Why Sri Lanka needs more entrepreneurs

By Jeeshan Mirza -Wednesday, 20 September 2017


Following the end of a near three-decade civil war, Sri Lanka was primed for rapid economic growth. Buoyed by post war optimism the country’s economy surged ahead from 2009 onwards amidst adverse development and slowdown in the global economy. This led to Sri Lanka being considered as one of South Asia’s best performing economies. Media stories were rife with comparisons to the likes of Singapore, Hong Kong.

Fast forward to 2017, much of the optimism and post war jubilation has waned. The headlines have taken a U-turn with stories of declining growth, debt, burgeoning trade deficit taking centre-stage. The miracle of Asia is slowly becoming Asia’s left behind economy. Thought leaders and economists have floated a variety of theories to explain Sri Lanka’s economic slump. One overlooked and underestimated factor is the low level of entrepreneurial development in Sri Lanka.

The relationship between entrepreneurship and economic growth has been explored as early as the 18th century, by the likes of Adam Smith and Jean Baptiste Say. Recent decades have seen a strong revival in the study of entrepreneurship amongst academics, government policy makers, and business leaders.

Entrepreneurship is increasingly being seen as a potential catalyst to stimulate progress in the backdrop of recession, declining growth rates, unemployment, political instability and environmental challenges. Numerous researchers have pointed out to entrepreneurships ability to thrust nations forward by creating new wealth, jobs and being an incubator of innovation.

Particularly in the developing and emerging economies, governments see entrepreneurs playing a role in tackling both economic and social challenges. And as the popular saying goes, entrepreneurs and small business form the lifeblood or backbone of any economy.

Lifeblood of any economy

Statistics from Sri Lanka’s Ministry of Industry and Commerce suggest that 75% of all enterprises fall in the SME category, contributing to 52% of the country’s GDP and 45% of the employment. Although this sounds promising, one must take a closer look at the actual numbers as opposed to the percentage. Sri Lanka’s volume of business activity is simply not enough to generate the desired economic growth.

Department of Labour statistics suggest 2.8% or roughly, 230,000 of the Sri Lankan working population are employers or business owners. Global Entrepreneurship Monitor (GEM), a consortium of universities carries out an annual survey of the most entrepreneurial countries in the world.

According to their study, in Thailand, 27.5% of adult population (aged between 18-64) are owner-managers of established businesses, making it the second most entrepreneurial country in the world. This means close to 13 million people in Thailand are involved in some form of business activity, explaining the outstanding growth of the South Asian nation.

This should not come as a surprise to anyone who has visited or followed the progress of Thailand. Thais are very industrious and entrepreneurial in nature engaging in various types of business catering to both export and domestic market.

Vietnam has business ownership rate of 19.6%, Brazil 16.9%, Indonesia 15.3%, Bangladesh 11.6%, and China 7.5%. Considering the population of these countries, the level of entrepreneurial activity in these economies is staggering. Countries with population similar to Sri Lanka such as Chile, Taiwan, Romania, and Cameroon also have business ownership rates around 10%.

Lesson for Sri Lanka 

If there were a lesson for Sri Lanka from these countries, it would be to improve on the 2.8% statistic. In other words, Sri Lanka needs a fivefold increase in entrepreneurs and SMEs to fuel economic growth. The big question here though is why Sri Lanka does not have enough entrepreneurs. Equally important to understand is why Sri Lankans are not opting for path of self-employment.

For the past two decades, numerous researchers have carried out studies to ascertain the lack of entrepreneurial intention in the island nation. The consensus is Sri Lankans in general are resistant so self-employment.

One researcher for instance observed antipathy towards business amongst younger generation. Self-employment was perceived to have low social respect, stability and security-in comparison to other professions. Another researcher discovered a clear preference amongst graduates towards government jobs followed by private sector.

Some researchers provided evidence that Sri Lanka’s culture predominantly emphasises the need for affiliation over achievement and power. In economic literature it is well established that entrepreneurs are generally achievement oriented. In another study, a researcher concluded youth are pressured by family and society not to consider business.

Cultural influence

Well-known educationist Professor Gunapala Nanayakkara has written that child-rearing practices in Sri Lankan culture creates dependence syndrome. He further states the riskless environment they are brought up in curtails their independence, risk taking and challenging behaviour. Several researchers also point to the education system in Sri Lanka, which they purport, is theoretical, not providing the grounding and self-confidence required for self-employment and other challenging opportunities.

To further understand the low entrepreneurial intention levels in Sri Lanka, I myself carried out my Master’s research on ‘Cultural Influence on Entrepreneurial Intention’. The study was done with a sample base of private university graduates who are well aware of Steve Jobs and Mark Zuckerberg. Despite the small sample size, the findings of the research were consistent with those of earlier researchers. Culture and social factors were indeed barriers, hindering entrepreneurial intention of the graduates.

Family, friends, cultural norms, society and peer pressure were the chief culprits swaying potential would be entrepreneurs to the safety and comfort of a nine-to-five job. Most respondents were not comfortable with risk taking, ambiguous situations-essential requirements for entrepreneurs. Many of the personality and psychological limitations identified from the research are known to inhibit entrepreneurial intention. These traits are products of our upbringing, culture and society.

The typical response of policy makers to improve entrepreneurial environment is improving ease of doing business and introducing SME friendly policies. There is no denying that both are essential. Sri Lanka ranks 110 amongst 190 countries in World Bank’s ease of doing business ranking. A more favourable and conducive business environment is bound to encourage entrepreneurs. However, going by the Sri Lankan entrepreneurship research findings, these might not be enough.

Sri Lanka’s issues are far too deep-rooted to be resolved with tax concessions, subsidies and business plan competitions. The roadblocks which prevent an individual from becoming an entrepreneur start long before one decides to start their career. Resolving these issues requires participation and involvement of various stakeholders.

