Take a vote and get a new home

By Kumudini Hettiarachchi

It was a trading floor with a difference. The crowds were there, but there was no shout- ing of bids. Some were anxious, others excited......and there was also a vote to cast at the end of it all.

The people came from different wattes that Poya morning to the Sustainable Townships Programme (STP) office on D.R. Wijewardene Mawatha, Fort. They included T-20 watte at Baseline Mawatha, Borella, Prince of Wales Mawatha in Grandpass, 45 watte which comprises Colombo Municipality flats, and two more wattes along Navam Mawatha and Ramanayake Mawatha.

Flats under construction at Wanathamulla, under phase I

Husbands, wives and children had come to see what the Real Estate Exchange Limited (REEL), a private limited liability company floated to play the management role of STP had to offer them under Phase II of the Millennium Township Programme to bring relief to those living in under-served communities such as slums and shanties. REEL comprises the National Housing Development Authority, the Urban Development Authority, the Colombo Municipal Council (CMC), the Sri Lanka Land Reclamation Commission and STP.

These people who call tiny slums and shanties their home walked into the STP's computer section where the data with regard to their households were stored. Earlier STP officials had gone to these communities, mobilized their support while marketing the concept of trading their slums and shanties for better-serviced housing units. Then they had collected particulars such as family details, extent of houses, quality of houses (whether built with brick and cement, hardboard etc.) and fed them into a databank.

According to this data, the people were being told what their "exchange" entitlement was, a housing unit ranging from 300-600 sq.ft., basic, de luxe or super de luxe.

Then they were guided to the stalls of the four real estate developers selected after a technical evaluation by REEL and shown housing models, with on-the-spot explanations about the facilities available. If the people were willing to sign an agreement with REEL saying 'yes' to the exchange, they were asked to give their preference for a developer.

"It's a democratic process. No one is forced into it," says STP's Senior Manager, Media and Communications, Somi Sekarama. "Under Phase I, which is already in operation, a 14-storey housing complex is under construction in Sahaspura at Wanathamulla to relocate families in 680 housing units in Wanathamulla and Panchikawatte. It is expected to be completed by 2001."

Under Phase II, families in 650 units are to be relocated at Palangasthuduwa also in Wanathamulla.

The funding for all this is from the government, until REEL is able to clear the valuable land on which these slums and shanties are and sell it off and pay back what the government has given to the developer. Once construction work is completed, the people are expected to place a Rs.25,000 deposit each for the maintenance of the housing complex, which will be done on a cooperative basis.

According to Mrs. Sekerama, Sanasa Bank is already advising these communities, which don't have much experience in saving money, how to put by part of their earnings towards the deposit. These deposits will be in their names, and a system will be worked out to carry out maintenance and repair of these housing complexes from the interest accrued.

The vision of the Sustainable Townships Programme under the Ministry of Housing and Urban Development is to develop the city of Colombo for the next millennium, promoting it as a commercial and port hub, while providing proper housing for the urban poor or under-served communities. Fifty-one per cent or 350,000 people of the city's population of 700,000 live in such communities without basic amenities. Of the total built up area of the city, 12% is covered by shanties and slums, on 1,506 locations or plots, mostly on prime state land.

Only if it's reel good

Is there a community centre in this hous ing complex where we can keep the body of a dead person? was the query of Jayantha Jayalath from T-20 watte, as he walked around the stalls set up by the developers. "Now we can't even take a hearse close to some of the houses in our watte. Recently we had to put a small tent and keep the coffin out in the open because the dead person's hut was too small for it to be taken in."

"The programme seems to be a good idea, but we must get the same amount of space or more if we are to move from our present homes," says Jayantha who works at the CMC.

He said when officials came to his watte and spoke of better housing elsewhere, they thought it was a "surangana kathawa" (fairy-tale). Now it seems as if it is going to be a reality. "But before we agree to exchange our humble dwellings, REEL will have to give a document in writing laying out everything."

Jayantha raised another crucial issue — the large number of extended families now living in the same slum or shanty that their parents or grandparents first occupied. Taking T-20 as an example, he said, in 1970 when the shanties in the watte were given numbers there were 147 units. In reality there were about 225 families living in those 147 units. "Now more than 400 families are occupying them. A fair system needs to be worked out to give these extended families some shelter," he added.

Jayasena Cooray and his many brothers and sisters also from T-20 watte were having a heated discussion about the space allocated to them. They were adamant that what they had at Baseline Road were units of 570 sq.ft. on nearly two perches, but that they had been allocated a smaller space in the new housing complex.

After much discussion, they went back to the "trading floor" to check out their entitlements with the comment that they would have to give more thought to the exchange before signing the agreement.

Fathima Hussain who lives with her husband and child in her mother's home on Prince of Wales Mawatha, Grandpass said they had every facility where they were living. She was not too sure whether her mother would like to go and live at Palangasthuduwa.

Dilshan and Vijayalakshmi Miranda and four children have lived at Prince of Wales Mawatha for 11 years, after having 'bought' their 'flat'. They didn't have a deed only a "card" which indicated their ownership.

They were agreeable to moving as long as all the promises were kept, they said casting their ballot for a developer.

