Friday Five: Not at home

It was St Patrick's Day earlier this week. If you live in an English-speaking country, you will have noticed by the plethora of plastic Paddies pouring into and stumbling out of fake Irish bars. It is romantic to claim Irish ancestry and to hark back to the Emerald Isle. Statistically, many more people have English heritage, and yet they don't bang on about it as it isn't trendy, and far fewer people know the date of England's patron saint Day. 

Don't get me wrong; there are a lot of true Eireann folk out there (or here) and they do indeed celebrate their national day, as well they should, but they are the ones who don't wear stupid hats exhorting strangers to kiss them by dint of their ethnicity, or put green food dye into everything. The population of Ireland is apparently 6.3 million, but there are an estimated 80 million people around the world with Irish forebears. In Australia, those of Irish descent are of a higher percentage of the population than in any other country.

Similarly, when hordes of uncouth Aussies drape themselves in flags while overseas and insist  that their country is the best in the world, one wonders why they are all working in pubs in London then. Brits abroad also have a terrible reputation for boorish behaviour. There seems to be a need to flee your own country and then assert its supposed superiority elsewhere. While this is admittedly highly annoying, it is worth remembering that many of these people were originally displaced due to horrific events such as famine, conflict, poverty and persecution.

When I became a New Zealand citizen, I did not have to renounce my British citizenship. I wouldn't have done that. Other nationalities (particularly those from African countries) did have to relinquish their birth nationality for their chosen abode. For them this must have been a huge deal as they stood solemnly in national dress and took an oath of fidelity, investing in their new future. 

I respect their decision and their dignity and can only imagine how hard it must be to leave a country irrevocably behind. I am forever grateful that I did not have to and I may travel the world with my citizenship unquestioned. I know that my decision to travel is based on choice rather than necessity, and I do not have to shout this from the rooftops.

At a co-ordination meeting on international migration in 2012, Jean Christophe Dumont delivered a paper entitled Global profile of diasporas. These figures relate to that paper.

5 Highest percentage rates of emigration in OECD countries:

1. Jamaica (32.8%)
2. Albania (26.5%)
3. Trinidad & Tobago (23.3%)
4. El Salvador (20.1%)
5. Ireland (16.2%)

NB: Puerto Rico, although not in the OECD had a 30.2% rate of emigration, and New Zealand comes in at ninth with 12.2%

Fiday Five: Biggest Weaknesses

I've applied for a lot of jobs since I've been in Australia. Ten, in fact. I've had a couple of interviews and a lot of rejection. As a writer living in Canberra, many of the positions I'm applying for involve working in government departments. To work for the government, it is preferred if you are an Australian citizen. I'm not.

There are interviews, and there are endurance tests. I quite like the interviews where you sit and chat and exchange views and you tell them what you want and they tell you what they want and it's soon pretty clear whether that's going to work. They're fine. And then there are the interviews with human resources. They are generally accompanied by a clipboard, a check-list and a load of clichéd questions to which you are expected to parrot text-book answers. I hate these.

This latter type encourages dishonesty from the start. The true reason you want to work for them is because you need the money. You know that; they know that, but are you going to admit it? Unlikely. Nor are you going to tell them you sulk when you don't get your own way or you handle conflict by pulling faces at your adversary behind their back. So why do they bother asking?

The question I dread most is the one about your biggest weakness. The usual answer is some guff about being a perfectionist, having high standards, putting pressure on self to complete task ahead of schedule, blah blah blah... All sorts of thoughts flash through my mind - none of which I would ever supply in a serious situation. But I am so tempted to offer one of the following:

5 Responses to the interview question 'What is your Biggest Weakness?'

1. Bad timekeeping - I hate getting up in the morning and I'm rarely punctual
2. I like to bitch and gossip about other staff, particularly if I can set people against each other and upset morale for my own amusement
3. I take credit for others' successes and am very quick to apportion blame to cover my arse
4. Insufficent standards of personal hygiene
5. Alcohol

You're Right to Vote

Last weekend a general election was held here in New Zealand. Back at work, people having been asking me, 'Did you vote?' I am amazed by this question and simply answer, 'Of course!'. Apparently one third of the the eligible voters in this country didn't - that's about a million people. That's something I don't understand.

The fact that the party I didn't vote for and the one I despise is back in power to 'govern' (their manifesto includes privatisation, ditching workers' rights and breaking up unions) for the next three years, is not the point here. The point is that our ancestors fought World Wars so we could live in a democracy. Men and women died so that we could vote.

It is your civic and moral duty to vote. Many who didn't (mostly in the 18-25 bracket) say they don't care, couldn't be bothered or were too lazy. They claim no interest in politics and say it doesn't affect them. They might change their mind when they can't get a job, or (more likely from the sound of most of those interviewed) a benefit; when they can't afford to feed their children; can't plug in their laptops or express their opinions - if they have any, because they probably are too lazy to form them.

Perhaps if they forfeit their right to vote they should also forfeit their rights to citizenship: freedom of expression, assembly, peaceful association, thought, conscience, religion and belief; freedom of movement and residence; freedom from discrimination. And why should someone who can't be bothered to vote be entitled to benefits, education and the right to a fair hearing by an unbiased-decision maker? All of these civic rights are paid for by the tax-payer, who votes to give the government a mandate on how to distribute those taxes.

I am playing devil's advocate somewhat here; I will always vote to protect the vulnerable, which I feel is my moral duty not just as a citizen but as a human being. Those who don't vote should be ashamed of themselves. That used to carry some weight. For the selfish individuals who care nothing about their fellow man or woman, they will probably just smile and shrug. Who am I kidding; with an attitude like that, they would probably only have voted National anyway.