|
|
 |
 |
 |
| Monday, 24 March 2003 |
 |
|
 |
Letters | |
| News Business Features Editorial Security Politics World Sports Obituaries
|
Please forward your letters to editor@dailynews.lk in plain text format within the e-mail message, since as a policy we do not open any attachments.
Fleecing the Sri Lankan returnees? I returned to Sri Lanka on 04th March and on arrival at Katunayake Airport had an urgent need to obtain local currency. Therefore, I approached the section where the branches of local banks are situated. All branches of the various banks indicated on their charts the exchange rate for Saudi Riyal as Rs. 23.59. In reality this is about Rs. 2 (two) lower than the rates quoted by commercial banks, as appearing in the Daily News. The rate on this particular day was Rs. 25/84. I needed local currency before leaving the airport. So, there was no other alternative but to change Saudi Riyals 1,416 for which I received Rs. 33,403 Saudi Banks reckon the exchange rate for rupee at around Rs. 25.60. Because of this transaction I lost about Rs. 2,800 within an hour after setting foot on Sri Lanka soil. There were some girls (probably housemaids) who had to fact the same situation. Some were from faraway places like Anuradhapura and Polonnaruwa. In addition to this, a lady (cashier) at the BOC counter where we changed money, politely told the girls "Onna Kiyalama Dennay, Rupiyalay Eva Adui". So when it came to my turn, I too found Rs. 1. short. It was negligible, As I had lost a bigger amount. What happens to the money so accumulated by the cashiers, at the end of their duty hours? Are these going to the Bank's coffers or to the pockets of the employees? IAN PERERA, Re-introduction of the death penalty Our Church views with deep concern recent moves to re-activate the death penalty in Sri Lanka. The Standing Committees of the Dioceses of Kurunegala and Colombo jointly issued a statement opposing such when it was mooted about two years ago. I wish to re-state this opposition to and our abhorrence of judicial hangings. The Christian Church believes that all persons are made in God's image and that all life is sacred. The Creator God bestows and terminates life. Pre-meditated killing, whether homicidal or judicial, is an infringement on the purposes of God. Murder can never be condoned. It destroys life and community and must not be viewed lightly. But often murder is a symptom of wider social crisis. Consequently offenders must be prevented from continuing to be a threat to society and at the same time reformed. In this way the interest and need of both society and offender are dealt with. But the death penalty is not the solution to murder. Its irreversible nature does not allow for human error. As the Civil Rights Movement has stated, " Can we say that our investigative, law enforcement and legal system is such that there is no real possibility of innocent people being convicted and scapegoats being hanged? Miscarriages of justice, of which the poor and the disadvantaged are the most likely victims, can never be rectified." We share the deep concern of several Sri Lankans regarding the recent unprecedented escalation of violent crimes in the country. But the reactivation of the death penalty will not remedy this situation. Scientific studies, as reported by Amnesty International, have consistently failed to find convincing evidence that the death penalty deters crime more effectively than other punishments. In this context the 1995 ruling of the South African Constitutional Court in which all eleven members unanimously held that the Death Penalty was unconstitutional, is clearly relevant to us as well. It said "The greatest deterrence to crime is the likelihood that offenders will be apprehended, convicted and punished. It is that which is lacking in our criminal justice system". Arguing that punishment should be commensurate but not identical with the crime the South African Court added : "The State does not have to engage in cold and calculated killing of murderers in order to express its mortal outrage at their conduct". The expression of Sri Lankan moral outrage should not blind us to the serious short comings in our investigative system and hastily offer the Death Penalty as the final and only deterrent to murder. We therefore urge that plans to re-introduce judicial hangings be dropped, that the death penalty be abolished and submit that: a) The soaring cost of living, political, business and criminal rivalries, the atmosphere of war weapons and deserters trained in the use of arms to kill contribute to the increase in violent crime. There could be other reasons. Consequently, we urge that an impartial and competent commission be appointed to investigate seriously the causes of this rapid increase in order that immediate measures may be adopted to deal with it. b) Inspite of a lack of public confidence in our Police force, we think the majority of our officers are reasonably committed and disciplined to deal with this crisis. They must however be given the professional space to do so. If more sophisticated training and equipment and international help is necessary, these must be provided. c) The growing state of violent crime must be met with prompt, efficient, and impartial investigation, leading to prosecution and punishment of the offenders, through the concerted collaboration of the whole judicial system. We agree with CRM Sri Lanka that "the alternative (to the death penalty) is a system of.... different minimum prison sentences..... (including life sentence, that would) ... satisfy the public (and family) outcry raised when persons convicted of particularly grave crimes are released after what appears to be an unduly short period". We appeal to all Sri Lankans to deal with the crisis of crime and violence in a civilized manner. This way we shall join the growing comity of nations (111 at the last count) who have abolished the death penalty, in law or practice. As UN Secretary-General Kofi Annan said: "The forfeiture of life is too absolute, too irreversible, for one human being to inflict it on another, even when backed by legal process. Let the states that still use the death penalty stay their hand lest in days to come they look back with remorse knowing it is too late to redeem their grievous mistake." THE RT REVD DULEEP DE CHICKERA , Doctorates: truly and self-conferred A press release by the LTTE reported in the CDN (4 March), refers to Anton Balasingham with the prefix Dr. Most newspapers have been doing this for long. I have even heard the Editor of a weekly who took a great personal interest in the president's credentials, while reporting for MTV from Bankok, referring to him as "Mr. sorry Dr. Balasingham." G.L. Peiris and others also have referred to him as Dr. Balasingham. However, Adele Balasingham in her recent book clearly states that Anton Balasingham did not have the time to complete his doctoral studies because of his political commitments. A recent Reuters report also said this. In the light of this I find the LTTE press release careless (unless the Daily News