|
|
 |
 |
| Sunday, 15 December 2002 |
 |
|
 |
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.
The AIDS conundrum : What is the right estimate? On the eve of another World AIDS day an UNAIDS/WHO report emphasised the need to expand activities that focus on people at most risk of infection and to implement more extensive HIV/AIDS programs that reach the general population. In other words to concentrate on prevention. However in Sri Lanka with little resources available, the Director of the AIDS program according to a morning daily, appears to be thinking of utilizing this money to treat AIDS patients. To determine the AIDS problem, it is necessary to make a proper estimate of the existing number of cases. according to a Sunday newspape a business forum had quoted the figure as 8,700 r. However, the Director states it is 7,500, which is the UNAIDS estimate for end 1997. According to the UNAIDS website the Sri Lanka HIV/AIDS estimate is only 4,800 for end 2001. Are people inflating figures to get more aid or are they five years behind time ? If the program does not have a proper estimate how could they estimate the cost for treating patients ? While the Health Ministry has made available drugs for prevention of mother to child transmission, hardly any islandwide activities have been implemented in this direction. Maybe the doctors in charge of the program do not believe that prevention is better than cure or are following a new Doctor series, carry on curing. NGO - Colombo
It would have been more helpful, if Dr Aziz in his letter of december 8 had given some educational information on AIDS rather than claiming that Islam is the solution. No proper religion will encourage bad morals. If people follow their own religions what a rosy world it would be. Present threats of war would never have come up. Lives of millions of humans intentionally destroyed could have been saved. Weapons of mass destruction would have been unheard of. The word terrorist would never have been used anywhere. So let us keep that argument aside and consider that these unfortunate events and viruses are present and have to deal with, whether we like them or not. As I have learned, HIV is passed from an infected person through the transfer of body fluids, which are mainly blood, semen, fluids from cervix of women and breast milk. There are also three conditions which apply for above. 1. Live virus has to be present in the fluid or tissues. 2. Sufficient amount of the virus in the fluid. 3. It has to get into the body through an effective route. I have read that there are four main ways of getting AIDS. They are unprotected sex, through a blood transfusion, through infected needles or syringes used by drug users and from an infected mother to her baby during birth or through breast feeding. It has been noted that there is no risk through animal bites, unbroken skin, swimming pools, showers or by mouth to mouth resuscitation. A person with HIV may have no symptoms and appear completely healthy. Even a single test may not give conclusive results as it takes several months for anti-bodies to show up and hence during that interval infection could be passed on, without knowing. I believe that more than teaching a religion, it is essential to educate everyone and give HIV awareness training in all the work places as currently there is no vaccine or cure for HIV. A recent news item said that a new vaccine is now being developed which may at least prolong the lives of those affected. D. P. Y. Abeywardhana- London
This is a reply to the letterwhich appeared in the Sunday Observer of the desember 3entitled "Sinhala language 6,000 years old" by Dr. S. K. Vadivale in response to an earlier article by Asif Hussein. I cannot vouchsafe for the authenticity of all what he has said, except make my comments on surgery and anaesthesia. It's true that under modern conditions no operation will be done except under anaesthesia and rigid sterile conditions. But when centuries ago western doctors started surgery, anaesthesia had not been discovered. And the then doctors had to manually get the patient held down and amid the agonizing screams of the patient operate on him. This is what I read in an article in the book section of the Reader's Digest. The title of the article was 'The Year of the Surgeon'. I am an eighty year old woman and this is an experience from my own life. My father was an apothecary, who was in charge of one of the dispensaries in the villages. They treated patients for minor ailments. The qualified doctors (L.M.S.) were attached to the hospitals. My father had a brother who was a hunter. One day this uncle was badly mauled by a wild boar. The ignorant villagers not knowing what to do put the howling man into a cart and brought him to my father's dispensary. I was a very young child at the time and I remember them telling me, that my father had to get four strong men to physically hold down my uncle who struggled and cried blue murder. I do not even know whether my father used spirits to clean the wounds. My father kept him in his house until he was fit enough to go home. Anyway he survived that gruesome surgery, to go back to sport and continue to do so for the next 60 years or so. This is to prove that surgery was done even before the discovery of anaesthesia. B.H.G.- Dehiwela
It is sad that you find accounts of abuse and crimes against children. It seems that the greatest and saddest loss in the march towards "progress' has been the safety and upbringing of children. The list of crimes perpetrated against children is horrendous, from neglect to kidnapping to sexual abuse. While the average person is not an abuser or molester of children, more and more children are suffering neglect, as careers and material gain have taken priority over devotion to family.Children are left alone for hours or treated as objects in custody battles between divorcing parents. Protection and love for children is absolutely necessary for the progress of the society. Children are a blessing, and their proper rearing is a means of gaining God's pleasure. Every child is born completely innocent and pure. So the responsibility for its spiritual condition is placed on the parents. The parents who look after the moral and spiritual needs of their children are greatly rewarded by God. Mothers are given the primary responsibility