Boosting entrepreneurship image

The Sri Lankan Government needs to create a more favourable and positive image of entrepreneurs and entrepreneurship in the country. Thais for instance have a positive attitude towards becoming entrepreneurs, something that carries a high status in their society.

Schools, colleges, institutes of higher education also have a role to play with more progressive application based education, extra-curricular activities to promote innovative thinking, risk taking. However, parents could be the most influential factor by teaching their children to think freely and independently, and encouraging exploration of new ideas, unfamiliar circumstances.

One valuable lesson from Thailand is their society’s tendency of not pushing failures; encouraging people to start anew with lessons. The cultural support for experimentation and innovation in Thailand produces optimistic minds, which are undeterred by the fear of failure.

There is no doubt that Sri Lanka needs more entrepreneurial development to fuel economic growth. However, there is no short-term silver bullet solutions to this. Sri Lanka must not underestimate the cultural barriers, which have been clogging the entrepreneur production pipeline. Once addressed, and given reasonable support from government with regards to business friendly policies-entrepreneurship could grow in Sri Lanka ushering a new era of economic development and prosperity.


(The writer is a researcher on entrepreneurship and small business development. He welcomes feedback, comments at jeeshan2000@gmail.com.)

Anti-SAITM forces and the rule of law

BY FAIZER SHAHEID -2017-09-20

With the anti-SAITM forces regularly attempting to hinder the usual traffic flow during peak hours, the Doctors and medical students appear to be heavily in need of some education. In particular, the law which they constantly keep violating.

The representatives of the Government Medical Officers' Association (GMOA) have behaved in a manner unbecoming of professionals in the last few years, openly dictating terms to the government in respect of a purely policy related decision to be taken by the government. They have repeatedly applied pressure to abolish the South Asian Institute of Technology and Medicine (SAITM), just like they managed to bring down the North Colombo Medical College in 1989. If any lessons from the past are to be learnt, it is clear these anti-SAITM forces are against private medical education as a whole and are not simply for upholding the standards they claim have been breached.

First and foremost, if standards are to be met, the medical students ought to attend lectures in order to secure a proper medical education. Behaving like thugs and boycotting lectures has somehow become the trend among the medical students of local universities. It renders the stereotype that 'doctors are well behaved' invalid. Most medical students, just as the members of the GMOA, resort to an aggressive tone when discussing the topic. They are also somehow opposed to the solution of standardizing private medical education in lieu of abolition. My attempts to find logic in this standpoint has reaped no results from the anti-SAITM forces. Usually, this is the point when they become aggressive.

The problem

Although the standard of medical education provided by SAITM has been doubted in the past, it must be noted that establishing a proper medical education system encompassing all medical standards is an expensive process that requires time. To be fair by the anti-SAITM forces, SAITM obtained its degree awarding status from the University Grants Commission (UGC) under dubious conditions in 2011.

Degree awarding status was granted in line with the former President, Mahinda Rajapaksa's vision of establishing a private medical university in order to make Sri Lanka the educational hub of Asia. The anti-SAITM forces claim that Dr. Neville Fernando had manipulated the established procedures to set up his private medical college. Irrespective of whether this is true, what truly matters in respect of the above issue is whether the medical college was legally established according to the entrenched procedures. The last time I checked, it was the role of the Court to make a decision on such matters.

While the final verdict of the case is pending, the anti-SAITM forces are persistently throwing tantrums and haggling over the outcome. The only perceivable notion one could deduce from the extravagant measures taken by the anti-SAITM forces is that they wish to coerce the government into determining a verdict against SAITM which would then render a Court ruling meaningless.
Parliament or the Courts

Despite the purported doctrine of separation of powers between the Executive (President), Legislature (Parliament) and the Judiciary, the powers are not essentially equal in Sri Lanka. In Sri Lanka, the doctrine works hierarchically where the Executive is the most powerful, the Legislature is a little less powerful, and the Judiciary merely operates as a tertiary tool for enforcing the law.

Considering that Parliament has the authority to determine policy and law, if Parliament were to decide on completely nationalizing SAITM, then there would be no need to pursue a lawsuit questioning the operation of SAITM. This is unless SAITM were to challenge the ruling in a Court of Law and the Courts resorted to issuing an injunction on the application of the law until Parliament's verdict has been made clear. Such a determination would only transpire if the Courts chose to utilize their powers of statutory interpretation and interpret the law in a manner befitting equity and justice.

There is also a possibility of challenging any policy of Parliament that would propose to shut down SAITM as a violation of human rights in the Supreme Courts, thereby effectuating the Courts powers of judicial review in accordance with Article 126 of the Constitution.

Nonetheless, should Parliament choose to enact a fresh policy on the issue of SAITM, the procedure to nullify such a policy shall only be a long shot. The GMOA and other anti-SAITM forces are aware of this, and have hence opted to coerce the government by bullying the general masses of Sri Lanka.
Anti-SAITM forces

The GMOA, Inter University Students' Federation (IUSF), and other anti-SAITM forces have resorted to swingeing measures to accomplish their objective of shutting down SAITM. Strikes have become their common mode of pressuring the government, but it is even worse when they take to the streets during peak hours to seriously cripple the traffic flow.

Not only are they trying to intimidate the government, but they are holding the general public to ransom. On 21 June, the IUSF had forcibly entered the Health Ministry even though there was a restraining order from Courts ordering them to refrain from entering any State institution. The students had other plans. Not only did they enter the premises, they broke chairs and tables and even replaced the Health Ministry boards with their meaningless posters.

The Police charged with batons and tear gas and managed to disperse the protestors. However, 85 of the protestors and 6 Police Officers were injured in the process.