reported it erroneously). One day the charge might be made that Balasingham pretended to have a doctorate whereas the record so far is that he and his wife have been carefully correct about it. Sometimes I wonder if he is being set up by the southern establishment for a fall. Sri Lanka, particularly its press and professional associations, seem a little careless in giving high titles to persons who never had such titles. Where they are not sure if a person is a professor or a lecturer, instead of doing the required research, they simply use the higher title to be safe. Sometimes this mistake is to the pleasure of the person so titled who conveniently fails to offer a correction. At other times it is embarrassing to the person since it could be said that the person has made a false claim. Where professional associations and universities in this country need to uphold standards, they have often been at the forefront deteriorating them. For instance, whereas Professor is a university title, the chairman of a research organization is listed as professor by many national agencies including his own and SLAAS, Sri Lanka Association for the Advancement of Science. The OPA, Organization of Professional Associations, recently listed a speaker who was only a senior lecturer when in service and is now not a university person, as Professor. The biggest abuse is with honourary degrees, a legitimate instrument for honouring those who have outstanding achievements, particularly through service. The honourary higher doctorate in science , for example, has as its proper abbreviation D.Sc. (honoris causa). It does not, by tradition, allow the bearer to use the prefix Dr. since it would amount to claiming to have earned a doctorate as opposed to having it conferred honourarily. It is as a degree distinct from the D.Sc. degree, the higher doctorate conferred by British universities for seminal path-breaking work. However, in Sri Lanka, conferment has been used by nominators to curry favour with or as a favour to their nominees, often powerful persons or friends. The large number of conferments at the convocations of the new universities is alarming. With the exception of a few, most holders of the degree, including chancellors and vice chancellors, have dropped (honoris causa) from the title. It is a case of academic fraud where effectively it is claimed that a different degree, the D.Sc., has been earned. I am aware of past presidents of professional science/engineering associations who play this game. Many with the D.Sc. (honoris causa) degree use the title Dr. (which they can legitimately do only if they have an earned Ph.D. or an earned higher doctorate). Politicians are famous for this. A plaque at a professional society lists such a holder as Dr. so and so. I have seen a business card that simply says D.Sc., no (honoris causa) and no university, thereby leaving open the possibility that he has the earned D.Sc. from a British university. Recently when 2 professors of the old school retired from a university, friends offered to nominate them for the D.Sc. (honoris causa). One declined because, I take it, he had earned the real D.Sc. (Eng.) degree from London for seminal work and that would have been diminished by a Sri Lankan honourary D.Sc. alongside it. The other simply said, quite truthfully, that he had done nothing to deserve it. The point is that as those with old standards shy away from this much abused honourary degree, it seems to be up for grabs by politicians - the real type as well as the academic politicians. When the degree is so abused, perhaps it is time to be rid of it. S.Ratnajeevan H. I refer to the article appeared in Daily News of 28th February 2003 on the subject of the much talked of coal power, written by E. Carlo Fernando, Ex-Consulting Engineer, CEB. In the first instance we should be very thankful to Mr. Fernando for giving us a clear picture of the history of the coal power generation in Sri Lanka. It also clearly shows how deaf the authorities concerned have been, to the well-intended advice given over the years. If the advice given by the learned engineers and other international advisers in the form of reports were heeded we would not have been in this plight today, and no emergency power requirement would have been necessary. In spite of all these shortcomings of the CEB one begins to wonder why the Minister of Power and Energy appear not to have taken any notice of whatsoever at least to call for a report on the facts laid by Carlo Fernando ex-CEB Engineer and Consultant. I also feel that it is time that Dr. Susantha Perera of the CEB Engineers union take whatever action they can as a responsible union to bring about a change of heart in the thick skin bureaucrats which appear to say - "We will box-on, we don't care a damn for public opinion and the tax payers money". Finally we all say a big thank you to Carlo Fernando who has done so much by exposing the Electricity Board and the diesel lobby and the "God Fathers". We all hope and hope lies eternal in the human breast, that some belated but concrete steps will be taken immediately to bring about sane sense in the minds of those in the know of the on-coming disaster. Time is short and time waits for no man. L.U. WEERASINGHE, Duckworth/Lewis Method - for what? South African cricket team did not qualify for the super six round according to the final results of preliminary round, though they had gained the highest net run rate (1.73) of pool B. They had to beat Sri Lanka to get this valuable opportunity in their final match of first round. They were reaching steadily to the winning target of 269 runs at the end of 50th over. As all the cricket lovers of the world already know an unkind rain came to the ground and all the hopes of South Africans were completely dissolved in this rain. They had scored 229 runs at the end of 44.5 overs. If they collected another one run in next ball of that over they had to win and also to qualify for the super sixes, according to the conditions of Duckworth/Lewis Method. Mark Boucher was the Batsman and he did not know much about this valuable run. He was in form then and he had to easily get this run to keep his team up to the position that they expected. This situation explains us that over 99% of spectators and even players do not have a clear definition of the complexities of this method. The time has come to think again of this incomprehensible system, and to introduce another reasonable free and easy system. If weather cruelly disturbs a match, granting the victory, after considering the scores at the same level of the both teams would be more reasonable. Current run rate or the number of fallen wickets should not be considered. The team which follows a target has the responsibility to keep the comparative level of score. If the match has to be continued after a break the target should be reduced according to the allowed overs. There may be 25 over margin to bat compulsorily, for both teams. JAYANTHA EPA SENEVIRATNE, |
|
News | Business | Features
| Editorial | Security
Produced by Lake House |
