The Chancellor Philip Hammond announced in today’s Budget that he is abolishing stamp duty for first-time buyers on homes under £300,000.
But don’t put down your avocados yet, millennials. We’re not convinced this is quite the windfall it appears to be.
The background
If you are buying a property or plot of land for more than £125,000 in England, Wales and Northern Ireland, you have to pay stamp duty.
The amount of duty you pay increases with the value of the property.
Today’s announcement does two things. It abolishes stamp duty on properties under £300,000 for first-time buyers. It also reduces the rate of stamp duty on homes between £300,000 and £500,000 to just 5 per cent.
First-time buyers in London and the South East will benefit the most
In the first half of this year, there were 160,000 first-time buyers across the UK, paying £210,000 on average. (We’ve used data from the Halifax and the Council of Mortgage Lenders).
That means the average first-time buyer will save about £1,700 from this announcement.
But the benefits are most strongly felt in London and the South East, where house prices are considerably higher than the rest of the UK (just over £400,000 in London, and nearly £280,000 in the rest of the South East).
That means first-time buyers in London are expected to save £5,000 from this policy.
By contrast, the average house price for a first-time buyer in Yorkshire is just under £140,000. Abolishing stamp duty for these transactions means a saving of only around £100.
Will the policy actually help people saving for their first home?
Philip Hammond was keen to stress that this policy is designed to help people saving for their first home.
But the actual savings are very small in comparison to amount of money required to secure a deposit on a house. For example, a first-time buyer in London will spend £106,000 on their deposit, of which today’s announcement only saves them £5,000. In Yorkshire – where first-time buyers will save just £100 on stamp duty – average deposits are just under £20,000.
So the question is: how many people will actually be able to bring forward their decision to buy a home as a result of today’s announcement? The Office for Budget Responsibility says the answer is only 3,500.
Of course, there’ll be many more first-time buyers with more money in their pockets as a result of the change. But the vast majority of those people would have been able to buy their first home without the stamp duty abolition.
And because more home buyers will have more cash to spend, the OBR predicts that today’s announcement will actually push up house prices overall for people by about 0.3 per cent. That mainly benefits people who already own property.
It’s worth saying that this will cost the taxpayer about £560 million next year, £585 million the year after, and as much as £670 million in 2022.
So official statistics suggest that the effects of today’s announcement will be:
3,500 extra people will be able to buy their first homes.
Something like 160,000 people will get a small windfall when buying their first house – although that windfall won’t have made any difference to their ability to buy the house. They could already afford it.
House prices are expected to go up by about 0.3 per cent, mainly benefitting people who already own property.
All this will cost the taxpayer more than £500 million a year for the next five years.
It can be said in defence of the government that Mr.Modi’s ministers have not indulged in corrupt practices and he has ensured transparency in all his dealings.
by N.S.Venkataraman-
( November 22, 2017, Chennai, Sri Lanka Guardian) Three years back, when Mr. Modi got the mandate of the people and formed the government, most people expected that he would fulfill his promise to root out corruption in government machinery and public life before long.
In the last three years, every measure that Mr. Modi took to ensure transparency in governance and eradicate corruption received overwhelming support from the people. Mr. Modi was able to implement the dare devil steps such as demonetization and this was only due to the fact that people stood by him inspite of difficulties that they faced , as they believed that this was one of Mr. Modi’s strategies to wipe out black money and expose the corrupt people .
Of course, Mr. Modi has taken several measures including anti benami law but the people think that all such efforts have not borne fruit so far to the level of their expectations and they are disappointed that corrupt elements in the government and business still remain undeterred. Now, it is increasingly becoming evident that Indians have become impatient and want results in the anti corruption drive , so that they can see and feel the visible and positive impact in their day today life. This is not happening.
Several raids have been conducted to unearth hidden wealth and tax evasion with huge publicity. But, no corrupt person has been punished so far to the satisfaction of the people.
Of course, one can blame the judiciary for coming to the rescue of the corrupt persons by taking unduly long time to give it’s verdict and on most occasions allowing the corrupt persons to drag the cases in the court under one excuse or the other . Many think that in the name of fair justice, the judiciary give the benefit of doubt to the corrupt persons by allowing them to exploit the loopholes in the law . There are many corrupt persons whose nefarious dealings are well known to the public but they are able to keep themselves out of prisons for several years and sometimes get clean chit. People look with aghast at such scenario and wonder whether the corrupt persons will be punished at any time at all.
People think that Mr. Modi should find some way to catch and punish the corrupt and put the fear of law in the minds of everyone. They are not willing to accept any explanation blaming the judiciary , as it is in the power of Mr. Modi to set right things by initiating appropriate measures,. People do not want to see Mr. Modi helpless in tackling such delays.
People say that certainly, Mr. Modi could have taken steps to ensure that the corruption cases before judiciary would be speeded up. Today, people are feeling tired of hearing stories about corrupt persons being raided and nevertheless seeing them remaining unscathed. The inability of Modi government to create the fear of law amongst the corrupt persons is becoming increasingly evident to the people and certainly there is disappointment on this account.
It can be said in defence of the government that Mr.Modi’s ministers have not indulged in corrupt practices and he has ensured transparency in all his dealings.
By way of explanation , it can even be said that most of the corruption are in the state level and not in the central government. But, this argument would not hold water, since people know that many state governments are now under Modi’s party and there is no less corruption in these states also.
Today, people believe that Mr. Modi is the best person to root out corruption in the country and there is absolutely no doubt that he stands tall amongst all politicians in India.
Inspite of such positive sentiments towards Mr. Modi, will people be patient enough to wait endlessly to see a corruption free India is the moot question.