In a more recent incident, the GMOA threatened to block the road with 5000 vehicles. They even had the guts to warn the general public that they would be severely inconvenienced by this. A female youth activist posted the following status on Facebook: "Called my Tuk guy ******, from Warakathenna to get myself dropped at the bus stand. He said he can't come because Dr. ****** from Dehiowita who also runs his private practice in the town is paying him Rs 4500 to join the anti-SAITM protest. My mother asked him what SAITM was. He had no freaking clue."

The names have been withheld because the author of the Facebook post requested anonymity. The post, if accurate, reveals that the GMOA will go to any length to force the government to resolve this issue.

However, thanks to swift Police action, the anti-SAITM vehicle parade was halted and the protest came to a standstill even before it had begun. The anti-SAITM forces have claimed that the Police have been continually suppressing their trade union action. The GMOA had even contemplated complaining to the United Nations Human Rights Council (UNHRC) in Geneva.
Human Rights

While trade unions certainly have the right to assemble peacefully in accordance with the Constitution in Article 13, the right can be stretched only as far as it does not breach another right. The Constitution in Article 14 (1) (b) does not interpret the term 'peaceful assembly,' but certainly lays limitations through Article 15 (3).

It must also be noted that Article 14 (1) (h) recognizes the right of movement. In the event another tries to suppress a person's right of movement, it is the responsibility of the State to protect that person's right. Therefore, if the trade unions, under the pretext of freedom of peaceful assembly are forcibly hindering traffic or movement in any way, the State has the right to halt the protest and bring them to book on the basis of public policy.

The public policy is stated in Section 138 of the Penal Code which makes it a crime if there are 5 or more members intending to cause criminal mischief by using criminal force. The crime is referred to as 'unlawful assembly.' Section 427 makes it a crime to trespass even if the intention is to protest, and Section 409 makes it clear that anyone who trespasses can be imprisoned for three months. What the anti-SAITM forces need to learn is that intention would suffice to halt their protests.

Therefore, unless and otherwise it can be proven that the action by the Police to halt the protest was completely uncalled for, any human rights application filed against the Police is likely to fail.
Authorities and force

The anti-SAITM forces had behaved like hooligans at the Health Ministry in June, and on many occasions before and after that. They have often termed the attempts of the authorities at repression as a form of suppression of their right to peaceful assembly. The anti-SAITM forces would have to learn the overarching powers of the security forces to repress their attempts to block the roads in Colombo, let alone a ministry compound.

Under the Police Ordinance, Section 55 bestows on the Inspector General of Police (IGP) the responsibility of authorizing the level of force to be used in the discharge of duties. In certain instances, the Police had been authorized to use only 'minimal force' and in other instances, the Police had been ordered to use 'necessary force.'

If the anti-SAITM forces decided that the actions of the authorities was still harsh, it may be advisable to refer them to the Code of Criminal Procedure. Section 95 to Section 97 of the Code of Criminal Procedure sets out the guidelines to disperse an unlawful assembly. Any Magistrate or Police Officer of the rank of Inspector or above can order an unlawful assembly to disperse. If they do not heed this order, the Magistrate or Police Officer mandated in law may authorize using force as is reasonably necessary.

It has often been debated whether the force to be used should be 'reasonable force' or 'necessary force.' The joining of the two implies the force need not be proportional, but sufficient to disperse the unlawful assembly. If the unlawful assembly continues to resist all reasonable action taken by the Police, the assistance of the Army, Navy, and Air Force can be sought. If nothing else works, then the law authorizes the use of military force on the unlawful assembly.

In the event a Police Officer or any other Military Officer is ensnared amid the chaos and is unable to communicate with a higher ranking official to request for orders, he or she would be authorized under the circumstances to order military force against the unruly protestors. This authorization is valid until communication is established with the authorized officials.

For any action taken by the security forces under the circumstances, the Code of Criminal Procedure protects the officials against any lawsuit. Therefore, if military action or any other action is indeed authorized against the mobs, none of the authorities may be prosecuted for it. This is unless the security forces had acted negligently and their actions had been completely uncalled for.
Conclusion

The anti-SAITM forces have on occasion even tried to dictate terms to lawyers. They have taken the law into their hands. The law must be implemented in order to ensure that mobs do not derail the progress of this country.

Many groups and trade unions have resorted to protests in the past, but seldom have there been mobs as unruly as the anti-SAITM forces. It is for such mobs that the law authorizing military force was made. Should the anti-SAITM forces seek to destabilize the usual traffic flow or hold the general public to ransom merely to strong-arm the government into giving into their demands, the law authorizing military force must be unleashed upon them. Be it doctors, medical students, or even lawyers or laymen, the law must apply to everyone unequivocally.

(The writer is a law tutor and an independent researcher of laws. He holds a postgraduate degree in the field of human rights and democratization from the University of Colombo and an undergraduate degree in Law from the University of Northumbria, United Kingdom.)

(faizer@live.com)

Can bureaucrats say no to politicians? The jury is out…

2017-09-21

The forthrightness that is usually forthcoming from the old guard of our civil servants may have disappeared for good

I wonder how many of our Secretaries today understand the meaning behind the title Chief Accounting Officer (CAO)

During the past ten to fifteen years, the petty bourgeoisie was visibly impatient

The case against Lalith Weeratunga and Anusha Palpita has now been  closed, at least until the appeal is taken up by a higher judicial  court. 

