“…Then We Asked That Our Drinking Water Not Be Poisoned And We Were Shot.”
By Emil van der Poorten -August 13, 2013 |
Emil van der Poorten
I make no apologies for the seemingly melodramatic title of this column because it is all that will fit from the fuller version which, in turn, is a paraphrasing of the very famous one by Pastor Niemoller in historically similar times and which should read in its entirety:
“First we asked that our EPF savings not be embezzled and we were shot; then we complained about the adverse impact of the increase in kerosene prices on our livelihoods as fishermen and we were shot; then we asked that our drinking water not be poisoned and we were shot. What other crimes are being created to justify our executions in the future?”
If confirmation be needed of the ruthlessness of this regime, the events atWeliveriya provided it in spades! A turbulent but, by all descriptions, non-violent demonstration of local people – thousands – against contamination of their drinking water was met with what can only be described as a show of force not simply intended to “show who’s boss” but to instill terror.
When was the last time that you heard of a battle-hardened unit of the army being called in by the police, arriving in armoured personnel carriers, wearing bandannas across their faces? One might be tempted to proffer the suggestion that white hoods, a la the Ku Klux Klan, would have been more appropriate given the conduct of those in uniform, but, one hardly needs to proffer advice about “improving” such
techniques to this lot.
These are forces completely and absolutely under the control of the President’s brother, Gotabhaya, and for yet another member of his family to be engaged in discussions with representatives of the protestors while the assault was being launched has a very simple message from these monarchs parading as saviours: to defy us and ours is to do so at peril of limb and, literally, life. Read More
Milkgate: White Does Not Always Imply Purity
By Malinda Seneviratne -August 13, 2013
Malinda Seneviratne
Watergate is the name given to a political scandal that rocked the United States of America in the early 1970s. It was about a break-in and a cover-up. It led to the resignation of President Richard Nixon. The scandal also saw the indictment, trial, conviction and incarceration of 43 persons, dozens of whom were Nixon’s top administration officials.
The above is from Wikipedia. Wikipedia doesn’t have an entry for ‘Milkgate’. The only association between ‘milk’ and ‘gate’ as of now is ‘Cow and Gate’ a UK based dairy products company. In the case of the dairy industry, as opposed to Nixonian ‘intervention’, the only ‘break-in’ we can talk about is markets. We could, or rather we should, add ‘breaking through all cautionary safeguards of communities and individuals. And ‘cover up’ would include lulling into a false sense of security by false and exaggerated claims complemented by deliberate fear-mongering. We could, or rather we should, add ‘purchase’, i.e. of decision-makers (politicians, clearly), approvers (scientists, doctors and their various clubs) and potential critics (media, for example, through pumping in of advertising and the threat of pulling out ads).
There is also litigation; a panel discussion on Jana Handa scheduled for tomorrow (August 12, 2013) on the subject of milk powder contamination has been shelved on the advice of lawyers since there was a court case on Fonterra. The topic was milk powder contamination. If that warrants a no-no, then all poisoners, big and small, can pay someone to take them to court; that would be a cheap criticism-blocker. If that was legitimate, then a stop on advertising should be voluntarily imposed by these companies, ‘because it is in the courts’! These companies usually schedule advertisement for long periods, 3 months, 6 months or even a year. There are big spenders. Having allocated, they can’t withdraw from contractual obligations. The relevant media organization can, in the name of ethics, reimburse. Do they? Will they? If not, they would most certainly be less comfortable in carrying news that is to the detrimental to their ‘friendly’ and ‘generous’ clients.