As the next national election will be in 2019 and is not far away, Mr. Modi’s performance appraisal amongst the people will be mainly centred on people’s evaluation of the success or otherwise of Mr. Modi’s anti corruption drive.
It appears that Indians will still vote for Mr. Modi in 2019 but this may be negative vote in his favour and not positive vote that he received in 2014.
ByMax Walden -A Rohingya Muslim boy stands as he waits to cross the border to go to Bangladesh, in a temporary camp outside Maungdaw, northern Rakhine state,Myanmar, November 12, 2017. Source: Reuters/Wa Lone
HUMAN rights group Amnesty International has accused the government of Burma (Myanmar) of creating apartheid and an “open-air prison” in between Rohingya Muslims and the rest of the population in its restive, northern Rakhine State.
In a report entitled Caged without a roof released Tuesday, Amnesty documented its investigation into the “root causes” of the Rohingya crisis, which has seen more than 620,000 people flee from Rakhine into Bangladesh since Aug 25.
“The Myanmar authorities are keeping Rohingya women, men and children segregated and cowed in a dehumanising system of apartheid. Their rights are violated daily and the repression has only intensified in recent years,” said Amnesty’s Senior Director for Research Anna Neistat.
The report claims that this is part of a “systemic attack against a civilian population” which constitutes “crimes against humanity as defined in international law”.
The United Nations has called violence in the Rakhine in recent months under so-called “clearing operations” by the Tatmadaw army of Burma and the subsequent exodus as “a textbook example of ethnic cleansing”. The military has been widely accused of mass killings, arson and rape.
Myanmar border guard police force patrol near the Myanmar-Bangladeshi border outside Maungdaw, northern Rakhine state, Myanmar, November 12, 2017. Picture taken on November 12, 2017. Source: Reuters/Wa Lone
Caged without a roof documented various alleged human rights violations against the Rohingya community in Rakhine State including the denial of the right to Burmese nationality, “extreme restrictions” on freedom of movement, “wide-ranging” violations of economic and social rights, as well as “systemic social and political exclusion”.
A law imposed across the state dictates that “Bengali races” – the Burmese government refuses to acknowledge them by the name Rohingya – must carry special permits for travel between towns. Government officials regularly exhibit “openly racist behaviour”, it said.
“Almost every institution of the state, at the township, district, state and even Myanmar-wide levels, is involved in the discrimination and segregation of the Rohingya community and Muslims generally in Rakhine State,” read the report.
Moreover, Amnesty said conditions have become drastically worse since 2012 when Muslim and Buddhist communities clashed across the Rakhine.
“This system appears designed to make Rohingyas’ lives as hopeless and humiliating as possible. The security forces’ brutal campaign of ethnic cleansing in the past three months is just another extreme manifestation of this appalling attitude,” said Neistat.
Rohingya refugee Anwara Begum, 36, poses for a photograph at Kutupalang refugee camp, near Cox’s Bazar in Bangladesh, October 13, 2017. Begum said she woke to find her home in Maungdaw township, in the northernmost part of Rakhine state, in flames. Before she could get out, the burning roof caved in on her and her nylon clothes melted onto her arms. Begum’s husband carried his wife for eight days to reach the Kutupalong camp. “I thought I was going to die. I tried to stay alive for my children,” Begum said, adding she was still waiting for treatment for her burns. Source: Reuters/Jorge Silva
Burma and Bangladesh are reportedly working towards returning refugees to the Rakhine.
“We hope that this would result in an MOU signed quickly, which would enable us to start the safe and voluntarily return of all of those who have gone across the border,” said Burma’s de facto leader Aung San Suu Kyi on Tuesday.
Amnesty’s report said, however, that discriminatory legislation must be overturned and human rights abuses stopped prior to any repatriation of refugees.
“The root causes of the current crisis must be addressed to end the cycle of abuse and make it possible for Rohingya refugees to return to a situation where their rights and dignity are respected,” added Neistat.
“We don’t have access to healthcare, to education, there are restrictions on travelling,” one 34-year-old Rohingya villager told Amnesty.
“We are struggling for survival, our children are struggling for their future… It’s like being caged without a roof”
The president says he's "very happy" sexual misconduct by powerful men is being "exposed." He denies all of the allegations against him.(Meg Kelly/The Washington Post) By Meg KellyNovember 22 at 3:00 AM “Women are very special. I think it’s a very special time, a lot of things are coming out and I think that’s good for our society and I think it’s very, very good for women and I’m very happy a lot of these things are coming out. I’m very happy it’s being exposed.” — President Trump, remarks to reporters, Nov. 21, 2017
Sexual misconduct by powerful men has all but taken over the news, with Sen. Al Franken (D-Minn.), Rep. John Conyers Jr. (D-Mich.) and senatorial hopeful Roy Moore (R-Ala.) among the politicians on this growing list.
Trump vociferously has taken aim at accused Democrats, while apparently giving a pass to Republicans. Moreover, it was only a year ago that similar accusations against Trump dominated the headlines, with more than a dozen women accusing Trump of improper conduct or sexual assault. Many of the accusations surfaced after the release of a 2005 tape of Trump speaking graphically about kissing and groping women uninvited.
During the second presidential debate, Anderson Cooper asked then-candidate Trump point blank whether he had “actually kiss[ed] women without consent or grope[d] women without consent?” Trump asserted that “nobody has more respect for women” and Cooper pushed him, asking, “Have you ever done those things?” Trump denied that he had, responding: “No, I have not.”
he president has held this line, telling the New York Times, when asked the same question: “I don’t do it. I don’t do it.”