“Dictators, unlike Democrats, depend on a small coterie to sustain their power. These backers, generally drawn from the military, the senior civil service and family or clan members, have a synergistic relationship with their dictator. The dictator delivers opportunities for them to become rich, and they protect him from being overthrown”.
 ~Bruce Bueno de Mesquita  

This column is a sequel to my last column which went under the headline ‘Politicians beware! No bureaucrat will carry out your illegal orders…’ In response to that column, a highly respected former civil servant, whom for our convenience, I will call Mr. X, exchanged emails with me and he even gave me his consent, if I desired so, to quote him. His remarks are quite enlightening and at the same time depressing given the institutionalized hazards present in today’s Government machinery. In the context of two significant Government servants, one, former Secretary to President Mahinda Rajapaksa and the other Director General of Telecommunications Regulatory Commission (TRC), being found guilty by Colombo High Court and sentenced to 3 years rigorous imprisonment and a collective fine of 106 million rupees, the comments and observations rendered by an honest and efficient civil servant are indeed fitting and striking.  

This civil servant’s insight into the intricate issues associated with expanding Government structures and political decisions taken during the last two decades to include unessential functions is laudable. He also pointed out that the system was bereft of the required administrative, professional, academic know-how and capacity. He also touched on the increasing influence of Government servants on the daily lives of citizenry. According to this source, he along with some of his close associates, who held significant offices in years gone by in the same Ministries, submitted a detailed communiqué to the highest in the land.  But their attempts didn’t bear fruit as they were believed to have gone over the heads of those who were responsible in making such groundbreaking decisions. Truly worthwhile input from those who produced extraordinary results during their time in the eighties, (‘80s) went abegging!  

That is to digress from the central theme. The case against Lalith Weeratunga and Anusha Palpita has now been closed, at least until the appeal is taken up by a higher judicial court. However, the forthrightness that is usually forthcoming from the old guard of our civil servants may have disappeared for good. That indeed is a sad and tragic spectacle. Yet to lay the blame solely on our civil servants might not be right. Nevertheless, both Lalith Weeratunga and Anusha Palpita are absolutely guilty as sin is beyond question. If one would remember the television and radio interviews Lalith Weeratunga readily participated in during his heyday, one would have certainly detected a tone of unusual loyalty towards his Master. This unusual loyalty bordering on meek subservience is an insult to the high office of Secretary to President.  

Secretary to any Ministry isn’t merely a yes-man’s job. The ex-civil servant told this writer,  “Ministry Secretaries are required under the Constitution to serve under the ‘direction of the Minister’; but this is very vague; the boundaries are not defined. The public perception is and even officials think that if the Minister gives an order ‘in writing’ the officer must carry it out. That is not so and I have never asked my Ministers for orders in writing just to safeguard myself because I felt the responsibility is mine. I recall there was a case where late Tissa Abeysekera, a talented artiste, as Chairman of the Film Corporation carried out a written directive from the Minister and had to pay back out of his poor pocket as the directive itself was illegal or irregular. The strength and independence of a Ministry Secretary rests not so much in the Constitutional appointment, but his position as Chief Accounting Officer which the Minister can’t meddle with. This is why there is often room for tension between the Minister and the Secretary.”

I wonder how many of our Secretaries today understand the meaning behind the title Chief Accounting Officer (CAO). As a matter of fact, that is the most vital function that a Secretary performs in his capacity as Secretary- Chief Accounting Officer. Politicians come and politicians go. But the civil service and its bearers remain and they are part of the ‘permanent Government’, the ones who implement the policies so decided by the politicians. In that exercise of power, that of being Chief Accounting Officer, Secretaries are totally independent and they are the ones who have to answer to their official masters and Public Service Commission. If and when their political heads give illegal, Irregular or unlawful orders, whether orally or in writing, the bureaucracy should exhibit some sense of independence; they must show some sense of guts and spine to say no. There is an enormous amount of character and spirit embedded in the word ‘no’. As much as a pretty damsel says ‘no’ to a rapist, as much as a battered wife says ‘no’ to a lunatic husband and as much as belittled junior worker says ‘no’ to the harassment of a senior manager, the civil servant who holds immense power and influence over the disbursement of government finances must display that grain of character to say ‘no’ to his political head’s illegal, immoral and irregular orders and instructions. In that simple word ‘no’, he is carrying the weight and burden of his office; in that word he is communicating to his superiors that there are boundaries to power, boundaries beyond which no person, whether an ordinary parliamentarian, Minister, Prime Minister or President dare step in to.  

This fundamental principle of official decorum, this basic element of bureaucratic norm must be maintained at all costs, even at the risk of his position. Mr. X, the civil servant who communicated with me, further said: “We are aware of many instances when senior public officers have stood up to Ministers and have had to leave their positions. Unfortunately, though there are others willing to fill the vacuum; this is probably why many administrative positions are now filled by academics and scientists who can perform a more useful service in their own fields. The Sil Redi judgment is a land mark judgment since it highlights all these issues and is now turned into a political and public issue unfortunately”.

He reiterates his argument further: “When the current administration started investigating serious financial frauds and crimes, I always held the view that the investigators must first take on the public officials who carried out the illegal orders; then only if they speak the truth that one could go after the masters, for the masters in due course will always put the blame on the Chief Accounting Officer (AO)/Accounting Officers (AO) as has happened in several cases. The Sil Redi case is only the first of such massive frauds committed on the poor of this country who will eventually bear the cross”. Words of wisdom!  

In the mad rush to make a ‘fast buck’, our politicos have tended to gain control over the country’s finances; this has resulted in an expansion of Government involvement in varied fields in which the necessary professional know-how and capacities are woefully lacking. When one couples that uncontrolled pursuit of Government expenditure with lack of knowledge and professional prowess, one invariably ends up with corruption at the highest levels of office. Both politicians and officialdom have fallen prey to this vicious process.  
Commenting on civil servants of yesteryear and the necessary self-imposed confines within which the old bureaucrats conducted their business, Mr. X said: “The performance and behaviour of officers of my generation were indeed a reflection of the value systems and discipline that we had inherited from about the 1960s. Now that has changed beyond recognition. The response of the Joint Opposition (JO), a section of the Sangha and of former President Mahinda Rajapakse to the court decision itself, unfortunately, is symptomatic of that change and reflects their mindset and attitudes”. 

