|
|
 |
 |
| Sunday, 30 March 2003 |
 |
|
 |
Letters |  |
| News Business Features Editorial
|
Please forward your letters to [email protected] in plain text format within the e-mail message, since as a policy we do not open any attachments.
We as a developing country, should have a plan for the next fifty years. For this purpose the services of reputed intellectuals and professionals in all fields should be obtained. A plan or a programme without implementation is of no use. Hence this is to be accepted by all political parties for implementation which would see the end results of this exercise, developing the country for the benefit of the people, and thereby stability and protection of the country as well. Instead of appointing commissions every now and then to arrive at conclusions, it is best to have a pool of highly qualified professionals and experts from all fields for this purpose of formulating a plan for nation building. This however should not be left solely in the hands of the politicians, where the decisions taken by most of them in most instances is to enhance their own survival, rather than to benefit the country. This is quite evident from what we are experiencing since independence. With every change of government, everything changes irrespective of whether it is good or bad retarding the progress of the nation. The programme so formulated should be made known to the people, so that everyone from top to bottom would know what is required of them and perform accordingly to achieve one goal; nation building. The implementation of the above plan should be the responsibility of the respective governments that come to power from time to time, which is implemented without a break, with the right people in the right places, we could achieve the targets expected bringing prosperity to the country. Tommy Wanigesinghe, Should there be a dress code for women ? Being an educated young woman it has come to my attention whether it is fair to impose a dress code on women. We all know that the sari is our national dress and the most acceptable here in Sri Lanka and also it has become the standard dress even if we like it or not. But why make the sari a must for us ? What about the men ? Shouldn't they be forced to wear the 'national dress' as well ? Shouldn't we insist that they too come in sarongs and vesthis ? Because when a certain dress code is imposed on us there will be a certain barrier between the men and the women. Shouldn't we all be treated as equals ? Besides what a person wears is his or her business and as long as it is decent, affordable, suitable and comfortable nobody really has to care. If we look at our country what about the Muslim and the Burgher women ? Do they too have to wear the Sri Lankan style sari ? If we take it globally and impose a dress code for all women, do you think every woman will agree to wear one particular dress ? Imposing a certain dress code for women is not easy. As a country of many nationalities we can see why. As we all know the sari does not have a shawl shows a slight midriff and as well as the back. Do you think according to the Muslim religion and culture that they will agree to where it ? I am not saying that the companies and educational institutions around us should not have a dress code. They could if they wanted to. Because after all if we are working for them they have a right to impose a dress code on women as well as the men. By imposing a certain dress code it is because there should be a certain decency in workplaces like these and also because the identification of that certain place will be much easier. It is also reasonable to impose dress codes at certain occasions as lounge, formal, smart casual and casual because there again there should be a certain decency and also because we should be dressed appropriate to the occasion. Finally I like to say that by having a dress code only on women is a very unfair and unreasonable thing to do. And also it will make life much more boring, difficult and unhealthy for us. So imposing a dress code for women is something I totally disagree on. Concerned, May I have the courtesy of your columns to comment on your Editorial of the 23rd March which seems to let off the invaders of the sovereign state of Iraq lightly. To all impartial legal experts and observers, the invasion of Iraq is absolutely illegal. According to our own Prof. Weeramantry, the invasion would have been illegal even if the UN Security Council authorised it. He argues, in the Sunday Observer of the 23rd March, that the sanctioning of the use of force by the Security Council would be "contrary to the UN Charter" which is "based upon the philosophy of saving succeeding generations from the scourge of war". How can the American and British soldiers be considered as being "engaged heroically in the Gulf in an endeavour........" when such endeavour is in blatant violation of the UN Charter and is the result of illegal use of force? You also refer to their "courage and sacrifice". How much of courage and sacrifice is needed to rain bombs and cause massive destruction from perfectly safe distances of several hundreds miles thanks to the possession of advanced technology? You unquestioningly endorse the "formally stated intentions of Washington and its allies in attacking Iraq" as "laudable and eminently reasonable". You are of course aware that to the vast majority of the international community Washington's intentions are fishy and oily. While Iraq's possession of WMD has been kept under control by the international community, you are aware that Washington and its closest ally, Israel, possess the largest stocks of WMD which they have not hesitated to use on their neighbours killing and maiming millions of people and causing vast destruction. Only last week the Israelis shot and killed a 20 year old youth in the Al Ein Refugee camp in Nablus using the banned Dum Dum bullet. The Israelis have also been indiscriminately using against the Palestinians internationally banned flechette anti-personnel shells. If Washington's intentions are so laudable why are they not interested in eliminating the weapons' capability of the Israelis? As for Baghdad's "propensity for aggression against its neighbours" and its "record of use of its deadly weaponry", you are no doubt aware that its "propensity" was encouraged by Washington on both the occasions the Iraqi Army crossed its borders and its "record" was known to and ignored by Washington then. Your readers will be interested to know the cost of this wanton aggression against Iraq. The UN warned recently that in the event of war 1.26 million children under the age of 5 in Iraq will be at risk of death. Within the initial weeks of conflict, the World Health Organization estimates 500,000 Iraqis would need immediate medical attention. Ten million Iraqis would need immediate humanitarian assistance and over 2 million Iraqis would be made homeless. These staggering numbers are of human beings, not insects. And Washington wants to change all the rules only because just over 3000 died on that fateful day in September 2001 not all of whom are Americans. How would you like to be in Baghdad now Mr Editor with loud explosions right round through the night with children and babies screaming in mortal fear while their parents are horror-stricken? President Bush wants to prove might is right and it is rather unfortunate that Britain should have a Tony Blair as Prime Minister now. Who knows what the morrow holds for them and for the world. M. I. M. With reference to the letter of Mrs. Sithy Iyze Weerasiri, which appeared in the Sunday Observer of February 9, the clarification she desires is as follows: She was born a Moor (by race) and her religious denomination was Muslim. After marriage (conversion) she became a Buddhist. Now she is a Lanka Marakala Buddhist. I submitted to the Registrar of Deaths in different areas four separate relative forms duly authenticated at different dates that my deceased family members' race is Malay. In response I received four Death Certificates in which their race has been endorsed as "Lanka Marakala". There were different sects known as Marakala, Sonakar, Ambayo, Coast Moor etc. covered under the main racial appellation "Moor". Moor representatives in the highest legislature have subsequently got the government to brand not only them but also the Malays as "Lanka Marakala" as for their race. The Muslims in Sri Lanka are the Moors, Malays, Indian Muslims, Pakistanis, Bangalies, Afghans, Maldivians, Arabs, converts of other denominations and others. Though they have embraced Islam as their religion, each of them sacredly preserve their unique racial identities of their own, which are different to the Moor community. The Moors who represent exclusively for these entire Muslims is it proper, justified, fair play. Islamic to have utilised the power and influence vested on them as Muslim Cabinet Ministers to convert these muzzled Muslims contrary to their pledge under the recently innovated Moor racial brand name "Lanka Marakalayas" ? This tantamounts all these Muslims categorised above are fishermen or seafarers. "Mara" denotes in Sinhalese Sea and Karala (Kalaya) people or men. It was the existing rights of the Malay community to be privileged from the outset to appoint a Malay to represent their community in the highest legislature of this country to expose such irregularities, woes, shortcomings, discrepancies. Fazeer Radin, Cricket World Cup - points to ponder The readers know that there has been some controversy regarding the criteria for selection of the super six teams. Journalists referred to the rules earlier agreed upon by the cricket boards, ICC Technical Review Committee's ruling given three weeks after the tournament started, and a protest made by the Sri Lankan Cricket Board on that ruling. That controversy could have been avoided if everybody stuck to the basics - of identifying what is needed, and how to achieve it. This is the World Cup, and the six teams who played best in the pool games had to reach super six troupe. There should be no argument about it. It is true that it was not the case, but that was due to unavoidable and unforeseen circumstances like interruption by rain and forfeitures. Leaving that aside for the moment, we could see what the fairest criteria for the selection of the six teams who played best are, when some have equal number of points at the end of pool games. When the 42 matches of this round were over, each team had played six matches with the other teams in its pool, and collectively, two teams on equal points have played 11 matches, i.e. one match with each other and ten with the other five teams. The net run rate is the barometer to gauge the overall performance of each team in the tournament thus far, i.e. eleven matches. The head to head result (also called the playing record) between two teams equal on points takes in to account the out come of just one match, and knowing the glorious uncertainties of cricket, that would not be fair. The selection has to be made on the net run rate based on all matches played. Another advantage of using the net run rate in preference to the playing record between two teams is that it is expressed in two decimal points, and therefore, the chances of two or more teams tieing on equal figures would be non existent. There were those - especially in our camp - who say that the net run rate should be reduced when a match is forfeited as it tantamounts to a loss. There is some logic behind this statement, but there is no way to do this in a fool proof and fair manner. Besides, losing four points to the other team could be considered sufficient penalty, because more severe penalties could come later by way of early exit, as what happened to the Englishmen and Kiwis. It is very likely that both teams would have been in super six had they fulfilled their obligations to their countrymen, the organizers and the cricket loving public. There is another moot point. Consider the scheme to decide how much of the points earned in the pool stage could be carried by the six teams to the super six stage. Four points were given to a team for a win against a fellow qualifier while only one point was given for a win against a non-qualifier. There is really no need for such a difference as all teams have played the assigned matches