THE article on the return of UK passports acquired through the nationality scheme (Sunday Morning Post, May 28), failed to inform the reader as to whether it was only the passports that were being returned, or whether, in fact, these people were renouncing their UK nationality.
There is a strong tendency for local people and even journalists to use the term 'holding a passport', when in fact they mean that the person is a national or full citizen of the particular country. This tends to degrade the notion of nationality, putting it on a par with the holding a Rolex watch, or a piece of real estate.
I would remind those who where successful in the national scheme that what they have actually acquired is full UK citizenship. Citizenship brings both privileges and duties. One of the privileges is a passport, which can be returned and re-issued at any time provided the person is still a citizen of that country. Most UK citizens do not have passports, but can easily obtain them when the need to travel to other countries.
The most serious duty of citizenship is the possibility of being conscripted into national forces and paying the ultimate price in protecting the nation from aggressors.
I must confess that I found the local UK nationality scheme as almost bordering on the farcical: offering full UK citizenship to a select few in order to keep these few people in Hong Kong! In contrast to this, the war widows (whose spouses have paid the ultimate price) were refused UK citizenship. Jack Edwards has every right to be outraged.
I even find myself sympathising with Lu Ping and the Chinese position of not recognising nationality acquired in this manner. The Chinese suggestion that these people should spend a period of around two years to acquaint themselves with the customs and culture of their chosen country may not be such a bad idea.