During the past ten to fifteen years, the petty bourgeoisie was visibly impatient. The middle and senior level managers in all institutions were eagerly awaiting a rise in the political thermometer. Predator against predator was trying to establish his own jealously guarded-territory. The temple of decency was violated. Government coffers were used as an ATM machine for quick cash. It was this conundrum of corruption within which our bureaucracy had to perform its tasks.   

Withstanding pressures stemming from political masters is a hard task for any Government servant. But our own history abounds in instances where such expressions of self-confidence and forthrightness have been amply demonstrated by ordinary-sounding Government servants, leave alone top-tiered Ministry Secretaries, Government Agents and Departmental heads. History also highlights instances when politicians chose to withdraw their requests. And when they were enlightened of the difficulties, as explained by those gutty civil servants, they had to recede. That was in the past.   
The writer can be contacted at vishwamithra1984@gmail.com

Rs.600 million misappropriation case: Lalith, Pelpita granted bail

Former Secretary to the President Lalith Weeragunga and former TRCSL Director General Anusha Pelpita leaving the court premises. Picture by Dushmantha Mayadune

Kumudu Hettiarachchi-Thursday, September 21, 2017

Former Secretary to the President Lalith Weeratunga and former Telecommunications Regulatory Commission Director General Anusha Pelpita who were sentenced to three years Rigorous Imprisonment for misappropriating Rs.600 million of funds belonging to the TRCSL, were released on strict bail conditions by Colombo High Court Judge Gihan Kulathunga

The Judge also issued an order prohibiting them from leaving the country.

They were released on cash bail of Rs.100,000 and three sureties of Rs. 1 million each.

The Judge also ordered that one of the sureties should be a close relative of the convict and the rest should be the government servants and people living within the purview the Colombo Judicial Division.

The Judge ordered them to be released after considering their health conditions and the time it would take to hear the appeal filed by the convicts against the High Court Verdict.

The Judge also ordered the court registrar to apprise the Immigration and Emigration Controller over the suspension of their foreign tours by the court.

The convicts were also ordered to hand over their travel documents to court. Kalinga Indratissa PC appeared for the convicts.Senior State Counsel Yohan Abeywickrema appeared on behalf of the Attorney General’s Department. 

Lalith and Anusha sleep on either side of Thajudeen murderer Captain Tissa ; Dr. Nirmali deranged and disoriented !

(Lanka-e-News - 20.Sep.2017, 11.45PM)   Following the immediate transfer of Dr. Nirmali the chief medical officer of prison hospital from it to national hospital ,  several incidents linked  to the ‘sordid rest house’ she ran at the prison hospital have come to light.

Currently  the two imprisoned culprits Lalith Weeratunge and Anusha Pelpita sleep on either side of  Tissa Wimalasena alias ‘Captain Tissa” (Mahinda Rajapakse ‘s driver) the prime suspect in the Thajudeen murder . Tissa who is flanked  by  Anusha and Lalith   is well looked after by them .

It is Captain Tissa the ruthless murderer who abducted popular Rugby player Thajudeen , broke his bones and burned him  to death , and it is Nirmali who saw to it  Tissa is warded in the prison hospital from 19 th to provide him with all the luxurious comforts of Kings. 

Sanath Chandra of police department a suspect in a another most ghastly murder in Sri Lanka’s history is warded at the prison hospital from 21 st March , and ‘Wickremesooriya of the Navy  is warded at the prison hospital from the 12 th.  It is to be noted both of them  have no ailments.

Admission tickets of Lalith –Anusha to prison hospital  written within 11 mins.!

Lalith and Anusha were taken in through the main gate of the prison by the prison guards  Samarakoon and Hettiyawatha on 7 th September at 4.04 p.m. This has been recorded by jailor Duminda while  Dr. racketeer Nirmali had started examining the two culprits  at 4.15 p.m. and concluded the examination at 5.00 p.m. 

Nirmali had examined Lalith who defrauded  Rs. 600 million of public funds , within just 11  mins . of his entry into  the prison. ( This is why we reported on September 8 th , even before Lalith and Anusha the notorious crooks were brought to  prison , Nirmali was in the ready to admit them to the prison hospital).

Nirmali the rascally doctor wrote the hospital tickets for the  duo within a few mins. though she  delayed their admission to prison hospital because the gaze of the whole country was on her foul plays and  misconduct despite being a doctor . Shoudn’t the professional body question on this ? 

According to Nirmali , when Lalith  was being admitted to hospital , he had missed  4 doses of insulin. How strange , Nirmali who was loitering near the prison gate anticipating the arrival of Lalith , and wrote the ticket within just 11 mins. instead of administering the insulin injection, had spent her time making entries in  the registers to admit him to hospital.

On 7 th of September Dr. Nirmali was the  doctor ‘on call’. Jailor Mohan Karunaratne had phoned at 4.35 p.m.  to summon her and  Nirmali who arrived after the call has examined Lalith . However she had recorded she examined Lalith within the prison at 4.15 p.m.  Obviously , Nirmali is deranged and disoriented or a magician  because based on her own time recording , she had examined Lalith at 4.15 p.m even before she  arrived  in hospital. Her dementia  is further confirmed by the fact  that she is  always more concerned about engaging in  sordid activities than performing her professional duties duly.  

---------------------------
by     (2017-09-21 00:58:06)

Dullas’ spy at SLFP headquarters leaks information to JO !

- Sep 20, 2017

All internal matters of the SLFP are leaked to the joint opposition through a person who holds a top financial position at the party headquarters, reports say. The man from Badulla was recruited during the period Dullas Alahapperuma was the party treasurer. They became friends through their wives.

