Lanka Citizen

THE Secretary General of the Liberal Party Kamal Nissanka issuing a press release states that the road to end separatism cannot be found until the UNP is defeated.

It further states that the UNP manifesto as well as the recent poster displayed by the UNP indicates that they are going to end separatism. Yet they do not reveal the methodology that they are going to adopt in doing so.

The Liberal Party reminds that though the TULF contested the 1977 election on the basis of Tamil Eelam the militant Tamil separatism evolved during the period of 1977-1994 under the UNP authoritarian rule of which Wickremesinghe was a minister.

Therefore, the Liberal Party believes that ’separatism’ that Wickremesinghe wants to end is partly a baby created by the UNP itself through its repressive policies of 1977, 1981 and 1983.

The LTTE, culminating with assassination of the Sri Lankan foreign minister Kadirgamar is everyday violating ceasefire agreement (CFA), which Wickremesinghe signed.

The peace talks collapsed in April, 2003 giving the advantage of the unequal terms of the CFA (2002) to furtherance the separatist causes. Today’s reality is the LTTE violates many sections of the CFA.

The Liberal Party further points out that the UNP should not whitewash the LTTE for its brutal atrocities an organisation, which stands for a unitary rule in the northeast with its own homogeneous one party domination. Wickremesinghe’s peace at any cost policy will never end separatism.

The Liberal Party views that Wickremesinghe lacks vision to end separatism and reiterates that there is a necessity for ‘ a new approach’ of ceasefire and peace talks that would be initiated under a fresh leadership.

Therefore the Liberal Party states that defeating the UNP is the prime condition for ending separatism.

courtesy Daily News

Photo: A supporter of Sri Lanka’s Hayekist party, the
United National Party (UNP) gestures angrily during a
boardroom protest in Colombo, Sri Lanka, Tuesday,
September 6, 2005. Dozens of Hayekist party members
protested Tuesday demanding increased pressure from
the IMF / World Bank, accusing the ruling party of not
supporting neo-liberal policies as propounded by the
US Treasury (APP Photo/JR Jayawardene)

By Adam Smutt, Allied Press Writer | September 6,
2005

COLOMBO, Sri Lanka– Dozens of corporate supporters
of a Sri Lankan Hayekist political party Tuesday
demanded increased pressure from the IMF / World Bank
in the run up to the November presidential elections,
accusing the ruling party in Sri Lanka of not
supporting neol-liberal policies as recommended by US
Treasury guidelines.

“The international corporate community,
non-governmental organizations and the Bush
administration all agree that these socialists should
be buried once and for all, and not just at the
polls,” said Iwin Wejakanybody, a public relations
expert from the Hayekist United National Party.

About 36 corporate protesters gathered in the main
board room of the biggest private bank in the capital,
Colombo, to condemn the lack of privatisation of
national resources, promising to pool their capital to
help the UNP candidate in the upcoming presdiential
election.

“Speed Up Privatisation,” a powerpoint banner read. He
said that they would support the LTTE in threatening a
return to war, thereby dousing investor confidence for
the next few months. They also called for a further
freeze on tsunami relief.

Friedrich A. von Hayek, the United National Party’s
main theoretician is an obscure Austrian economist and
arch anti-communist who was parachuted into Oxford to
oppose the theories of J. M. Keynes. Hayek gained
widespread US corporate support in the 1970s and
1980s, and policies based on his proposals led to
widespread ruin in South America. A notable adherent
was Colonel Adolfo Pinochet of Chile after 1973.

Write to us at:

lankacitizen@gmail.com

Why is India gaining on us (Canadians)? Do the math

While North American math and science teachers sugar-coat learning, Asian kids are drilling their way to the top, says scientist and teacher SUMITRA RAJAGOPALAN

SUMITRA RAJAGOPALAN
Tuesday, September 6, 2005

The Globe and Mail, Toronto

Some people think of them as the other Axis of Evil. With a massive tech-savvy work force, India and China stand accused of siphoning thousands of jobs from the United States and Canada. According to the Wharton School of Business, about 250,000 U.S. jobs have been outsourced to India. Major companies that have transferred jobs include Accenture, DuPont, and ING. Other corporations have set up research-and-development facilities in China and India to develop products ranging from life-saving drugs to ultratiny computer chips. It’s estimated that the 2005 revenues from software outsourcing will top $17-billion.