But it’s not as simple as that. Many of the women have produced witnesses who say they heard about these incidents when they happened — long before Trump’s political aspirations were known. Three have produced at least two witnesses.
Such contemporaneous accounts are essential to establishing the credibility of the allegation because they reduce the chance that a person is making up a story for political purposes. In the case of sexual allegations, such accounts can help bolster the credibility of the “she said” side of the equation.
Often, a sexual assault will occur behind closed doors. The contemporary corroborators can explain what they heard at the time and whether the story being told now is consistent with how the story was told years earlier. This does not necessarily mean an allegation is true, but it does give journalistic organizations more confidence to report on the allegation.
The Fact Checker first detailed some of the accusations against Trump during the 2016 campaign. That fact check also detailed the witnesses who backed up claims of sexual accusations against former president Bill Clinton — who, like Trump, insisted the women accusing him were not telling the truth.
Here’s a list of 13 women who have publicly come forward with claims that Trump had physically touched them inappropriately in some way, and the witnesses they provided. We did not include claims that were made only through Facebook posts or other social media, or in lawsuits that subsequently were withdrawn.
We also did not include the accounts of former beauty contestants who say Trump walked in on them when they were half nude because there were no allegations of touching. Trump had bragged on the Howard Stern show of his “inspections” during the pageants: “You know they’re standing there with no clothes. Is everybody OK? And you see these incredible looking women. And so I sort of get away with things like that.”
Two or more contemporary corroborators
Natasha Stoynoff Allegation: While she was interviewing Trump in 2005 for an article for People magazine about the first anniversary of his third marriage, Trump lured her into a room at Mar-a-Lago, forced her against a wall and abruptly kissed her, forcing his tongue into her mouth. He then said they were going to have an affair.
Corroborators: Marina Grasic, who has known Stoynoff for more than 25 years. She said she got a call from her friend the day after the alleged attack, detailing exactly how Trump pushed Stoynoff against a wall. Liz McNeil, at the time a reporter for People (she is now an editor). She said that she heard about the incident the day after Stoynoff returned from her assignment. “She was very upset and told me how he shoved her against a wall,” she said.
Mary Green, another People reporter (now editor) who had just returned to New York. “In an early conversation we had in her office, she told me about what happened with Donald Trump,” Green said. “She was shaky, sitting at her desk, relaying that, ‘He took me to this other room, and when we stepped inside, he pushed me against a wall and stuck his tongue down my throat. Melania was upstairs and could have walked in at any time.’ ”
Liza Hamm, part of a “tight-knit’ group of friends. “Natasha has always been a vivacious person who wants to believe in the best of people, and this experience definitely messed with that outlook,” she said.
Paul McLaughlin, Stoynoff’s former journalism professor. He said Stoynoff called him at the time of the alleged incident seeking advice on how to handle it: “She didn’t know what to do, she was very conflicted, she was angry, she was really confused about how to deal with this.” After a discussion, he said, Stoynoff decided it would be best if she kept the incident to herself.
Response: Anthony Senecal, Trump’s former butler, denied the incident: “No, that never happened. Come on, that’s just bull crap.” Trump said: “Why didn’t she do this 12 years ago? She’s a liar. … It never happened. It’s a lie.”
Rachel Crooks Allegation: Trump in 2005 kissed her directly on the lips after she introduced herself and said she was a receptionist who worked for a company that did business with Trump.
Corroborators: Brianne Webb, her sister. She said Crooks called her about the incident as soon as she returned to her desk. “Being from a town of 1,600 people, being naive, I was like, ‘Are you sure he didn’t just miss trying to kiss you on the cheek?’ She said, ‘No, he kissed me on the mouth.’ I was like, ‘That is not normal.’ ”
Clint Hackenburg, her boyfriend at the time. After he asked her that evening how her day had gone, “she paused for a second, and then started hysterically crying.”
Response: Shouting at the New York Times reporter who called for comment, Trump said, “None of this ever took place.” He then told the reporter, “You are a disgusting human being.”
Cathy Heller Allegation: While having Mother’s Day brunch at Mar-a-Lago in 1997 or 1998, her mother-in-law introduced her to Trump. She extended her hand to greet him and he grabbed her and kissed her on the mouth. She did turn her head slightly and so he wasn’t able to “get my whole mouth.”
Corroborators: Lloyd Heller, her husband. He said that she immediately told him. He said he told her that “you should have punched him” and he remembers being “puzzled” by why Trump would do something like that in a public space.
A relative who was there, but wanted to stay unnamed. This person said Heller was immediately shocked and asked whether he or she had seen what happened. The two then talked about the incident asking, “Who does he think he is?”
Response: Trump campaign spokesman Jason Miller told People Magazine: “There is no way that something like this would have happened in a public place on Mother’s Day at Mr. Trump’s resort.”
One contemporary corroborator, one additional witness
Speaking to Washington Post reporter Karen Tumulty via a telephone earpiece, Kristin Anderson recalls Donald Trump groping her.(Alice Li, Brian Young/The Washington Post)
Kristin Anderson Allegation: While she was at a Manhattan nightclub in the early 1990s, Trump slid his fingers under her miniskirt, moved up her inner thigh and touched her vagina through her underwear. Corroborators: Kelly Stedman, a friend. She said she was told about the incident at a women’s brunch a few days later. The women found themselves “laughing at how pathetic it was” on Trump’s part.
Brad Trent, a New York photographer. He says he heard the story from Anderson at a dinner in 2007. “It was just girls saying stories about how they got hit on by creepy old guys,” Trent said of the conversation around the table.
Response: The Trump campaign, in an emailed statement, said Anderson had fabricated the story: “Mr. Trump strongly denies this phony allegation by someone looking to get some free publicity. It is totally ridiculous.”