Even after the government was changed he continued to serve in his capcity, and he supplies a daily report to Dullas about what is happening at the SLFP headquarters. Now, functions of the SLFP headquarters are not taking place in a responsible manner, and top officials there are not interested in party activities. Therefore, administrative affairs are being gradually transferred to minister S.B. Dissanayake.

 

The person in question alters bills and misuses and swindles money, sources say. Other staffs say that no speedy solution is forthcoming and that before uplifting the country, the SLFP should cleanse itself of such persons.

 

Await details of further irregularities at the SLFP headquarters..

Abortion, Women and Personhood

Featured image courtesy Pexels

SANJAYAN RAJASINGHAM-on 09/20/2017

The government’s plans to liberalise Sri Lanka’s abortion laws has polarised public opinion. Abortion is either supported as a natural extension of a woman’s autonomy and right to choose, or is opposed as legalised murder. But is there a path beyond the legalise vs criminalise debate?

Dominance and Choice

Support for abortion is founded on women’s dignity, rights and choice[1] – things that many Sri Lankan women are denied each day. They face constant harassment on the bus and the streets. They are the victims of startling levels of domestic violence and abuse. They are constrained about what they can say, wear and do. They are also denied a voice in political, religious and legal institutions. These experiences of women are rooted in a system of male dominance – a system which allows men to police and control the everyday lives and choices of many women.

In a male-dominated reality, allowing women to choose to abort seems a positive step. A pregnancy radically alters her life. If it is outside marriage it leads to exclusion and humiliation. If it is the result of rape or incest, the consequences are worse. How can the law force a woman to go through this?

This question cannot be ignored, especially by men, who are removed from these experiences of domination. Society doesn’t force us through daily, casual, harassment. It will (wrongly) excuse us of most of the burden of raising a child. Of course, those who are removed from a situation don’t necessarily need to be silent – the elderly can share their views on public policy decisions that will outlast them, and those with no chance of higher education can comment on tertiary education. What we do expect, however, is that they listen deeply to both sides, and are open to being changed by hearing from those who are most affected.

Abortion and Personhood

The argument of many opponents of abortion is: “My religion says abortion is wrong, so it must be illegal.” While religion has its place in public discourse, this is not it. It cannot be a “knock down” argument for or against a law. In fact, however, I don’t think we need to refer to religion to raise critical questions about abortion. I will, instead, centre mine on widely-held convictions about human personhood.

What is personhood about? Consider the idea of equality. Almost everyone would agree that “we are all equal”. But, of course, we aren’t. We are unequal in our intellectual prowess, in our athletic ability, in our skills and backgrounds. Yet though we are empirically unequal, we say that we are equal – not in capacities or attributes but equal in dignity and worth. If our dignity and value isn’t located in our achievements or attributes, then on what grounds do we say are we equal? We are equal because of the type of beings that we are. We are human persons.

Personhood is something we have because of the type of being we are. It is the source of our equality, rights and autonomy.[2] So while abortion is about women’s autonomy and dignity, it also raises questions about when personhood begins and when we become bearers of dignity and worth. To answer these questions, we must turn to human biology.[3]

The Science of Sexual Reproduction

In ordinary sexual reproduction, a male sperm penetrates and fertilises a female egg. These two sex cells unite and form an entirely new and distinct organism, initially with a single cell – the zygote. Three things stand out about the zygote or early human embryo. First, the embryo is genetically distinct from any cell of its mother or father, including the sperm and the egg. Second, it is human, in that is has the genetic makeup characteristic of human beings. Third, it is a whole or complete, though immature, organism. The embryo has the “genetic programming” needed to direct its growth towards maturity and survival. It is not simply a partof another organism. Unlike the heart, lungs, or liver of the mother, it plays no functional role in the woman’s body. Compare this with the egg and the sperm, which are both functionally and genetically identifiable as parts of the male and female parents. They don’t direct their own development – they must either combine with a sperm or an egg, or die.[4]

Science confirms, then, that the embryo is a complete organism, and is also a human organism. But is an embryo a human person? Does it possess dignity and worth?

Who is a Person?

The embryo is not conscious, is incapable of higher mental functions and cannot survive independently. It has the potential for all this, but it can’t immediately exercise these capacities. Does the lack of these capacities mean that an embryo isn’t a person?

If personhood depends on being conscious, then those who are asleep, or in reversible comas, are not persons. Yet we agree that they are. If personhood depends on higher mental functions, then Down’s Syndrome children, the mentally retarded and late-stage Alzheimer’s patients are not persons. Yet we agree that they are. If personhood depends on independence, on the ability to survive without constant care and nutrition, then infants and elderly patients are not persons. Yet we agree that they are. We would agree that someone without all three capacities – an infant with Down’s Syndrome lying unconscious in a neonatal care unit – is a person. This is the weakness of a “capacities approach” which says that personhood depends on certain capacities: its implication is that certain humans – the disabled, the old, the weak – are not persons and do not have rights. Yet we all know that they are and they do. And if they, with their lack of capacities, are persons, then there is no reason why an embryo is not.

Some say that birth makes a difference. But why? It cannot be appearance, because appearance is not a measure of personhood. It cannot be a capacity for independent survival because, even after we cut the umbilical cord, an infant is completely dependent on others. What difference does birth make?

A better account of personhood – which both explains our convictions and follows human biology – recognises that human beings have different stages of development. We begin as embryonic human beings, develop into fetal human beings, emerge as infant human beings, grow into adolescent human beings and become adult human beings. But there is no difference in kind between these organisms. There is only a difference in their stage of maturity and immediately exercisable capacities – qualities which are irrelevant to their personhood.

If we believe in autonomy, dignity and rights for all, then we believe in human dignity and worth – and it is our personhood that gives us this worth. If we say that an embryo does not possess human dignity and worth, then we must say the same of some of the weak, the old or the ill. Yet since we accept that the latter have dignity and worth, we cannot deny it to the human embryo. The embryo is, therefore, a bearer of human dignity and worth.