The growing Asian threat has alarmed many U.S. lawmakers, and as they contemplate countermeasures, many of them wonder: How did two “poor” countries come to challenge North America’s high-tech hegemony?

It is the schools, stupid.

The quality of education in science and mathematics in many Asian schools is far higher than North Americans realize. According to one recent study of math skills of 15-year-olds in 29 countries, done by the Organization for Economic Co-operation and Development, Americans ranked 24th. Canadians students’ math scores are higher than the U.S., but we still lag behind Korea and Japan (as well as New Zealand and Finland).

This continent depends heavily on immigrants to fill science and engineering jobs, and we’re importing more and more of them from Asia. Spartan and rigorous in its approach, the Asian method of teaching science has helped create a vast pool of highly qualified scientists and engineers.

I still remember my high-school mathematics teacher: A stern, bespectacled, sari-clad lady, her hair bun reeking of coconut oil, she would make us recite our multiplication tables over and over again, like a Vedic chant, until it bore a hole in our heads. Mercilessly, she gave us mathematical drills every day, 50 equations to solve in 30 minutes, some of them on the blackboard in front of the whole class. Teachers like her help explain why many Indians excel in math and science — and threaten the United States’ scientific supremacy.

So here I am, 20 years on, working at a university but also teaching Montreal high-school students — and subjecting them to the same third degree. When teaching science and math, I follow the same no-frills, no-nonsense approach. My students whine and groan and (I am pretty sure) hate me at times, but at the end of day, they learn their science and math the proper way: for life.

In my chemistry class, I shun all the fancy paraphernalia my colleagues use. My high-tech teaching kit consists of a chalk, a blackboard and a staid Indian or Russian textbook. I explain the concept — say, atomic bonding. I give one example with a simple molecule, then give 20 exercises for the students to solve. Once they’ve got that, I move on to a more complicated molecule, illustrate the concept and give them another 10-minute drill — until drawing molecules with the right configuration and bonds becomes instinctive.

Even as I move on to more advanced stuff, I keep falling back to basics, to reinforce what the Russians call the “logical chain” of concepts. I explain everything in the same singsong fashion, using the same key words each time, another way of ensuring that basic concepts stay with my students forever.

The philosophy behind this pedagogy is simple: Constant repetition, recitation, grilling and drilling, structures their mind and thinking. Like a blowtorch, it burns in a mental template on which students can incorporate more advanced concepts later in life.
Contrast this with my North American colleagues. Their focus is on having fun; chalk and blackboard give way to all kinds of gimmickry. One colleague organizes little skits, with students playing carbon, oxygen and hydrogen. Another colleague has deputized Harry Potter to teach science.

All this sugar-coating is distracting! Teachers are actually tricking their students, enticing them with candy.

Even the Pentagon has joined in this charade: The U.S. military plans to send scientists to film school to make movies about “cool” scientists, hoping to ensnare unsuspecting kids into a life of science.
What’s next? Mathematics through mambo dance routines?
It’s high time we put an end to this gimmickry. There can be no short cuts to teaching science and mathematics. Difficult subjects can only be mastered through diligence and discipline. Here’s my humble request to colleagues at the start of the new school year: Pick up an Indian mathematics or science textbook and follow it. Explain the concepts as explained in the book. Make the students do the exercise drills, as boring or repetitive as the drills may seem.
Trust me: With time, the students will appreciate numbers and scientific principles in their unvarnished beauty. They will start enjoying the drills and ask you for more. Before breaking off for summer, four of my kids begged me to give them extra chemical equations to solve over the holidays. To reach that level is exhilarating for student and teacher. It beats Hollywood and Harry Potter any time.

Children are naturally associative thinkers. They can make connections without our help. Our job is to structure their thinking. It’s rigour, not Ritalin, that brings chaotic minds to heel. I’d like to see parents grill and drill at home, just like my father and grandfather, who spent every weekend reinforcing what I had learned in school.

So there you have it, the reason why Microsoft, GE, Proctor and Gamble and others have set up shop over there to develop innovative products. With mushy math and slushy science in North American schools, Canada and the United States are in danger of being overtaken. There is only one way to counter the growing Asian threat: Take a page from their books.

Sumitra Rajagopalan has taught science and mathematics in Cuba, Russia, Canada and India, and has written study guides in chemistry, physics and mathematics for schools in India and Pakistan. An adjunct professor of mechanical engineering at McGill University, she is also a biology/chemistry teacher at Montreal’s Gramota school.