One corroborator
Summer Zervos Allegation: Trump kissed Zervos on the lips when he met her in his New York office, which upset Zervos, who had been a contestant on Season 5 of Trump’s “The Apprentice.” She then met Trump at the Beverly Hills Hotel in 2007 for what she thought would be dinner; instead, she was escorted to his private bungalow. “I stood up and he came to me and started kissing me open-mouthed as he was pulling me toward him,” she said. “He then grabbed my shoulder and started kissing me again very aggressively and placed his hand on my breast.” He kept pursuing her, she said, at one point “thrusting his genitals” against her as he tried to kiss her. She said she again rebuffed him. Corroborator: Ann Russo, friend: She said that Zervos told her in 2010 that Trump had been “verbally, physically, and sexually aggressive with her” but that she had rebuffed his advances. “It was apparent she was conflicted with what Mr. Trump had done to her,” she said, adding that Zervos was torn between her admiration for Trump and Trump’s behavior.
(In her lawsuit against Trump, Zervos says that in 2007 she “spoke to a friend and her parents about [the initial kiss], all of whom concluded that this must just be the way that Mr. Trump greeted people.” She then told her father about the hotel incident, the lawsuit says.)
Response: Trump issued a statement by John Barry, a cousin of Zervos’s: “I think Summer wishes she could still be on reality TV, and in an effort to get that back she’s saying all of these negative things about Mr. Trump. That’s not how she talked about him before. I can only imagine that Summer’s actions today are nothing more than an attempt to regain the spotlight at Mr. Trump’s expense, and I don’t think it reflects well.”
Mindy McGillivray Allegation: McGillivray said she was groped by Trump at Mar-a-Lago in 2003, when she was 23, at a photo shoot during a concert by Ray Charles. “All of a sudden I felt a grab, a little nudge. I think it’s Ken’s camera bag, that was my first instinct. I turn around and there’s Donald. He sort of looked away quickly. I quickly turned back, facing Ray Charles, and I’m stunned.’’ She told the Palm Beach Post she was certain it was not an accident. “This was a pretty good nudge. More of a grab,’’ she said. “It was pretty close to the center of my butt. I was startled. I jumped.’’
Corroborator: Ken Davidoff, photographer: He vividly remembers when McGillivray pulled him aside moments after the alleged incident and told him, “Donald just grabbed my ass!’’ He did not witness the incident himself.
Jill Harth Allegation: In the early 1990s, Jill Harth and her boyfriend at the time, George Houraney, worked with Trump on a beauty pageant in Atlantic City, and later accused Trump of inappropriate behavior toward Harth during their business dealings. She said that Trump pursued her and groped her; she alleged attempted rape in a sexual harassment suit that was withdrawn as a condition for settling a contract dispute. (We are including her account here because she gave interviews making these charges even after the lawsuit was withdrawn.) Trump had “his hands all over me,” Harth told the New York Times. “He was trying to kiss me. I was freaking out.”
Corroborator: George Houraney, her boyfriend and later husband. The two are divorced but he confirmed her account in an interview with Nicholas Kristof: “Houraney and Harth haven’t spoken in years, but they offered almost identical accounts when I interviewed them separately, and their stories match Harth’s deposition and her sexual harassment lawsuit from the time.”
Response: Trump said it was Harth who had pursued him, and his office shared email messages in which Harth thanked Trump for helping her personally and professionally. The campaign said she was a “pawn” in a lawsuit created by her ex-husband.
After Harvey Weinstein's fall, Trump accusers wonder why not him too.(Video: Alice Li/Photo: Celeste Sloman/The Washington Post)
Jessica Leeds Allegation: Trump attacked her while seated next to her on an airline flight. More than three decades ago, when she was a traveling business executive at a paper company, Leeds told the New York Times in 2016, she sat beside Trump in the first-class cabin of a flight to New York. They had never met before. About 45 minutes after takeoff, Trump lifted the armrest and began to touch her. Trump grabbed her breasts and tried to put his hand up her skirt. “He was like an octopus,” Leeds said. “His hands were everywhere.” She fled to the back of the plane. “It was an assault,” she said.
Corroborator: Leeds told the story to at least four people close to her, who also spoke with the New York Times. But most appear to have heard about it more recently. Linda Ross, a neighbor and friend, heard about it six months before Leeds went public, for instance.
Reaction: The Trump campaign offered the perspective of a British man who claimed to have sat near the two on the plane and three decades later remembered the incident in detail. “She was the one being flirtatious,” he said.
Other accusers
Temple Taggart McDowell: The 1997 Miss Utah USA said Trump kissed her directly on the lips, at a time he was married to Marla Maples and McDowell was 21. Later, when she visited Trump Tower to discuss a modeling contract, she says Trump again embraced and kissed her on the lips, this time in front of two pageant chaperones and a receptionist. The New York encounter made one of the chaperones so “uncomfortable” that she advised McDowell not to go into any rooms with Trump alone, McDowell told NBC News.
Karena Virginia: A yoga instructor said Trump harassed and groped her during a chance encounter at the U.S. Open in 1998. Virginia said Trump, a total stranger, then grabbed her arm and touched her breast. “I was in shock,” Virginia said. “I flinched. He said, ‘Don’t you know who I am?’ I felt intimidated and powerless. I said ‘yes.’”
Jennifer Murphy: A former Apprentice contestant said Trump in 2004 kissed her on the lips. “He walked me to the elevator, and I said goodbye. I was thinking ‘oh, he’s going to hug me,’ but … he pulled my face in and gave me a smooch.”