Philosophy and Rights

Now some will say that this is just technical, abstract philosophy that ignores the realities that women face. It gives a “clump of cells” a priority that we know intuitively that they should not have. There is weight behind this view. After all, we can see the thirteen year-old who doesn’t understand rape, and can’t imagine a pregnancy, but will soon be a mother. We can hear from women who are dying because they used wire-clothes hangers to induce abortions. We can meet women who have had to give up their dreams because a narrow-minded society cannot accept their pregnancy. Against all this, how can the embryo have any significance?

Let me say first that an embryo being a person is not, for me, a “clinching argument” against abortion. The law must take social realities into account. Also, while personhood may be philosophical and moral, so are autonomy, dignity, choice and patriarchy. This doesn’t detract from the immense practical significance of any of these philosophical and moral ideas. Finally, it is true that women’s suffering is tangible and real. By contrast, the embryo is foreign, removed, and barely recognisable to us as human. It’s easy to reduce it to a “clump of cells”. Yet the foreignness and distance of an embryo’s experiences is no reason to reduce the significance of those experiences. If we do that, we are no different from men who dismiss male harassment of women as “harmless banter” or to the rich who dismiss structural poverty as “laziness”.

The Law and Compromise

The law is often about messy compromise. An embryo being a person does not mean that the choice and rights of women are unimportant. But it does reframe how we think about the exercise of those rights.

First, it means that abortion is not just about the woman’s right to choose. It is about choice in the context of two persons, a woman and an embryo. And in any case, there is no such thing as an “unrestricted right to choose”. Everything depends on who is choosing and what they are choosing. Even in liberal theory, our freedom is limited by the rights and freedoms of others. If the embryo is a person, then it is an “other”, a bearer of rights. And we treat persons with enormous significance. A pregnancy transforms a woman mentally, physically, emotionally and economically. But is this enough of a reason to end the life of a person?

There are many persons whose existence radically alters our lives. Think of an adult child caring for an aging, incapacitated and increasingly senile parent. Think of parents living with the emotional and mental strain of extricating a teenager out of gang violence. These persons inflict immense emotional, psychological and physical costs on those who care for them. Yet this doesn’t mean we may kill them. Similarly, a woman’s right to choose is necessarily restricted by the personhood of an embryo.

However, there are always exceptions. We recognise that persons are important, but we also know that there are times – in self-defence and war, for example – where the law allows us to end a person’s life. Is abortion sometimes like this? What about a pregnancy following a rape?

A rape leaves its victims shattered. If it leads to pregnancy then a woman has a daily reminder of a horror she wants to escape. If she gives birth our society will heap indignity and stigma on her and the child for the rest of their lives. Isn’t this a form of socially mediated torture? Would we judge a torture victim for killing her torturer? Here, of course, the embryo is not responsible for the torture – but neither is the woman. The rapist, and our society, are. What if the only way for a torture victim to end her suffering was to kill an innocent human being? Would we insist she had to bear her suffering?

The experiences of women who have faced this decision shows us that this is a genuine moral dilemma. If we agree that this is an instance where a woman should be free to choose, we must aware of what this means. It’s not just “maximising choice”. It means that women who are pregnant because of rape are sometimes subject to socially mediated torture which is so severe that many of them feel that ending the life of an innocent person is the only escape. This says far more about our society than it does about the woman who chooses to abort.

But there are also broader issues at stake. Abortion means changing the medical profession from one which, at least in theory, fights death, to one which actively brings it about. Do we want this? Also, as Dinesha Samararatne argues persuasively, the overwhelming majority of today’s abortions are not in the context of rape.[5] They are carried out by married women because they lack knowledge about effective contraception. Why are the new reforms ignoring this reality? Are these proposals, perhaps, a “first step” to normalise abortion, and will they be followed later by more changes? The personhood of an embryo demands that we reflect on these questions.

From Abortion to Pregnancy

The implications of an embryo’s personhood go further, however. If it is a person, and persons have significance, then why does our society put most of the responsibility of bearing and raising a child, on women? Shouldn’t men, and society, play a role? The personhood of an embryo must change how we view pregnancy and not just abortion. Let me suggest three legal responses that go beyond the criminalise/decriminalise debate.

First, we must amend the Penal Code so that women are not subject to criminal sanctions for seeking an abortion. We know that they are often driven to it by forces beyond their control. We also know that a fear of prosecution keeps women from seeking medical assistance when complications occur after an unsafe abortion. This is one way for the law to recognise this.

Second, the law must share the burden of caring for a child more equally. The Maintenance Act of 1999 compels a man who impregnates a woman to maintain her during and after the pregnancy, regardless of whether they are married, with the threat of criminal sanctions. Why not go further and use this moment to introduce a mandatory legal requirement for all government and private institutions to offer paternity leave, with incentives to those who choose to take it? The normative impact of this on how our culture views parenting could be enormous.

Finally, there must be a system of State support – including financial and psycho-social care – for indigent parents and pregnant mothers. This is how the law can respond to the reality of poverty and its impact on women and families. Running a workable system in a culture that shames single-parents is a tremendous challenge. But it is a step towards society bearing more of the responsibility of pregnancy.

Those who say an embryo is a person cannot be satisfied with just opposing abortion. They must be concerned about its life – not just the chances of its death. Those who accept that there are the forces that dominate women, must confront them and create viable alternatives for women who feel that abortion is the only option. These are things that anyone can support, regardless of their view of abortion. But those who are vocally against abortion, must be vocally in favour of this.

The Law and Beyond

In the end, however, the law has its limits. It can’t stop people from shaming raped women. It can’t stop people from believing that women are primarily responsible for raising a child. It can’t dismantle a system of male domination. It can help, but these are problems of society and culture and they need a response from the members of this society.

