Rape, murder, disappearances are still part of our daily life. Despite 2500 years of civilisation, have we really progressed in the direction of human rights? Has any government given us the right to live, freedom from torture, freedom of speech?
True, one step forward has been made with the appointment of Commissions of Inquiry, but two steps have been taken backwards with the failure to enforce offenders being tried for their misdeeds. Commissions of Inquiry are excellent tools for politicians to expose the misdeeds of their predecessors. The public don't need this information, we are aware of it. What we want is swift punishment for offenders of human rights. What we really need are tribunals to inquire, try, and hand out deterrent punishment without delay.
It is wishful thinking to expect a police, or a military inquiry not to be biased when one of their own ranks is the accused. A human rights task force must have the necessary muscle not only to investigate but also to ensure that prompt action is taken to bring offenders to trial. I am aware of the existence of the Human Rights Task Force in this country, since I was involved in the initial stages of its formation at the Sri Lanka Foundation Institute, when H. W. Jayewardena was its President.
Initially, it was supposed to deal with human rights. In actual fact it was only able to deal with fundamental rights. I canvassed hard to enable it to function in its true colours which resulted in the chairman of the task force Justice Soza being given the power to visit Army and Police detention centres in all parts of the country.
His devotion to the tasks allotted to him, resulted in the exposure of the tragedy of the missing children at Embilipitya. Apart from the case of the missing students of Embilipitiya what has it achieved?
Do the current task force visit the camps in the North and East to check on persons taken into custody? More important, do they follow it up or wait to record it as a disappearance in their files? A task force sitting in the safety of Colombo, collecting statistics of missing persons is a waste of public money.
We have an on-going war in this country but there are no observers in the area of conflict. Our Foreign Minister repeatedly says this is an internal affair, not outside comments or mediation is welcome. We have only the version of the army spokesman to accept, or face charges under the guise of the PTA, if we broadcast news that is not palatable to them.
Murder in custody, torture, and rape are a few items of news that manage to penetrate the screen of regulations governing the Press. Are accredited news reporters permitted to visit the areas of conflict? Rape in this country is fair game. Arrests are frequent, but does the punishment fit the crime?
The ministry of justice is strangely slow to propose deterrent punishment for rape. It might be worth taking a cue from Islamic law to make this a safe country for girls.
The day true democracy dawns in this country will be a greater event in the history, than the advent of the next millennium.
I write with reference to your newspaper article of 26th January 1997 wherein my practice of healing was highlighted under the caption "I heal out of Love."
I find that this article has misrepresented some facts and has also misquoted me on some matters of importance to me.
I said I heal out of karuna, i.e., compassion and not out of love. So the caption is a total falsity. Compassion and Love are two different things.
I did not say that I do not attribute my capability to a religious belief. On the contrary, what I said was that whilst I do not discredit any particular religious faith, I emphasised that I am a devoted Buddhist, and I strive to practise the teachings of the Buddha to the best of my ability. I also said that I do not discriminate the sick on religious lines. I treat all the sick alike whatever is their race or religion. I also said that the following statement of the Buddha inspired me to attend to the sick, i.e., "attending to the sick is like attending to me."
I also categorically stated that I have acquired this capability by practising some of what the Buddha taught, particularly kindness and compassion without discrimination towards any living being (human or otherwise) for a long period of time, and also that I have been practising meditation on kindness (maithri bhavana) to all classes of beings as expounded by the Buddha. I have been deeply distressed by the gross misrepresentation of the facts by your feature. Therefore, I kindly request you to correct it, by publishing my statement with the same level of publicity that was given to the feature article, so that your readers are not misled.
Though this may appear either a facetous or a pedantic title I hope to show that there is some meat in it. While teaching rhetoric (which is part of the public speaking course I teach in the American University of Asia). I have often used the topic of the devolution package as an exercise in persuasion which appears to somehow fail.
The arguments adduced for and against it are well known, and the PA government has made a valiant and praiseworthy effort to present a solution which can be the basis of a dialogue. But, judging from the opinions expressed, it is a moot point whether it is going to win through in any forum in this country, whether referendum or all party consensus.
The question I ask is why is it failing and how can we make it a success. Can we make it a success by cutting and chopping it in the select committee? Or by expecting the UNP for once to forsake party advantage for national welfare? What is the fundamental cause, if there is one?