Playing their usual game of double standards!

When the United Nations human rights commissions-and some times committees- chastise Third World countries for violating fundamental rights, the West is the first to applaud such forthright comments.

So countries such as China, Iran, Iraq and others including Sri Lanka, are always at the butt- end of western condescension and assumed rectitude.

Western politicians and the media join hands to rub even more salt to the wounds already opened by the UN.

Admittedly some UN criticism of human rights violations are justified and it is right that those who blatantly violate internationally accepted and respected norms are reminded of their pitiful records.

But what irks-nay angers-Third World and objective observers are the double standards that these critical politicians and the media allocate for themselves while deriding perceived double standards in others.

If anyone including a match-fixing bookie is willing to accept a wager, I'll bet all the tea in Sri Lanka to one portion of fish and chips from Bobby's take - away near my home, that hardly a word of criticism of UK's human rights record emanating from the UN's New York hearings will feature in the British media.

Nor will the likes of Richard Hewitt and Robert Evans, those two Britishers from the European Parliament who compared our treatment of displaced persons to the conditions in Chechnya and Sierra Leone, during a visit to Sri Lanka recently, have anything to say.

The usually vociferous media and cantankerous members of the European Parliament who are taken as seriously here as Tony Blair's promises, would pretend that the UN body never ever had to consider the human rights record of a democratically upright country such as the UK.

The media would bury its collective head in the sand and play ostrich. The British MPs at Strasbourg will pretend some EU report on British pigs-and I mean the four-legged variety- is more important than human rights. That is, unless, they happen to be visiting Sri Lanka or another Third World country and a helpful BBC reporter is standing by to record for posterity every pearl of wisdom that droppeth from their lips.

British politicians and their media acolytes carefully avoided any mention of the United Nations report on the situation of human rights in the United Kingdom. I mentioned last Sunday that a UN Special Rapporteur Abid Hussein produced a 60-odd page report which was officially released somewhere in February this year.

It seemed that the British media was still in hibernation after a winter in which snow was as rare as good Chinese food in this thrice blessed land. Finally last month-about five months after the report was publicly available- the once-respected newspaper The Guardian woke up from its slumber and published a four-column story headlined "UN report scorns UK human rights record".

With many of those astute and worthy journalists of The Guardian long gone, it seems this newspaper has lost its ability to dig out even handouts which is what such UN reports are basically.

My sources tell me that a media watchdog called "Article 19" drew The Guardian's attention to the report after which the story appeared. This might be apocryphal, of course, but judging by the general state of the British media which is struggling to maintain old journalistic standards, it may well be true.

At least one might say for The Guardian, ( for which, I might add, I used to write in its heyday) it did publish critical parts of that report. But one cannot say the same of many other print or electronic media.

If it is said that the media missed the story, then it is a poor reflection on the quality of journalism here that it cannot even lay its hands on a handout. If, on the other hand, the media deliberately avoided reporting and commenting on it, then one needs to question the ethics of the British media.

If the story was missed, then it is time that organisations such as the Commonwealth Press Union conduct its training courses closer home instead of trying to convince Third World journalists in the Commonwealth they have much to learn from British trainers sent from here to spread the gospel like missionaries. Unless, of course, we are expected to learn all about double standards.

Was the story ignored because the Special Rapporteur calls for the repeal of the Prevention of Terrorism Act which has all to do with Northern Ireland- the only place on earth where "terrorists" exist, as far as the media is concerned. Unless some British official is killed abroad when those hitherto called "rebels" or "guerrillas" suddenly metamorphose into "terrorists".

Lest we forget, it is necessary to mention that British politicians and the media were often critical of Sri Lanka, demanding that we drop or amend our own anti-terrorism law, some of whose provisions, if I remember correctly, were taken from the British law.

Why are the Richard Hewitts and Robert Evanses of British politics silent on these issues which should surely concern them much more than those in Sri Lanka.

The UN report-which by the way is available on the UN website for those interested- makes interesting reading. It should make particularly interesting reading for British politicians and the media.

A key official of the Commonwealth once said that the British media is an extension of the Foreign Office. Obviously the UN report is an embarrassment for the Foreign Office which tries to keep such embarrassments quiet.

Last week I drew attention to the nexus between the Foreign and Commonwealth Office (FCO) and the BBC. In a report titled "Freedom of Expression in the United Kingdom" Article 19, drew attention to this connection. It said that BBC's World Service is funded by the FCO which "exercises considerable power over it".

"Perhaps most important in this regard is the BBC's obligation to conform to such 'objectives, priorities and targets' as may be from time to time agreed with the FCO. Longer term objectives must regularly be agreed with the FCO and the BBC must consult and cooperate with the FCO regarding international developments and relevant government policies so as to ensure that programming serves the 'national interest' (as opposed to the public interest)".

Article 19 has more to say but these words should suffice. Is it not interesting that Elizabeth Wright, BBC's head of Asia-Pacific, I referred to last Sunday, came to the BBC from the FCO? Was that to ensure the British "national interest" is served at the expense of Third World countries and even Sinhala language programmes such as Sandesaya can be bent to serve such interests?

More Plus

Return to Plus Contents