Ninni Laaksonen: A former Miss Finland said Trump in 2006 grabbed her bottom shortly after he had married Melania. “Trump stood right next to me and suddenly he squeezed my butt. He really grabbed my butt.”
Jessica Drake: A porn star and sex educator said that during a 2006 golf tournament in Lake Tahoe, Trump “grabbed” her and two other unnamed women tightly and kissed them on the lips “without asking permission.” He then offered Drake $10,000 and the use of his private plane, she said, if she would agree to come back to his room and accompany him to a party.
This means, before publishing, the media needs a water-tight case. To accuse someone of sexual misconduct, they would normally need proof (such as a recording) or a witness prepared to testify in court.
In cases of sexual misconduct, both things are hard to find.
But the British media - worried about being sued - didn't publish. It wasn't until Savile died that ITV broke the story (in UK law, a dead person cannot be defamed).
Image captionTV presenter Jimmy Savile sexually abused hundreds of people - mainly young females
You don't even need to name someone to be sued in the UK.
In 2012, BBC Newsnight wrongly linked Lord McAlpine to child sex abuse, without naming him.
In the US, it's far harder to sue for libel. The reason is 226 years old, but as relevant as ever.
The first amendment to the US constitution - adopted in 1791 - protects freedom of speech and freedom of the press.
It means American media law is "radically different" to the UK, says Stuart Karle, a professor at Columbia Journalism School in New York and former general counsel for the Wall Street Journal.
"In the US, the burden is on the plaintiff - the person alleging that he or she has been defamed - to prove the statement is false," he says.
So - compared to the UK - the burden of proof is flipped. Americans are less likely to sue, so US media are more likely to break the story.
And - for celebrities - there's another hurdle to clear when suing in the US.
When a public official (such as a government employee) or public figure (such as a celebrity) sues for libel, they must prove "actual malice".
"Actual malice basically means the journalist lied," says Professor Karle.
"Either the journalist published a story they knew was false - or they acted with reckless disregard over whether it was true or false.
"That basically means - you lied."
But - despite the bar being higher - it doesn't mean American media has carte blanche. And, when they do get it wrong, it can cost millions of dollars.
Image captionLouis CK admitted that sexual misconduct allegations made by five women were true
In 2014, Rolling Stone magazine covered an alleged gang rape at the University of Virginia in 2012.
The story was retracted in 2015 and a university official - who handled sexual assault cases - sued for defamation. She was awarded $3m in damages.
Further back, a prosecutor sued the Philadelphia Inquirer over articles published in 1973. He won $34m.
"Sometimes you hear 'in the United States, reputation isn't valued'," says Professor Karle.
"But the US laws are highly protective of reputation. The damages can be massive - far, far greater than one could get in the UK.
"So you have more (defamation) cases in the UK and more stories that aren't published or broadcast.
"But in the US, if a plaintiff wins, the potential damages are in the millions - or tens of millions."
For this reason - and for reasons of good journalism - American media often goes to great lengths to verify accusations.
And - in an article about New York Times reporter Glenn Thrush - Vox writer Laura McGann recounted her own experience, interviewed three other women, and spoke to 40 people in the wider media.
Which system is better - the UK or the US - depends on your point of view.
If you've been wrongly accused, you may yearn for the British system - where publishing is riskier.
If you're a victim, you may prefer the US system - where the constitution protects freedom of speech.
Either way, the effect is clear.
The US has a flood of cases. In the UK, it remains drip-drip.
(Lanka-e-News - 20.Nov.2017, 4.00PM) A celebrated journalist Poddala Jayantha addressing a letter to the president in connection with the current media suppression in the country , emphatically pointed out to the president there should be a limit to his ingratitude.The full text of the letter is hereunder …
PoddalaJayantha Poddala@gmail.com 12 -11-2017
To: President of Sri Lanka Mr. MaithripalaSirisena Presidential secretariat Colombo Sri Lanka
Dear Sir ,
There should be a limit to your ingratitude
You were a permanent share holder of the Mahinda Rajapakse’s despotic reign before you left him . At your first media briefing you announced to the country you had to take that step because you could not bear to see the thousands of crimes committed by the rulers including the atrocities, murders , abductions , monumental frauds , corruption , and media suppression.
You also pledged to restore democracy and all the rights of the people immediately that were destroyed while joining in the struggle against the dictatorial rule.
You also said in no uncertain terms if a country’s Democracy is to be safeguarded , media freedom should exist and be protected . Besides ,you repeatedly promised that investigations shall be launched immediately against the attacks launched on journalists and media Institutions under the previous regime , while assuring on several occasions that laws shall be enforced against the criminals .
The Civil organizations ,the social media and law abiding citizens in their thousands rallied around you trusting your so many pledges. Based on the presidential election results , that number is about 6.2 million. These groups rallied around you not because you were the secretary of the SLFP , or you made a proposal that 80 % of cigarette packets should carry pictorial warnings during the Rajapakse era , but because there was a need to have a common candidate to oust the brutal Rajapakse administration.
Mr.Maithripala Sirisena the president …
For the last nearly three years since your becoming the president , except two or three crimes you have not even conducted a proper probe into the others. Not only you have allowed room to bury those crimes , but now under your own leadership the villainous ‘firing of guns’ had begun on the same lines as was before at its initial stages.
I am addressing this open letter to remind you of the past.
The necessity to send this letter to you hurriedly is because of your direct order ( I am aware you have given a direct order according to what you have told a certain minister) recently issued to ban Lanka e News website within SL. We know based on our experience this is not going to be the first ban or the last.
