answer correctly at the time of applying for Australian citizenship. The questions would basically centre on Australian history and certain core values which cement the Australians' bonds to their country.

Such tests could contribute towards stronger bonds between citizen and country and also lay the basis for a cohesive, closely-knit public which in turn could help in the process of placing country above self.

We call on the Lankan State to bring in citizenship legislation on the same lines. The need of the hour is a collective of selfless citizens who would work towards the national weal without considering one's selfish interests. It goes without saying that Sri Lankans are seriously lacking in this respect with quite a number of Lankans habitually placing self above country.

There are opposition politicians who are prone to this malaise of criticizing Sri Lanka abroad in the course of their jaunts. Such machinations benefit only them and their parties. Recently, there was the case of a TNA parliamentarian who identified closely with the LTTE terrorists and that too under the roof of Parliament - a symbol of national sovereignty.

We do not expect every citizen of this country to be supremely happy with his or her lot. The same goes for our communities. Not all such groups see eye-to-eye with the State and some of their demands are quite legitimate. In fact the conflict in our land could never have arisen if all our population groups are happy with their condition.

These grievances, however, should be thrashed out with the State in a non-violent manner and on the basis of the policy that the country's well-being can never be compromised. Loyalty to a single, undivided Sri Lanka needs to be undiluted, come what may.

This is the reason why legitimate means must be found to strengthen the Lankan citizen's loyalty to his country. The State would not be promoting chauvinism by doing this. On the other hand, Sri Lanka would emerge strong and stable.