Are we aliens?
Sri Lanka's Independence Day was celebrated in the Maldives on February
4, with the Sri Lankan High Commission here hosting a dinner party in Male.
Sri Lankan officers and employees working in high positions were invited
to this party, while the High Commission totally ignored and did not think
it right to invite most of the senior Sri Lankan expatriates such as teachers
or anyone from the large labour community working here. Aren't the Sri
Lankan masons, carpenters and municipality workers, who toil long and hard
to send foreign exchange back home, citizens of Sri Lanka? Why is the High
Commission treating us like aliens and discriminating against us?
Another incident which has shocked the Lankan community here is the
death of a Lankan on board a ship. A minor employee in a bicycle shop in
Male , this Lankan was found dead on a ship on February 9.
The questions being asked by the Lankan community are:
* How can a minor employee be sent to work on a ship without a certificate?
* Why hasn't the High Commission conducted a proper investigation into
this death?
Sri Lankan worker
Maldives
Ban sand mining
It is a pity that sand mining is done on a large scale along the picturesque
Mahaweli, the longest river in the island.
In Katugastota, Peradeniya and other areas of the Central Province,
mining is taking place for commercial purposes, despite warnings by environmentalists
and geologists. Hope the UNF Government will ban sand mining.
S.M.J. Deen
Tennekumbura
Stunning disclosure!
Amid consumers battling sky-rocketing rice prices and the government's
intervention to import rice to meet the shortfall and stabilize the market,
comes the news that an MP has discovered 3.5 million mt. of paddy at CWE
warehouses. Everyone who heard this would have been stunned!
Why didn't the CWE release his massive stock to the market to give some
relief to consumers by way of reduced prices. It would have prevented the
import of rice and also made the warehouses available for the Maha harvest.
U.M.G. Goonetilleke
Polgasowita
Peace is fine, but don't drop defences
When former American President Ronald Reagan struck an arms control deal
with the then Soviet Union during the height of the Cold War, his scepticism
was summed up in the now famous phrase, "Trust, but verify".
Following last week's ceasefire agreement with the LTTE, the government
of Prime Minister Ranil Wickremesinghe would be well advised to remember
the Reagan philosophy in its dealings with the shifty Tigers. Unfortunately,
judging by recent trends, the government seems to be guided by a new dictum,
"Trust, but de-militarize".
Last week the govern-ment also announced it was planning to reduce the
country's military budget by about $100 million this year. And according
to The Sunday Times Defence Correspondent, Iqbal Athas, the army has shelved
plans to recruit 10,000 personnel. His reports also indicate that the LTTE
has made four mid-sea transfers of weapons since the ceasefire came into
force in late December.
If these reports are true, the government is probably going overboard
placing too much faith and trust in the LTTE.
Let us certainly negotiate for peace which the country is dying for
- metaphorically speaking.
But, at the same time, let us not drop our defences and be caught with
our pants down - if not literally, at least militarily.
Mithila Gunaratna
New York
The fishy question that begs an answer
It is encouraging to note the protests against the modern slaughter house
proposed by the CMC. While this is commendable, the protest is an indirect
way of responding to the issue. The primary emphasis should be to stop,
abolish and terminate slaughter, in fact, all killing.
It is unfortunate that all those who talk about animal slaughter restrict
themselves to the slaughter of cows. This is clearly a result of Hindu
influence, which deifies the cow. On the contrary, we must strive to put
an end to all types of killing.
We must remember that ultimately all types of killing, destroy life.
There is no way we could give more value to a life that is 'housed' in
a physically larger mass of flesh. If we go on this basis, all those Sumo
warriors would be considered more valuable than citizen Silva. This seems
to be the perception held by many Buddhists. A person who thinks nothing
of eating small fish, will be horrified at the death of a stranded whale,
or at cattle slaughter. Unconsciously, he has linked the value of life
to physical mass. To this day I have not been able to verify whether this
line of thinking has any support in Buddhist philosophy.
Once in a while, you come across the odd individual who has grappled
with this problem and come to his own conclusions. Thus you find the Buddhist
who has decided that the value of life has nothing to do with the size
of the physical body. I heard of one who proudly announced that he prefers
beef to fish as a Buddhist, as the former involves destroying one life
that can satisfy the food requirements of many, whereas the latter option,
i.e. eating fish, involves destroying a large number of lives.
This man has recognised the problem for what it is. There is no escape
from destroying lives. Therefore, it is better to kill the minimum for
the maximum benefit rather than destroying a large number and becoming
more sinful.
Talking of sin, if destroying life is essential, how come it is a sin?
In other words, why is something that is part and parcel of nature considered
sinful? Are all the big fish that gobble smaller fish or the carnivores
that have to kill for food if they are to survive, all sinful? But I am
digressing.
The fact is that the sooner we can find a convincing anwer to this question
whether life value is linked to body mass or not, we can approach the issue
in its proper perspective. If the answer is, "Yes, life value is related
to body mass", then we can maintain the protest against killing larger
species.
The intensity of protest, too, should then be on par with the mass of
the species involved, while ignoring, in a way, the killing of smaller
forms of life such as fish and poultry.
But the criteria to be exercised are somewhat vague at the moment. I
mean whether we should link the importance of life only to the weight of
the animal involved, only to the size, or to both, that is to the mass
(scientific meaning intended). Or should we also take into account other
factors such as the level of usefulness to man, the animal belonging to
an endangered species, it being a harmful animal etc?
These fine points are left to experts, but the sooner we can clear this
matter up the better it is for future Buddhist generations.
On the other hand, if the Buddhist principle is found to be that life
value has nothing to do with the mass etc. of the animal, the outcome would
be that all life is of equal importance irrespective of size. In this case,
we have a massive task at hand. Cattle slaughter pales into insignificance
in front of the enormity of killing fish in their thousands, and mosquitoes
in their millions.
I am at a loss to understand how we can tackle the implications of this.
All of us who are appalled at bovine slaughter would have to get involved
in the more serious task of protesting against the fishing industry.
To dissuade the fish eating public, we will have to come up with dramatic
write-ups on how the fish is lured towards the net or the hook as the case
may be, how it gets hooked, how the sharp iron hook pierces through its
body cutting the intestines into pieces. Come to think of it, killing fish
is done in a crueller manner. We may even opt to explore ways to make fishing
humane. The first step is finding out whether the value of life is related
to the body mass of an animal.
Anura Kuruppu
Narahenpita |