Trading on media ban
In order to sit in the presidential chair, like how you ‘sold’ the past crimes committed in the country you sold the crimes committed in respect of the media. While selling the crimes committed on the media , you sold the other journalists including the writer who were victims of the crimes.
We remained silent assuming your ‘sale’ of the media is to restore the eroded Democracy in the country .
If an elaboration is to be made on to what extent the ‘sale ‘ was conducted - you used even the presidential election platform and the other platforms . Besides , you took advantage of the Rajapakse media suppression including the Lasantha Wickremetunge murder , Prageeth Ekneliyagoda‘s disappearance , abduction of myself and Keith Noyahr, tortures committed , attack on UpaliTennekoon , Lanka e News portal that was reduced to ashes, and highlighted the bomb attacks to propel yourself.
In addition , the groups that joined to steer you to victory ,during the television debates went on chanting against and criticizing Rajapakse media erosion unrelentingly like how a magician uses a magic wand. Not only that , the advertisements which appeared in the electronic and print media to promote your election victory , carried photographs of the media suppression incidents involving the torture and abductions faced by most mass media personnel including the writer . This is why we said in the foregoing paragraphs you ‘sold’ us wholesale during your presidential campaign. This letter is written by one such victim who was a subject of ‘sale’ by you during your campaign.
Mr. president Maithripala Sirisena ….
The magnitude of ingratitude
During your election campaign you exploited the name of Prageeth Ekneliyagoda who went missing , and you mentioned his name a thousand times . Yet what did you say publicly in that regard even before one year had elapsed since you were installed as president ? You said , ‘everybody knows this case , war heroes are being detained for 8 months’ To you what mattered were the tears of the wives of the accused officers of the forces .
You forgot the tears and abysmal sufferings of Sandya the grieving widow of victim Ekneliyagoda and his two children who were visiting court after court carrying the photograph of late Ekneliyagoda for the last 7 long years , and in addition had to face the filthy abusive language of the rascals in robes at every turn.
Can there be a more ungrateful act in the world than turning your back on the victim’s family after your selling their tears and grief during the presidential elections to win the elections ?
Vilification of Social media
The group including Mahinda Rajapakse are still saying , it was the social media chain that contributed most for their downfall. That very social media chain which made such a major contribution towards your victory has now become the target of your vicious vendetta. You have been consistently vilifying the social media while also once declaring ‘ I have told even my householders not to browse the websites’
Isn’t this absolute ingratitude ?
Of course the writer of this letter does not in any case agree , all the mass media within and outside the country are reporting the truth and unerringly. But that does not mean they are telling 100 % falsehoods. If anything has been misreported about you , it is the duty to get that corrected. If the correction is not being published , under the civil laws of the country it is possible to file a defamatory case. Instead of that simply banning and obstructing a media website is tantamount to media suppression. It is in other words a shameless attempt to cover up your faults .
Mr. President Maithripala Sirisena
Your ingratitude is repeated …
What did you say to the country when you were sworn in as president ? You said you will abolish the executive presidency immediately . Even before the remains of Late most Ven. Maduluwawe SobithaThera who sacrificed his life to make you the president , you solemnly pledged on that occasion that you would end the executive presidency. But what is the position now ?
The SLFP which is under your leadership made its proposals that the executive presidency shall be retained .Weren’t those proposals made with your knowledge? When you are questioned about this , if you are getting ready to introduce fetters on the media freedom , and if you think the 6.2 million people who voted you into power will remain silent , you are laboring under a delusion .
It is the bitter truth that out of the 6.2 Million votes you received only I million SLFP votes , which stark fact you have forgotten today. The UNP in whatever situation has a permanent 4.5 million vote (approximately ) base .
At the last presidential elections even if all the votes of TNA, JVP, Muslim Congress were put together which the SLFP polled , those are hardly anything worth to talk about - an unenviable negligible number of votes.
Yet the manner in which you talk today , and the way the group which was fastened on to Mahinda Rajapakse even on January 7 th, 2015 , but now holding ministerial portfolios brag is, as though the 6.2 Million votes are those of the SLFP. This is why I am repeatedly saying you are most ungrateful.
Mr. President Maithripala Sirisena …
Lanka e News ban and the warship
If the news report of Lanka e News about the eagerness to purchase the Russian warship is untrue , it is no big task to send an e mail promptly to make a correction. If son of Wijedasa Rajapakse is not being kept by you in your defense ministry as media secretary to give answers when such issues crop up , then is he there to make coffee beverage to drink ?
Without even sending a correction , and without giving an appropriate answer , let alone from the platform , banning Lanka e News within SL forces us to think based on that very action of yours that the report is true.
If Perpetual Treasuries Co. has made undue profits in the Treasury bond transaction, and if you allege that is a corrupt act , shouldn’t you also probe into the attempted purchase of an unsuitable warship from Russia at an exorbitant price despite the Navy putting the foot down and opposing it ,as well as into the state sponsorship that is being showered on the advertising Co. of your daughter ?
With the publication of the aforementioned incident , the other media must now be ‘thinking’ their media could be subjected to a ban. Though the right to information enactment has been introduced , fetters on it are imposed truly via the above mindset created and self imposed bans.
Mr. President Maithripala Sirisena
You are more dangerous than Rajapakses in relation to bans..
We have no personal disputes with you or your daughter . Neither do we have personal grudges against Mahinda Rajapakse or Gotabaya. Our concern is to safeguard Democracy and ensure the right to information of the tax paying people is not impeded.
Mass Media is a fourth state . It is the only medium available to make known to the masses the misdeeds of the Executive, legislature and the Judiciary . Hence that should be allowed to carry out its tasks independently and freely.