Many who recognise the personhood of an embryo fail to be consistent about their convictions. If we oppose abortion because “the law must protect the weak and the marginalised” are we also concerned about the others who are vulnerable in our society? If we believe that those born with deformities are of equal worth, is this reflected in how we treat the disabled in our spheres of influence? If we believe that a child has value regardless of the circumstances of its birth, and a woman regardless of what she has gone through, then how do we treat children born of rape and their mothers? Would we support institutions like Prem Nivasa or Ma Sevana which work with them?[6] Or are we a part of a system that shames them and makes them feel that abortion is the only option?

If men oppose abortion because of the worth of an unborn child, are we willing to take an equal burden in caring for our children? Would we, for instance, be willing to give up our careers to raise them, rather than expecting our wives to? If we agree that women are marginalised by a system of male control, how can we respond? Would we be willing, for instance, to have awkward conversations and challenge our friends and colleagues about male harassment of women?

Abortion, then, must lead us to ask questions about our own lives. It must also lead us to ask the basic questions about humanness and society. Who is a person? How do we account for our belief in human dignity and worth from? What sort of society do we want to live in? One where the weak and marginalised are protected and valued or one where only the familiar, the connected and those with a voice are heard?

These are difficult questions, but we must face them. For it is only in answering them, and in living our answers, that we can become a society that protects the dignity, autonomy and worth of all persons – whether born or unborn.

The author is thankful to all those who contributed to this article by way of comments and criticism.

---

[1] “Decriminalise abortion in Sri Lanka: Statement by Human Rights Defenders and Women’s Groups” DailyFT, 13 September 2017 <http://www.ft.lk/opinion/Decriminalise-abortion-in-Sri-Lanka–Statement-by-human-rights-defenders-and-women-s-groups/14-639448>

[2] Article 1 of the Universal Declaration of Human Rights. In saying this I am not denying that animals and other living beings have their own dignity and worth. I agree that they do.

[3] I deliberately avoid dealing with cloning and in vitro fertilisation, though I think that the same conclusions apply.

[4] See further Robert P George and Christopher Tollefsen, Embryo (Doubleday 2008) 27-56

[5] Dinesha Samararatne, ‘The Abortion Debate: Mismatched and Misplaced?’ Groundviews, 13 September 2017 <www.groundviews.org/2017/09/13/the-abortion-debate-mismatched-and-misplaced/>

[6] See “Events related to Prem Nivasa” <http://www.queenofangels.lk/index.php?act=prem> ; “Ma Sevana – Home for Teenage Mothers” <https://www.sarvodayasuwasetha.org/homes/cdc-for-teenage-mothers-ma-sevana>

Those who enjoyed this article might find “The Abortion Debate: Mismatched and Misplaced?” and “The Abortion Debate: The Absence of Questions” enlightening reads.

CEB engineers and power generation proposals

With reduced power generation capacity, CEB brought some retired power plants back on stream and populace was saved from undue hardship. But how long will the situation last? The impact of many extra billions spent, for the use of expensive oil-based power, are not reflected in the electricity bill

 

 Thursday, 21 September 2017

Future electricity supply to the country is sitting on a time bomb. Since latter part of 2016, expected rainfall failed to arrive and the rainfall in 2017 was worse. Meanwhile 3x300 MW capacity Norochcholai power plant’s generators failed to operate continuously and people faced intermittent power-cuts but were not serious. 

CEB engineers and power generation proposals.docx by Thavam on Scribd

UN must try to end Israeli occupation 'within set timeframe': Abbas

Abbas warns that if two-state solution were to be destroyed, Palestinians would have no choice but to 'continue the struggle...'

Mahmoud Abbas, President of the State of Palestine, addresses the United Nations General Assembly at UN headquarters, 20 September, 2017 in New York City (AFP)

Wednesday 20 September 2017

Palestinian President Mahmoud Abbas called on the United Nations on Wednesday to pursue efforts to "bring an end to Israeli occupation of the state of Palestine within a set timeframe".

Abbas, addressing the United Nations General Assembly, warned that if the two-state solution were to be destroyed, Palestinians would have no choice but to "continue the struggle and demand full rights for all inhabitants of historic Palestine".

He urged the UN to end what he described as an "apartheid" regime imposed by Israel in the Palestinian territories.

"We are entrusted and you are entrusted to end apartheid in Palestine," Abbas told the UN General Assembly in a nearly 45-minute address.

"Can the world accept an apartheid regime in the 21st century?" he asked.

Taking the podium a day after Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu, Abbas slammed Israel over the construction of new settlements "everywhere", saying they were putting the two-state solution in jeopardy.

"There is no place left for the state of Palestine and this is not acceptable," he said.

READ MORE ►

The US kicks the Israeli-Palestinian peace deal into the long grass

The United Nations considers settlements illegal under international law and the Security Council in December adopted a resolution demanding an end to the expansion of the Jewish outposts on the West Bank and east Jerusalem.

The resolution passed after the United States under the previous administration of Barack Obama declined to use its veto and instead abstained.

The Palestinian leader vowed to push for full recognition of Palestinian statehood at the United Nations, a move that would require approval from the Security Council where the United States, Israel's key ally, holds veto power.

Abbas spoke at the assembly after meeting US President Donald Trump who said he was "working very hard with everybody involved toward peace" but offered little detail.

Meanwhile, Al Jazeera reported that four Palestinian rights groups submitted a 700-page document to the International Criminal Court, alleging that senior Israeli officials have committed crimes against humanity.

"This communication, which is based on factual information collected by the four organisations, covers the following crimes against humanity in accordance with the Rome Statute: murder, deportation or transfer of population, persecution, apartheid," an al-Haq representative, which is one of the groups that submitted the document, told Al Jazeera.