Editorial
Yes to Pope; No to Dalai Lama
View(s):The announcement earlier this week that the popular Pope Francis would make a State visit to Colombo on the invitation of the Government of Sri Lanka would have warmed the hearts of the Sri Lankan Catholic population. Visits by Sri Lankan leaders from the President onwards, regular pilgrim parties and a local Cardinal with strong links to the Papacy have ensured that healthy relations are maintained between Sri Lanka and the Vatican, as indeed they should be.
A State visit by the Pope to bless his followers, and the country which can do with such blessings is a welcome occasion. It is also a shot in the arm for an incumbent Government vis-a-vis the Catholic community, though the visit by Pope Paul VI in 1970 did not necessarily translate into votes for that Government in 1977. The last Papal visit to the island was by Pope John Paul II in January 1995.
In sharp contrast, however, is the stand taken by the Government of Sri Lanka on the Dalai Lama, the deposed Head of State and spiritual leader of Tibet and the ‘face of Buddhism’ to the world. The Government of Sri Lanka does not permit His Holiness to visit Sri Lanka despite the Dalai Lama having publicly announced his wish to pay homage at the Sri Dalada Maligawa (Temple of the Tooth) in Kandy and the Sri Maha Bodhiya at Anuradhapura. The reason: objections by the Chinese Government.
It was, to a point, understandable when this country was facing the separatist Northern insurgency, and few countries would come to our assistance to provide the arms and ammunition required to quell that armed uprising. It was then the Chinese Government that provided that invaluable assistance. China may have had ulterior motives and a long-term perspective in what it did, but who is to argue on the merits of such help when the timing was so crucial.
But now what? Is Sri Lanka still so indebted to China for its help during the country’s internal ‘war’ of yesteryear, or is it the beginning of a new era of ‘unsolicited projects’; Exim Bank loans; economic development and Beijing’s veto at the UN Security Council that has sacrificed the Dalai Lama’s request on the altar of expediency?
As we finish celebrating Vesak, the thrice blessed month of the Buddhist calendar, with much fanfare, these are the realities — and contradictions of world affairs — and the double standards that Sri Lanka often complains of as being displayed by some other countries, that we will need to live with.
Beyond cigarettes
The Minister of Health has expressed his displeasure that the Court of Appeal has cut him to size, so to say, by limiting the graphic pictorial warning on the dangers of smoking on each packet of cigarettes to 50-60 per cent of the printable area on the pack as against the 80 per cent he asked for. On the other hand, the Court has recognised the Minister’s right to promulgate regulations under the National Authority on Tobacco and Alcohol Act No. 27 of 2006 knocking down the industry’s argument that it is illegal (Please visit for extracts of the judgment).
The Court limited itself to pictorial warnings on cigarette packets and did not extend it to cigarettes sold loose at sales points. Yet, it was a titanic power-struggle between two heavily funded lobbies — the tobacco industry and the largely foreign funded anti-tobacco campaigners. The Court appears to have held the scales evenly, as it is duty bound to do. It made some passing, if relevant, remarks about the lack of credible statistics on the dangers of smoking. Such statistics were not presented to Court (other than some WHO documents) and also the Court asked the pertinent question whether these tough regulations are only for the tobacco industry and not for the alcohol industry under the Act that is meant for both.
This argument can be extended further and further. Most of what we eat and drink is bad for our health — in excess. Should ‘junk food’ carry warning labels? Would the Minister of Health, for instance, suggest that some rice packets carry graphic pictorial warnings on diabetes with people with amputated limbs and of course, people suffering from cirrhosis on bottles of alcoholic beverages?
Smoking is undoubtedly bad, addictive and injurious to personal and public health. Yet, some may question the hype in only singling out the tobacco industry. Is the Health Minister’s crusade against smoking at the neglect of other areas of public health? The Colombo Municipality has just announced that there is an outbreak of paratyphoid in Colombo despite repeated warnings to eating houses in the city to maintain hygienic standards.
Take the widespread availability of harmful narcotics, in various forms. Is that not the Heath Ministry’s responsibility? We don’t see that same crusading spirit against the drug menace or could it be because some of those directly involved in the import of narcotics are political colleagues? What of the other smoke related health hazards of equal importance such as industrial and environmental pollution and vehicle emissions that have raised the rate of asthma among children in the cities?
Furthermore, the demand by the Health Ministry does not cover the hundreds of thousands of illicit cigarettes that are regularly smuggled into the country. This is double-jeopardy in that the cigarettes are not subjected to any standards testing quite apart from the Treasury being robbed of excise revenue. Where is the Ministry on this front? All these Court rulings do not apply to them.
What the Court of Appeal has done is to dismiss the Tobacco Company’s appeal, and the Minister’s demands, and base its judgment on the principles of proportionality. Both parties can no doubt appeal to the Supreme Court but the company must know that worldwide trends on anti-smoking legislation are stacked against it and that it has got a fair deal from the Court.
What augurs well in the wider context of this case is that the separation of powers between the Executive, Legislature and the Judiciary has prevailed and the Minister has accepted the verdict with good grace however disappointed he may be, seeking to either appeal to the Supreme Court or go back to the Legislature to have his say without demanding the impeachment of the judges.