The issue for us is , you who came forward claiming and proclaiming that you will halt the media suppression that prevailed during the Rajapakse era , and promising solemnly to fortify the right to information of the people of the country , after your completion of just two years as president , taken over the media suppression as a tool yourself .
Unbelievably , your actions are more lethal than what Mahinda Rajapakse resorted to. Mahinda banned news websites after obtaining a court order whereas you have imposed a ban on Lanka e News without any court order . Based on information received Rajapakses banned the website only by name. The website could be accessed through the IP number. Today you have even forbidden the IP number.
Like how the Rajapakses abducted in white Vans those who opposed them ,and did not accept responsibility , as regards the present ban no one is accepting the responsibility . Therefore these actions are most grave and ominous to country’s media freedom.
In the circumstances , let me make a final request to you .Ensure and have an independent mass media regulation within the country in order to make Democracy the bedrock of the free nation.
Thanks Yours truly
Poddala Jayantha
Former Secretary of Working Journalist's Association - Sri Lanka
--------------------------- by (2017-11-20 11:41:35)
The cliché that the Sri Lankan government emerged victorious in the separatist Eelam war but failed to win the hearts and minds of the Tamil population is very true. Not long after the end of the war began the attack on the Muslims. Both the previous government, which is credited with the victory and, the present government have miserably failed in creating an environment facilitating co-existence for its minority citizens. This dereliction is an indictment on the former President Mahinda Rajapaksa, sitting President Maithripala Sirisena and the Prime Minister. Each of them singularly and collectively lacked the political will to take affirmative action in the matter of race relations.
The Prime Minister’s frequent rhetoric on the drive towards development, luring foreign direct investors etc. is doomed without the foundational issue being adequately addressed. No foreign investor will be willing to park his funds in a market overshadowed by chronic ethno-racial tension. Insecurity is a major factor, among others, that would remain a threat to stability and growth prospects of any economy.
To pat oneself on the back for ensuring law and order by ordering the police and military to a trouble spot is simply treating the symptom. What the country needs is a scientific and qualitative approach to address the root cause and mitigate its effect.
Priority And Speed
The creation of the Office for National Unity and Reconciliation (ONUR) and the establishment of a separate Ministry for National Integration and Reconciliation are steps in the right direction. The vision statement, “To build a strong integrated Sri Lankan Community whilst protecting socio-cultural value system ….” of the Ministry of National Integration and Reconciliation is indeed encouraging. So are the thematic focus of ONUR, “Build an inclusive society by promoting social integration.Support the healing process within communities. Bring youth and children to the forefront in building national unity and reconciliation.”
Deliverables, however, are not robust and have not been felt on the ground. This does not mean that they do not do anything at all. On the contrary, whatever is being done is insufficient and has not reached the wider audience – the masses. Also, apparently, these institutions lack momentum. It is also imperative that they co-ordinate their activities to support the training of Police personnel on diversity (see below).
Forms of Racism
Racism in the Sri Lankan society is a reality. The subtle or covert form of it is experienced almost on a daily basis by those belonging to ethnic or religious minorities. Everyday racism like being ignored, ridiculed or treated differently in circumstances, do not make headline news. However, the covert nature of such microaggressions are symptomatic of the prevalence of this ‘disease’ in the people. The cumulative effect of such aggressions over a period of time impacts on the thinking of both the target, as victim of racial prejudice and, the racist, as the aggressor with a sense of superiority.
The unfettered and unchecked progress of this sense of racial superiority is dangerous to society. History teaches us the lesson of death and destruction which had its roots in racial superiority.Hitler’s fascist Nazi idealisation of the German ‘Blut und Boden’ (Blood and soil) is reflected in the Sinhala Buddhist ultra-nationalism and Sinha Le manifestations in Sri Lanka.
Agents Of Metastasis
Racism like cancer metastasises fast. The agents of metastasis are the social media and the monks. In their cultural tradition, the Buddhists pay obeisance to monks with great reverence. This reverential bonding psychologically places monks in a position of influence over the thinking and behaviour of the lay people, especially the youth. There is sufficient empirical evidence for this. Some of these monks, instead of inculcating samma ditti (right view) in the minds of the people, they are teaching hatred, intolerance and vengeance. Instead of weaning the lay Buddhist youth from violence, they lead them to thuggerism. The social media is an easy platform to spread evil and indoctrinate the rest of the gullible people.
By R.M.B. Senanayake-2017-11-22
As orthodox economists, we cannot criticise the macro-economic factors and balance underlying the Budget. The expenditure aggregate is limited in accordance with the government's inclination to raise tax revenue. So, if the government wants to spend more it will automatically have to tax more under IMF tutelage. Our governments generally do not like to raise taxes, although they like to increase government expenditure.
This means they run budget deficits and unless the deficit is met from the transfer of savings from the public (a limited option since our private savings are also low), they are then tempted to borrow money not only from the savings of the people, but also from the banking system (which is tantamount to the creation of new money) to fund budget deficits. So, a large quantity of new money is created without it being linked to any increase in the production process for goods and services. Production process
Money is normally created through the production process when domestic production and exports exceed imports. The excess can then be accumulated as extra foreign exchange which can be converted to domestic money. Similarly, if exports fall short of imports there will be a shortage of domestic money. If we did not have a Central Bank, the money supply will vary with the balance in the balance of payments. All money was created only through the export and import process for money was linked to the surplus or deficit in the current account of the balance of payments. There were both advantages and disadvantages in the system since the domestic money supply varied with the external balance, providing an automatic correction to a balance of payments deficit. But it also meant the country had no control over its money supply.