Write to us at:
lankacitizen@gmail.com

by Citizen-Ordinary

The leader of the Opposition, Ranil Wickremesinghe is proposing a much needed public discussion on what should be the ‘podu yahapatha’ or the common good of Sri Lanka. (see, Agenda at http://unpsrilanka.org/ - ed) The proposals yet to be published in detail at the time this article is written, in essence suggest, it is said, that our common good should be based on democracy and the market economy. ( Divaina, 21/01/2005)

The majoritarian, representative democracy with all its inherent weaknesses, and made much weaker in the Sri Lankan context, however, has come to stay in Sri Lanka. Abolishing the executive Presidency which centralises draconian powers in the hands of one individual who is not accountable to the law of the country, and therefore weakens the strength of our democracy, would be a definite move in the direction of improving upon our democracy.
The market as a legitimate part of the economy has also come to stay even though the manner in which the dominance of it was forced upon us in the post-1977 period has wreaked havoc on the Sri Lankan society, the unfolding of the serious ramifications of which will take a long time to come, as shown by one of its prime examples, the privatized public transport, experienced by the ordinary folk who travel around by bus. The real issue about the market is not whether it can be considered a legitimate partner in the national economy, but whether we want to accept the market as the guiding principle of our collective life. If the results of the last general election is any indication to go by, then the message from the large majority of the Sri Lankan public seems to be a resounding NO! However, even after the debacle at the last elections, in proposing this, what Ranil Wickremesinghe is proposing to have, in fact is a public debate on the neo-liberal economic policies even though one may wonder whether it is already not too late to have this debate now!

When we say that the Industrialised western countries or countries such as Singapore have achieved high levels of ‘development’ following the model of democracy and market economy, what we express seems to be our fond hope that Sri Lanka also can be ‘developed’ following the same model, rather than being realistic on how different countries achieve ‘development’ each in its own unique way, subject to specific historical conditions and cultural factors. It is also outside the consideration whether we in Sri Lanka would necessarily want to follow such a model of development even if we could succeed in such an attempt. Our penchant for Singapore as the model of development may be due to our desire to find an easy solution to the messy situation of being citizens of a country full of internal strife in all areas of collective life that do not seem to be resolvable ever. It is no wonder that in a context where there is so much of conflict, instability and social unrest, many of us would dream of doing a Lee Kwan-Yew in Sri Lanka as if human world can be put in order by the sleight of hand of a clever magician. We need to remind ourselves that even Singapore itself could produce only one Lee Kwan Yew in its life time. But more importantly, even if one of us is clever enough to become a Lee Kwan Yew as if by a secret magical act, the possibility is that being the political beings that they are, Sri Lankans would not tolerate a Lee Kwan Yew in their midst.

While the Fukuyama doctrine of End of History which can be taken to mean that the unfolding of history in the world culminates in the entire world embracing neo-liberal economic policies which give dominance to the free reign of market forces, may seem to sound generally valid in the aftermath of the collapse of the state-centred economies of the socialist bloc countries, one cannot necessarily conclude from the latter event that politics has come to an end, or for that matter should come to an end, even in a world dominated by liberalism. The dominance of liberalism itself is the reason to revive our sense of politics, to preserve and advance the political gains won by the public in such a world, as otherwise unhindered liberalism tend to be heading in a direction which generates forces of self-destruction within its own territory. This is in addition to the resentment generated from without liberalism against it due to the action of its overzealous advocates to export liberal democracy by force to the territories of the ‘non-believers.’

The State or the Market? Both!

The other side of neoliberal myth that insists markets can solve every problem is the belief that the government can do little other than making the life of people difficult. Neo-liberalism turns the idea of collective good into an issue between the free market economy and the government. To pose the question in terms of whether to choose between the private capitalist sector and the government which is the political instrument of the collective life is to raise a red-herring.

On the other hand, the state centred economy is not the only option to market-centred economy. In industrialised countries in the West, one finds the state playing a considerable, if not a major role, in maintaining the important sectors of public transport, health care, education, child care, taking care of the elderly and welfare assistance in varying degrees. Quite a few of these countries have a strong welfare system which is jealously guarded against the intrusions of immigrants from the poor countries.
Nevertheless, we must commend Ranil Wickremesinghe for being courageous to stand by his convictions and willing to raise his vision of the common good for public debate thus throwing the gauntlet at other political parties and leaders who will be forced to articulate their visions for the common good of Sri Lanka.

