19th April 1998

They just don't care!

It is a pity to note that although numerous complaints have been made with regard to the shortcomings of the private bus service no improvements have been made so far.

Most of the private coaches do not bother about humanity, which is being humiliated in turn. Although there is agitation for animal cruelty, attention should be focussed on the private commuters as well.

Private bus owners do not adhere to transport rules and regulations. As most of them do not issue tickets, frequent disputes and arguments occur between commuters and conductors. Excess loading causes untold hardships and inconvenience to the passengers especially to ladies, children and sick commuters.

Meanwhile state-owned buses sometimes ply with few passengers or without passengers even on long distance routes, causing immense loss

We earnestly request the new Minister of Transport to look into these irregularities and to take constructive measures to eliminate these shortcomings to provide a better service to the public.

J.M Siddique

Kandy

What's happening to Ritigala?

Several years ago steps were taken to preserve the Ritigala Natural Reserve as a national treasure, by Government and non-governmental organisations.

However of late we have not heard any news with regard to the present status of this reserve which was once threatened by locals and foreigners seeking a variety of herbs for medicinal purposes.

We would appreciate an update on the present position of Ritigala.

N. Seneviratne

Rajagiriya

This smacks of hypocrisy

What exposes the irony of the campaign and the hypocrisy of the campaigners is the fact that the anti meat eating lobby;

oconfines its compassion mostly to the bovine species. Chickens, I presume, sing all the way to the abattoir and of course through the lintels of newly constructed houses,

odirects its ire mostly against a particular community - every man, woman and child of which should consume one pound of meat every single day of the year to consume all the cattle which the Department of Census and Statistics (Statistical Abstract 1996) says is slaughtered in a year. Probably more than two pounds of poultry and imported meats, which the department's figures do not include, are added on.

All this reminds me of a story related by a Minister of the 1960/65 Cabinet.

A Cabinet Proposal had been made to ban animal slaughter and a Minister from this particular community had suggested that before the ban was imposed, a meat stall, selling a kind of meat which they do not eat, be opened in any village exclusively inhabited by them. It was his contention that they should go ahead with the ban only if this meat stall did not go bankrupt within the week. End of discussion.

It will be a far, far better thing to do than they have ever done before, if the champions of vegetarian diets wake up to the message in the Minister's story, than look for scapegoats.

Nihal Ratnatunga

Dehiwala

Prevention of terrorism act and fundamental rights

Excerpts of a paper presented by V.T. Thamilmaran, Senior Lecturer in Human Rights Law, University of Colombo at a Seminar organised by the Legal Education and Assistance Programme of the MIRJE on April 4.

What is National Security?

People tend to think (and politicians and commentators invariably talk) of the State in which they live as a source of security, necessary for their protection against actual or reasonably likely threats from other States. There is often sharp disagreement about the genuineness or seriousness of any particular threat, and of the appropriate response to it, but seldom is the role of the State as guarantor of security called in question. At this point only we must remember what Martin Luther King said, i.e., all the rights and freedoms that we speak of have been won and have to be won.

Charles Tilly observes in his essay entitled "War Making and State Making as Organised Crime" that these are inseparably connected. He further says that the government normally organises protection rackets.

We are prone to accept or tolerate a view of political power taking off from the argument that if the exigencies of national security - in the unacceptably narrow sense of maintenance of the machinery of government - so demand, democratic freedom must always give way. It happens because, far too often, the cry of security functions in the political world as a sort of intellectual curate, inducing instant paralysis of thought. However, it is such a potent yet indefinite symbol that those in power conjure it up and claim to possess vital knowledge - which of course cannot safely be revealed - to support their actions or policies.

Experience demonstrates that perhaps the primary political function of security is as a part of the coinage of power, hoarded and used by ministerial and bureaucratic elites to ignore or short-circuit normal democratic process.

As vividly illustrated by Barry Buzan.... "(T)he appeal to national security as a justification for actions and policies which would otherwise have to be explained is a political tool of immense convenience for a large variety of sectional interests in all types of States." He goes on to state that the undefined notion of national security offers scope for power - maximising strategies available to the political and military elite.... justifying intensified political surveillance, shift of resources to the military, and other policies with deep implications for the conduct of domestic political life.

The following are the immediate results whenever a State proclaims a state of emergency fearing a threat to national security:

1. Enthronement of a political orthodoxy - at least imposition of penalties on those who hold extreme views;

2. Exercise of new and greater power - sometimes secretly and illegally, at other times under legal authority - over political conduct and expression. These powers may be wielded by police or security agencies over population as a whole or in relation to a particular community;

3. The conduct of government in an arbitrary manner - policies or actions are taken, not necessarily irrationally, but without adequate explanation and with the terms of debate sharply skewed in favour of those in office;

4. Secrecy, the boon companion of arbitrariness - here the difference is that secrecy may go beyond simple failure to account for what is done. It is not limited to actions but extends more widely to information;

5. National security is regularly invoked in the perennial tussle of fiscal and social priorities.

Rights v. Security

In Sri Lanka ER are made under the Public Security Ordinance (PSO). Under Sec. 2 of the Ordinance the President is empowered to proclaim the state of emergency by bringing into operation Part II of the Ordinance into operation. However, before proclaiming the state of emergency the President shall satisfy himself/herself of the existence of the following situation:

- the existence or imminence of a state of public emergency;

- the President is of opinion that it is expedient to do so;

- in the interest of public security; and

- the preservation of public order or

- the necessity to maintain supplies and services essential to the life of the country.

Where do we stand?

Sri Lanka has ratified the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights (ICCPR) and the First Optional Protocol to it in 1980 and 1997 respectively. Hence it has a legal obligation towards the international community to see that the provisions of those two instruments are adopted and strictly adhered to. The Reports submitted by States as parties to the Human Rights Committee of the UN have been closely scrutinised by independent experts in order to see whether they meet international standards as prescribed by the ICCPR.

Prof. Rosalyn Higgins of the Human Rights Committee (presently a Judge of the International Court of Justice) criticised the Report submitted by Sri Lanka in 1991 saying that the word necessity is a must in any derogation clause and Sri Lanka has failed to include this word in the derogation clause of Article 15(7). She further pointed out that terms like "in the interest of national security or in the interest of national economy" are unacceptable in international law of human rights.

According to the international standards of human rights it is so vital that the emergency law of a State Party is applicable to its nationals subject to the following four cardinal principles:

- non-discrimination on the basis of any of the prohibited grounds (see Article 12 of the Constitution);

- the principle of proportionality;

- the principle of non-derogation;

- the principle of consistency (with the other obligations under international law).

There is no doubt that the UN Human Rights Committee would entertain petitions from Sri Lankans on any of the above grounds.

Return to the Letters to the Editor Contents

Return to the Plus Contents