The people of Sri Lanka have in the past lived under two types of governments - the autocratic monarchy of the Sinhala Kings, with the Portuguese and Dutch, political and commercial, colonial regimes, as one type. The other type is the comparatively mild autocracy of the British, which gradually became a training school for democracy based on the unitary form of government, a parliamentary system in the centre, operating as a colonial power, at the periphery.
The growth of certain sentiments in the last half century, has established our mindset, and predisposes us to resist the devolution package, which is based on a sympathetic reading of the history of western democracies. Our reading of the past of the western democracies has mainly been through Sinhala and Tamil, and their attendant cultures.
In sociology, especially in the sociology of language, there is a theory known as the "Sapir-whorf hypothesis" (named after its protagonists) which hold that we are prisoners of language, that language determines our modes of thought. How else can man think except through words? And the availability of words limit his thoughts.
In order to present sympathetically the past of the western democracies, as well as the recent past of the eastern democracies such as India, one needs to employ English, because that is where the concepts of "rule of law," and the "government by the people," or the "separation of power" are embedded.
This can only be done by making English a medium of instruction in the school system - an optional medium, not a compulsory medium as Sinhala and Tamil are compulsory - so that the past, that we look forward to, in the constitution of the devolution package, could be our past too.
I have tried above to put forward an argument for the reform of the education system, which goes to the very root of our current malaise - our imprisonment in our language.
India has progressed, and that is the lesson of their past, because they have fourteen languages, national languages to choose from - including English - and one cannot do better than imitate India now.
My attention has been drawn to an incorrect statement made in the feature article titled "Arguments for and against the Justice in House" published by your Political Correspondent in 'The Sunday Times' of 24.11.96 which carries references to the proceedings of a meeting of the National Task Force on Forestry and Forestry related Legislation, held on 16.11.1996 and presided over by me in my capacity as its chairman.
The relevant statement reads thus: "At a recent meeting of the Presidential Task Force on Forestry of which Justice Shiranee Bandaranayake is a member, a young environmental lawyer said a member of the Task Force had been elevated to the highest court in the land and wanted to make use of the opportunity to congratulate her.
But a senior forest official opposed and asked as to whether they did not watch former President of the Bar Association Desmond Fernando's interview on the matter which was telecast over a TV channel.
The official said Mr. Fernando came out with a valid argument against the appointment when he expressed his views on the matter."
As the second and third paragraphs of the above statement are factually incorrect and totally false, l wish to put the record straight, lest it would mislead the readers and hurt the feelings of Justice Shiranee Bandaranayake. What actual1y transpired at this meeting was that a lawyer member of the Task Force, observed that it was befitting for Professor Shiranee Bandaranayake to be congratulated by this Task Force on the occasion of her being appointed a Judge of the Supreme Court. I who chaired the meeting also fully associated myself with the proposal and when put to the House it was unanimously endorsed with no objection whatsoever.
However, your political correspondent who seems to have been misinformed by some interested party or parties, has published this fabricated version of the proceedings of the meeting.
I would like to add that this task force is a National Task Force on Forestry and Forestry related Legislations appointed by the Cabinet and not a Presidential Task Force as stated in the article.
I have been following the tug-of-war between the Minister of Health and the GMOA over the "Signing On/Off" issue. The government medical officers should realise and clearly understand that they are, first of all, part and parcel of the Public Service and therefore duty bound to observe all public service regulations, including "Signing On/Off." It seems to me that there are two reasons for the refusal of the GMOA to comply with this regulation.
The first is that some government medicoes including some consultants, prefer to "Disappear" after making their appearance without signing the register, keeping the option open for reporting sick, in case their absence has been noticed by higher authority.
The second reason is, that, just because they have qualified to treat human illnesses, and are addressed by the general public as "doctors", they are a special or superior kind of public servant to whom public service regulations do not apply and hence signing a register is "Infra Dig."
These Medicoes should realise that they are only Bachelors of Medicine and Surgery or, in the case of consultants, Members or Fellows of Royal Colleges and do not hold a Doctorate in Medicine, to entitle them to use the prefix "Dr."
Why can't they follow the excellent example set by highly eminent medical men like the Paul family, who used the prefix "Mr."? Even in India, medical officers, including consultants, have the letters M.B.B.S., M.R.C.P., F.R.C.S. etc., after their names on their name boards. I would suggest that the Ministry of Health should now start addressing the Medical Officers who do not have the M.D. qualification as "Mr." and not "Dr."
More letters to the editor - Can't they be taught better English? * We need no Treaty * Local Government polls * A call to dedicated service * Trust -
Write a letter to the editor : editor@suntimes.is.lk