Hence, if the public rises to the occasion taking the cue from Ranil Wickremesinghe and challenge all political parties to clearly articulate their visions for the common good of the country for public scrutiny, this may very will be the opportunity Sri Lanka has been waiting for its national re-awakening!

In my view, it is a sensible idea to agree that the priority given to the market mechanism in certain areas is a necessary component of the national economy as we have already come to realise and accept now in practice, instead of going back to a fully state regulated economy, the latter being a move which no one with a sense of practical reality would want to suggest. However, what aspects of the economy, to which extent, under what conditions should be subjected to the dictates of the market, is a matter to be collectively decided on the merit of each case, and therefore should not be a forgone conclusion that accepts the virtue of the market forces as a panacea for all ills in society. We know from our general experience that allowing capitalism unhindered free play in the market place, whether it is in production, trade or consumption has the general tendency of bringing into the open the rapacious character of individual human beings at the expense of public interest.

By now, with the benefit of hindsight we should be able to realise that the decision to privatize the public transport subjecting it to the dictates of market forces was the wrong decision. That it continues in its present form is only a testimony to the priority given by our politicians and bureaucrats to their ideologies and therefore the desire to place the perceived benefits of the private bus operation to the economy above the welfare of the ordinary public.

The helpless public who has no effective say in determining how collective affairs are run, daily suffer in the hands of private bus operators whose inhumanity towards fellow public is guided solely by the profit motive. These private operators of public transport have become a powerful political force unto themselves and probably a vote bank. The public, I am sure would be vigilantly watching the political alliances of these bus operators when it comes to their decision to whom to vote for in the elections. Anyone who takes the trouble to find out about the public transport in industrialised countries in the West will realise that in many cities in those countries public transport is not run on the basis of profit but as a public service, in most part funded by the city, provincial/state and national/federal governments. It is so because the public in those countries demand that the governments treat their citizens with common decency and consider that their labour force should have access to comfortable and convenient transport as they make a valuable contribution to the economy. Both the private sector in those countries and their governments are sophisticated enough to know that the productivity of labour increases under healthy working conditions of which transport to and from work is an essential part.

In fact, how we answer the question what sectors of our public services should be privatized in what manner, is not a secondary issue but one that is integral to, and hence one that itself would reflect, our understanding of our common good. In this sense any discussion of our common good need to go beyond simply stating that it should be based on democracy and market economy, but examine for which understanding of the common good we want to have democracy and market economy as its basis. I want to suggest that in determining what is our common good, the crucial issue is whether our understanding of our good life is one that gives priority to the individual good or the collective good. This we will examine in the next part of this article.

(For some of the ideas in this article, the writer is indebted to Benjamin R. Barber’s book Strong Democracy, University of California Press ) .

originally published on 2005/02/08

(http://www.island.lk/2005/02/08/features9.html)

e-mail us at: lankacitizen@gmail.com

“Although the ceasefire agreement should have benefitted the people in the North East, eventually it had only benefitted the LTTE. We were also worried about the Prime Minister’s [Ranil’s] proposals of the ISGA and not that of the LTTE, which were extremist,” he said.

Liberal Party Chief Dr. Rajiva Wijesingha pledged his fullest support for SLFP Presidential candidate Mahinda Rajapakse.

At the Dinawamu Sri Lanka press conference at the SLFI yesterday, Wijesingha said although his Party had taken a pro-UNP stand at the 2001 general election and in favour of the ceasefire agreement, they were concerned later.

“Although the ceasefire agreement should have benefitted the people in the North East, eventually it had only benefitted the LTTE. We were also worried about the Prime Minister’s [Ranil’s] proposals of the ISGA and not that of the LTTE, which were extremist,” he said.

Rajapakse has not mixed-up the rights of the minorities with that of the majority, as he had accepted that all ethnic communities rights should be protected. He had given this assurance in the precincts of the ‘Sri Dalada Maligawa’, which per se, depicts the validity and the genuineness of his stand, Wijesinghe said.

The 19th Amendment to the Constitution was terrible as it permitted Opposition members to crossover to the Government, but not to the Opposition from the government. “This was a majoritarian and not a democratic attitude,” he said.

As to the economy, Wijesingha said although they pursued an open and liberal economy, they also believed that it could not be opened 100 per cent. It needed certain restrictions if it was to operate on a level playing field.

RM

(courtesy Daily News)