against both weak and strong opponents, and what is worse is that it gives an unfair advantage to some with a corresponding disadvantage to the others. Let me explain. Kenya, New Zealand and Sri Lanka each won four matches and got 16 points each, and Sri Lanka got an additional 2 points for the tied match. Surprisingly, Kenya carried 10 of its 16 points (i.e. 62%) while Sri Lanka carried only 7.5 of its 18 points (i.e. 42%) and New Zealand carried even less - only 4 of its 16 points (i.e. 25%). There is absolutely no justification for this inequality as there was equality in the games played. Kenya should never have carried more points than Sri Lanka after collecting 2 points less in the pool games ! The irrationality of this scheme is pretty obvious, and it needs revision. Dr. Wijaya Godakumbura, Homosexuality is a delicate and controversial subject prevalent in today's society. You may be wondering about the Islamic position on homosexuality, Islam considers same-sex marriages to be invalid, thus all homosexual activity is extra-marital. Islam forbids all sexual activity outside marriage, Islam does not permit sexual relations, even preliminary acts of physical love outside marriage. To remain sexually inactive and chaste before marriage is an extremely important injunction in the Holy Quran. Adultery, fornication and having secret relationships within the same sex and with the opposite sex is a heinous moral lapse which is categorically condemned in the strongest terms by Islam. This prohibition includes dating, secret paramours and experimental living together. As these are regarded as heavy sins, they carry severe penalties. Therefore homosexual acts are considered to be a sin. Islam also forbids 'lewdness' between men and men, women and women, and men and women who are not married to each other. (See Holy Quran: 4;16,17) In addition, numerous sayings of the Holy Prophet (PBUH) condemn sodomy as hateful in the sight of God. This position against homosexuality supports the Islamic teaching of chastity and of the sanctity of sex within marriage. In general, it is consistent with a Muslim's goal of always seeking his or herself and spiritual development and leaving aside those things which attracts the lower, baser side of human being's nature. A.abdul Azis, Vaas and the sign of the cross - a response This refers to Arokiasamy's letter under heading 'Vaas and the sign of the Cross' contents of which are completely illogical, unrealistic and utter nonsense. Vaas achieved all his bowling feats due to superb bowling on his part and blundering and irresponsible batting on the part of the opponents. Making the sign of the cross, Jesus Christ in no way contributed to his bowling feats other than his ability to swing the ball with dedication and concentration. A person cannot bowl, bat superbly with the help of divine God, Christ or any unseen super power. Then how did Jayasuriya attain those record breaking feats? Players of predominant Christian countries, who have constantly become champions of World Cricket may have a hearty laugh at this nonsense. In this regard I wish to quote from an interview given by Ven. Prof. Bellanwila Wimalaratana Thera sometime back. His temple, is being patronised by almost all the Buddhist players in the Sri Lanka team. According to him, just because a player obtains blessings after religious observance, it will not at all help him to score runs or take wickets in matches. It is his concentration, hard work, following advice of coach and purifying the mind etc., that contribute to achieving good performance at matches. You cannot achieve feats of a Bradman or a Muralitharan through blessings of Jesus or any so called omnipotent God. ABHAYA PERUMADURA, In the letter supporting death penalty (Mar. 16) Mr. Thambyrajah refers to Thirukural, an ancient literary masterpiece of Hindu Philosophy. But it will not be very difficult to quote from other literary and religious writings from Hindu Tradition in opposing the issue of death penalty. However, the crux of the matter in the debate about death penalty is NOT the notion of deterrence nor the administration of justice but whether or not it is an acceptable form of punishment within a HUMAN society. Mr. Thambyrajah argues that, I quote: "for the safety of the innocent people and the law-abiding citizens of our country, there is justification to restore death penalty". What is ignored in this line of argument is the fact that in many jurisdictions the judicial process is so imperfect and discriminatory that many innocent people have been wrongly convicted and executed in the name of justice and protection of the "innocent law abiding people" of the country. Just look at the administration of justice in the United States of America. The statistics show: 1) It convicts one of the highest number of citizens to death penalty. 2) It convicts (discriminatorily) the minority Blacks to death penalty three times as many as the White majority population. 3) It has wrongly convicted and executed many innocent citizens in spite of a justice system that is supposed to be the best in the world. 4) What is most striking is the fact that the U.S. is ranked first in the number of murders committed than any other country in the world. Hence it proves that capital punishment is no deterrent to murder rates in a country. I would recommend to those interested in restoring the death penalty to read the Amnesty Report of 2002 titled: United States of America: Arbitrary, Discriminatory and Cruel: An aide-memoire to 25 years of judicial killing. Given the above factors it is the wrong thing to re-introduce Capital punishment in Sri Lanka. There are today, including Sri Lanka, 109 countries that are abolitionist in law or practice. Let us hope that common sense (and not political opportunism) will prevail and Sri Lanka will continue to be counted as one among the many progressive countries opposing the death penalty. Doing otherwise would be a step backwards and a blow to the great religious traditions and values held by the Buddhists, Hindus and the Christians of Sri Lanka. A. Linus, |
|
News | Business | Features
| Editorial | Security Produced by Lake House |