for caring of children. The Holy Prophet (PBUH) said: "Do not curse a child for when you curse, angels add: 'Let it be like that, and like that it becomes....' Address a child politely and courteously, for a child is a great mimic. If you address it rudely, it will return the compliment in kind. Do not lie to a child nor be peevish or arrogant with it. It will certainly imitate you". We must love and respect for our children. We should never strike our children anywhere on their face, instead, we must pray for them fervently. Children must be seen as a source of great joy as well as the prized future of the country. Mothers should devote the major part of their time and energy to their children. Women must consider the long-term effects of placing a child in the care of others while working. They should try, within their means, to be with ther own children and ensure their nurturing, their strength of character and their well upbringing, even if this may mean material sacrifice. A. Abdul Aziz- Negombo
The beginning of the end - a reply I would like to add a few words to Ms. Marji Fernando's letter of Sunday Observer September 29, biblical prophecies. In most instances, prophecies were made in a historical and cultural context of the times we do not understand fully. We often tend to fit in our current thinking with the past prophecies believing it is a religious duty to do so. In my opinion, the interpretations given by Ms. Fernando were tainted in justifying her Christian belief. For e.g. the creation of Israel was promised during the time of the Pharoahs not in the Twentieth century. While prophecies of lesser importance are given prominence, the advent of Prophet Muhammad (peace be upon him) is hardly mentioned. It may come as a surprise to many readers that Prophet Muhammad's coming was foretold by Jesus numerous times in the Bible. It would certainly be a great injustice to Christianity if Jesus had kept quiet on the advent of Prophet Muhammad and the establishment of Islam. After all, Islam is the only major religion that came after Christianity to leave its own indelible mark in this world. Islam is the only religion, outside Christianity, that makes it an article of faith to believe in Jesus. A Muslim will automatically step outside the bounds of Islam if he/she does not believe in Jesus. We have been Commanded to believe in Jesus' miraculous birth, in his giving life to the dead by God's permission, in his healing of the lepers and the blind by God's permission, in his piety and chastity, in his truthfulness, and to believe that he was the Messiah (Christ). It is interesting to note that Prophet Muhammad defended Jesus from the onslaught of Jewish allegations of evil and blasphemy. In the Jewish Encyclopedia under the heading of "Jesus in Jewish legend" (Vol. VII, page 170-173), we are told that Jesus is referred to in Jewish references in unprintable language making mockery of his immaculate birth and his mother Mary, and accused him of practising black magic. It is also interesting to note that the Jews boasted that they put Jesus to a shameful death. Holy Quran denies these charges and defended Jesus from these allegations. Yet in another one of his prophecies, Jesus said in John 15:26, "But when the Comforter is come, whom I will send unto you from the Father, the Spirit of truth, which proceeded from the Father, he shall testify of me." Prophet Muhammad followed Jesus Christ about 500 years later. He testified to the legitimacy of Jesus Christ and explained the true meaning of Christianity. Incidentally, Prophet Muhammad was also called Al-Ameen, the Spirit of Truth. If it does not fit Prophet Muhammad one may ask which religious leader does this prophecy fits better? Every religion had their share of prophecies. They are not unique to any particular religion and should not be used as a vehicle to justify one's belief. If we take a hard look at the big picture, it is interesting what these prophecies can reveal. TUAN RASSOOL- USA.
I was entrusted with accompanying a group of French journalists representing 15 widely circulated travel magazines in France ,on a tour of 5 days in Sri Lanka. This tour was sponsored by Sri Lankan Airways branch in Paris with a view to getting publicity for Sri Lankan tourism. We visited the Cultural Triangle I have had this experience times without number but on this particular occasion I felt that it would definitely be greatly disadvantageous to us Sri Lankans. As a vehicle of tourists approaches the site the vendors run in all directions fanatically with their wares and forcibly thrust them on the tourists. I have seen that in most of the countries vendors and touts are kept outside the sites and are not allowed to enter into temples,sites , shrines or museums where there is an entrance fee levied from the tourist. Most of the journalists that I accompanied told me that it was a great pity that they could not at all profit from their visit as the entire visit was a terrible incessant struggle(particularly in Polonnaruwa and Sigiriya) against aggression and that they at no moment could appreciate and admire the splendour of the archaeological sites in Sri Lanka. The authorities concerned about developing tourism in Sri Lanka seem to be worried only about figures and statistics. If this human aspect is not looked into our tourism is doomed to die. National Tourist Guide Lecturer- Pitakotte