The domestic economy which did not require imports was hampered thereby. It meant that the fluctuations in the external account automatically generated similar fluctuations in domestic aggregate demand which caused unnecessary fluctuations in domestic economic activity. Those who opposed it argued that there was no reason why domestic economic activity, which did not require imports should be curtailed. Theoretically, the criticism was valid, but in practice domestic economic activity was too highly linked to the external balance in any case.
So, when the nexus between the two was severed, this resulted in the build up of unsustainable domestic imbalances which required periodic devaluations and depreciations. Earlier, there were regular and continuous fluctuations in the exchange rate which automatically smoothed out imbalances in the balance of payments, but it meant continuous fluctuations in the exchange rate – a variable instead of a fixed exchange rate.
World powers
The IMF set up by world powers after the war, opted for fixed exchange rates except to correct periodic unsustainable imbalances in the balance of payments. So, countries were required to fix their exchange rates with the IMF and only if there were continuous unsustainable imbalances in their balances of payments were they allowed to depreciate the currency. There had been competitive exchange rate depreciations to promote exports by Western countries after World War I.
There are disadvantages in a freely fluctuating exchange rate since this could lead to speculative changes in demand and supply, whereas economists would prefer the exchange rate to be determined by fundamental factors instead.
After World War I, the exchange rate was linked to the external bank balances in foreign exchange. So, the exchange rates fluctuated with the external balances, but devaluations and depreciations raise the cost of living which make governments unpopular, but where there are continuous unsustainable deficits in the balance of payments, governments have no alternative, but to depreciate when necessary.
Since we are also a highly import dependent economy and consume many imported goods, our living costs can go up steeply due to changes in the exchange rate. So, a fluctuating exchange rate was not desirable for us. It would make living costs fluctuate too much.
It would also adversely affect our foreign trade. So, they opted for governments to stabilize and hold the exchange rates stable as far as possible, but this meant holding an adequate foreign reserve at all times. This task could not be left to the market and hence the Central Bank took over the task of holding the foreign exchange reserve of the country.
The commercial banks were allowed to hold only working balances of foreign exchange and not to hold or build reserves. So, any surplus over the working balances had to be sold by the commercial banks to the Central Bank, but there was merit in automatically linking the external value of the rupee to the external balance since it eliminated the need for the governments to undertake periodic devaluations which became explosive matters under independent democratic governments.
Devaluation or depreciation raises the cost of living and was therefore, unpopular with the people.
But it may be necessary if there are unsustainable deficits in the balance of payments for otherwise the foreign reserves would be drained out completely and the country would become incapable of importing at all. So, conserving a minimum level of foreign reserves was a sine qua non since there was no automatic mechanism linking exports and imports. They are made by two different sets of people who are exporters and importers although a few may engage in both.
So, some public authority was required to regulate our foreign reserves and conserve a minimum level of them to provide for unforeseen eventualities. Export production for example could suffer due to adverse weather conditions, while continued imports would be required at the same level, but this would mean a shortfall in our foreign exchange balances, but we depend a lot on imported goods for our essential consumption requirements. At one time, we were importing rice, flour and sugar for our day-to-day requirements. And any shortage in the market for them would create public outcries and even bring down democratically elected governments. So, post-war democratically elected governments continued the government monopolies on the import and distribution of rice, flour and sugar.
The Food Commissioner was entrusted with the task and he had several large stores in the Chalmers Granaries and the Manning Market where these goods were stored and distributed through the cooperative unions who in turn sold them through cooperative societies.
So, the importing and distribution of rice, flour, sugar and even some subsidiary foodstuffs like Mysore dhal were made government monopolies or were mainly imported by the Food Commissioner and the cooperative wholesale establishments which were expected to act in the public interest rather than to exclusively pursue private profit.
Domestic money supply
As for the domestic money supply, there was much criticism in making it vary with the external payments position since some domestic economic activity could expend without causing problems in the balance of payments. This realization led to the demand for the setting up of a Central Bank which could create money to cater better to the needs of the economy without domestic monetary expansion being at the mercy of external demand.
During World War II, when we were under the British, our foreign exchange balances accumulated since imports were limited by enemy attacks as well as shortages of world supplies. So, our foreign exchange balances accumulated at the end of the war.
Our post-war independent government saw the opportunity to spend money freely to enhance their popularity and develop the country faster since they thought development depended on spending more money on investment. (this is true only if the investments are successful and increase incomes as a result)
World War II
Immediately after World War II we had a large volume of foreign reserves accumulated by denying expenditure. This has been used to undertake deficit budgeting funded by borrowings from the Central Bank and the banking system which economists refer to as the creation of new money. Such new money creation unlinked to the process of production or the surplus in the external account of the nation means more money is created while the supply of goods and services is not increased by domestic production.
So, the extra aggregate demand spills over to an increased demand for imported goods and services without a corresponding increase in exports. This results in an increased deficit in the balance of payments which has to be funded by drawing down foreign reserves of the country.
A certain minimum level of foreign reserves expressed in terms of the capacity for several months imports, say 5-6 months, is considered as a prudential level to deal with the fluctuations in world trade. Exports and imports don't match automatically in a free market economy since foreign reserves are used to fund the imports.
Exporters and importers are not the same people. The exporters are not allowed to keep the foreign exchange earned from their exports. They must surrender them to the banks and the latter in turn to the Central Bank (except for working balances).
The Central Bank becomes the holder of the foreign reserve of the country, built up from the surplus of exports over imports of goods, services and unilateral payments or receipts (such as remittances from our migrant workers). Only the Central Bank can keep unlimited amounts of foreign currency and the commercial banks are allowed to retain only working balances for their day-to-day operations. Let us conserve our foreign exchange earnings for a rainy day.