I read with dismay the ridiculousness of the principal's new rule of the Prince of Wales College in Moratuwa and how the parents were discriminated in the news in brief item in the Sunday Observer of October 27. I was equally disappointed reading the article by the writer who called him or herself "Citizen - Moratuwa" in response to this in the Sunday Observer of November 17. The principal has the right to enforce a uniform to the students of the school and perhaps enforce a dress code for its faculty members both males and females. However, I strongly believe that this principal is definitely overstepping his/her boundaries by putting rules as what the parents should or should not wear. I doubt if this Principal has a dress code for the male guests and parents visiting the school or its events. To insist that all female parents or guests to the school or school function wear a sari is going too far. This is sexual discrimination. This rule if applied to Muslims can also be considered religious discrimination. Muslims are expected to wear the purdah or the burqa when they are outside the house or in public. So if a parent was to come so attired, and her dress is not acceptable because she is not in a sari would this then would not only be sexual discrimination for targeting women but also religious discrimination for forcing them to wear something against their religious requirements? The Principal and the Board of Education must realize that a good part of the funds for this school come from these parents' donations, school fees, etc. This matter should be taken up with the Board of Education, the Human Rights Advocates and others dealing with Women's rights to get it rectified. The Principal needs to withdraw his/her stupid rule, and apologize in public to all of those parents who were harassed by this action and the situation rectified. If it does not stop there, it should be escalated to a Court of Law and the Principal sued for harassment and discrimination of women. Furthermore, the writer "Citizen - Moratuwa" states that any other form of female dress besides the sari is indecent. Give me a break! And this is considered decent? It all depends on how one wants to wear it and how much body they want to expose. Regardless it exposes a lot of female flesh and there are people and believers of other religions who consider sari to be indecent. On the other hand the salwar kameez is not indecent, the sarong kabaya is not indecent and neither is a frock. Again if the dress is way too short, the neck line is way too deep, the slits way too high, and not suited to the occasion, it can be considered indecent. I don't believe that the parents and guests who came to this school even in frocks came dressed up like they were cabaret dancers, at least not in Sri Lanka. Calling their frock indecent - I don't agree. By the way for the oblivious "Citizen - Moratuwa" these attires are not "fancy dress" outfits to "show off" as the writer puts it. These outfits have identity and ethnicity. The dress or "frock" is a common dress for the Burghers, Eurasians and Westerners, the salwar kameez is a cultural dress for the Moors, Pakistani descent, some Indian descent and some other Muslims in general, the sarong kabaya is the attire of the Malays, Javanese and Indonesian descent, the sari with the pleats in front came from India (not Sri Lanka). The Kandyan sari and the "redde/Hatta" (which also exposes the midriff, the chest and the back (especially for the latter) are Sri Lankan clothes. These clothes when worn usually indicates one's ethnicity customs or cultural background - it is not a "fancy dress". In case you did not know, Sri Lanka has had a lot of foreign rule before it gained its independence. Sri Lanka also had a lot of foreign traders who landed here in the past. Some stayed on, some went back and some populated the island. Its population is comprised of multicultural, multi-religious, multinational, multi-lingual and multiethnic people. School is mainly for learning academics. Respect for others, their beliefs, their origins, their cultures, their values, their individuality and other things associated with them is taught at home. Learning to respect and accept one another and their individual differences without ridiculing them or their values and belief's is important and the best lesson one can and must learn to live in harmony anywhere in the world. Leeza , Falaldeen
The principal, or whoever was responsible for refusing females entry to the cricket match at Prince of wales College Moratuwa, may have been well within their rights, and for reasons known to them. The way women dress these days, may have prompted them to apply this rule, especially being a boy's school. A woman's attire reflects their outlook, as also modesty is the hallmark of a well-mannered woman. But why, oh why, had those concerned, thought it to be a Taliban type modest code? A woman in sari, will look more appropriate at such events. Though this does not mean, other forms of dress such as Salwar Kameez long frocks and shirts etc. are not decent. No doubt women dress, to be the cynosure of others and do so to attract attention, and be featured in the fashion columns. Look around,and there is no doubt, women today are exposed not only to the elements, but also attract the opposite sex. Whilst men are clothed fully, why do women reveal more than they conceal. This fad, is a world phenomenon if we scan the daily Newspapers. The media both print and electronic, under the guise of free expression, give much publicity to such exposure. A woman appears seductive when she dresses thus. A woman's beauty is not for public display, as featured by the media. Is this not, what has brought about promiscuity and perversion. Where does all this lead, and what will be the outcome. Skirts slit upto and exposing thighs, besides bare midriffs, and neck lines that plunge, baring too much of assets. Let better sense prevail among women. I suppose Al-Qaeda dress code, does not tally with the thinking of those who believe, it is something out of his world, a kind of diatribe. We may not see eye to eye with Al-Qaeda, the organization that America wants hounded, but their basic dress code is the true Islamic attire, that to many looks oppressive. Ayesha Yusuf- Dehiwala
I have recently read many articles from outraged parents who have vehemently protested against school authorities, who require them to wear 'saris' to their children's schools. I worked in a leading boys' school. There were many boys in that school around 20 years of age. The female teachers there wore saris, if any new comer wore frocks, they soon followed the example of others or a senior discreetly advised them. But if we don't force the parents to wear sarees or long dresses; so parents wear the shortest hot pants' and the most atrociously daring slits! Specially the very plumb ones wear the shortest possible 'Mini Skirts'. The female teachers blush at this outrageous exhibitionism. Their children are most embarrassed when they hear other students' comments about their mothers. Therefore I agree that women must wear saris or long dresses (without long slits!) when they visit their children in school. A Parent- Kandy.
|
|
News | Business | Features
| Editorial | Security Produced by Lake House |
