|
|
 |
 |
 |
| Monday, 29 September 2003 |
 |
|
 |
Letters | |
| News Business Features Editorial Security Politics World Sports Obituaries
|
Please forward your letters to [email protected] in plain text format within the e-mail message, since as a policy we do not open any attachments.
Mount Park Mt Lavinia: Will the public lose their park? Ever since Mount Park was made available to the public the North Western corner of Mount Park was a spot where a tired city dweller could relax and relieve all his daily stress. Seated on the parapet wall with his feet hanging down he could see the tall grass below swaying in the wind giving rise to shrieks of delight from children who are also seated on the wall with their parents. Further ahead and down below he could see the rail tracks, the beach and the sea. Today the rail track can no longer be seen from the park and mothers do not rush their young ones any more. There is no wall to sit on and no grass below waving in the wind. That is because a former Minister arbitrarily gave away this most attractive priceless piece of land at the northwestern corner of the park to the adjacent school. The school cut away that whole area and used that to fill the slope. This land It is not even a piece of unused crown land. It is a piece of land that belonged to the public park that was used by the public ever since the park was opened. It was the most enjoyable piece of land in Mount Park the like of which is not found in any crowded municipality anywhere in this world. Even if the late Minister Gunaratne had the permission of the Mayor he could not have given it away legally without a public hearing because it is public property. We should insist on seeing the Titled Report of the property to see how valid this deed that has been executed without a public hearing is. Having said that we are not asking that the situation be reversed but only asking for the right of the public to use that piece of land for recreation after school hours and for the right of mothers to show the train to their young ones by entering that area. We understand that the school is proposing to build a wall along the boundary. We do not want such a wall built because it will not only block the view of the sea from the visitors to the park but will also ruin the whole area environmentally. In the absence of a retaining wall the park is being gradually eroded as any visitor to the park could see. There should be a retaining wall with hand railings and park benches behind. Today the school has full access to the park during school hours while the public is prohibited from entering the park during those hours. The public can come only after 4.30 pm. The public has no objections to the school using the park but where is the logic and the justice if the public are prevented from using that acquired piece of land long after school has closed while the school has the right to use the entire public park during the day during which time the public are prohibited to use the park? Any talk of school security being put forward by the school in an attempt to prevent the public using that segregated area is an invention that sounds plausible in the ears of any reasonable person who has not seen the geography. The only people that the school has succeeded in keeping away from the acquired area are the visitors to the park. Any vandal or thief could easily access that area from the western boundary that has not been fenced. The security of the school today is no different from the days when the piece of land belonged to the park. Unless those who decide on this matter personally see the geography of the piece of land in relation to school security there is a risk of a grave miscarriage of justice to the public that uses this park. Therefore in the interest of fairness and justice it is desirable that both the Mayor and the Director of Environment and Landscape should visit the site. If the public are allowed the use of this area under dispute from 4.30 pm till closing time no harm will come to the school unless they can prove it. In the end it is the Mayor of Dehiwala-Mount Lavinia who is responsible for the park. Bearing in mind that handing that piece of land to the school was wrong and it was an act against the interest of the public especially when the school has the free run of the entire park during school hours we hope that the mayor in examining the titled report of the property will find sufficient reasons in the illegal transfer of land to the school to grant access to that property to the public after school hours till the park closes for the day. L. JAYASOORIYA, via email The flurry of events at the New York Stock Exchange culminating in the resignation of its Chairman, Richard Grasso, over his excessive pay and the ignorance of the NYSE's Board in authorizing it, is a sober warning to regulatory bodies the world over. There is increasing impatience being shown both by institutional investors and the investing public to what they perceive as blatant and potential conflicts of interest. As a Sri Lankan resident in Canada, I note with concern that the Colombo Stock Exchange's Board of Directors is no exception. According to the CSE's 2002 Annual Report, the board is a veritable Who's Who in the business community. The conflict of interest is clear and unequivocal: those overseeing the exchange are also subject to its regulation. Most directors are at the helm of affairs in some of the largest companies listed on the CSE. Arguably, some, by their very power and influence, may well be dominating the CSE's board. If the CSE wishes to ensure transparency, fairness and justice in its dealings with all member firms, the board of directors should be truly independent. Though the famous 'insider-trading' incident has almost been swept under the carpet, it is a sterling example of the danger a board, so constituted, can face when really put to the test. The interests of the investing public deserve better. LOUIS ROBERTS, Canada I retired from mercantile service having been closely associated with the export trade for over 45 years, earning substantial foreign exchange for the country. After retirement I had to depend on income from interest on fixed deposits and savings. Until recently it was possible to exist on that income, but since the very sharp reduction to near zero on fixed deposits and savings interest I and other retired persons like me are being driven to the wall. With the cost of living going skywards we continue to be choked and very soon will be completely and effectively suffocated. I believe many others also now retired have paid taxes diligently for many years but the rewards and extraordinary concessions have been granted to tax evaders and/or wilful cheaters. If every citizen is treated equally and has equal rights then would the Ministry of Finance kindly enact a Bill to exempt, for say 10 years, all those who have paid taxes diligently and regularly for over 25/30 years. In the twilight of our lives we deserve some consideration; at least the right to live above the poverty line. K. Gamage, Colombo 3 In the context of the on-going grievances in regard to promotions, some of which have gone to courts, it would be useful to rely on the recommendations made in the Report of the Salaries and Cadres Commission, 1953, Part Two (Sessional papers XVII - 1953) - page 548, which reads - 'It will be seen that under the present regulations both merit and seniority are factors which are taken into consideration when the claims of officers for promotion are assessed. The Sessional Paper however states that promotions should be solely on merit; seniority will therefore no longer be a criterion. The basis of this provision in the sessional paper appears to be the theory that it is in the interests of the public service that merit should be accorded full recognition and suitably rewarded. But however desirable such a theory may be, in the absence of precise methods for evaluation, too much emphasis on merit is, in our view, likely to lead to considerable heart-burning and dissatisfaction. For it is a natural human failing for a person to consider himself as good as the next man (if not better) and the promotion of a junior officer above his seniors on the ground of exceptional merit almost always leads to allegations of favouritism or nepotism; besides in a small country like ours where we know each other too well, imaginary theories soon emerge indicating the reasons for such favouritism, and these tales, unhappily, add not a little bitterness to the heart-burning. In fact an important Government official goes so far as to state that, "canvassing is strictly prohibited on paper but is openly practised with impunity and therefore the measure of merit may ultimately be the capacity for commanding the support of influence and patronage." Quite apart from the normal difficulties which are inherent in a proper evaluation of relative merit, the position becomes still more difficult when the merit that has to be assessed is of officers serving in different spheres of activity under superiors of varing temperament with different standards of judgement... We therefore regard it as essential to specify that officers should be eligible for promotion only if they have served a number of years in the grade. This is a balanced decision, which we of the old school of the much respected public service, gladly welcome. S. THAMBYRAJAH, Colombo 3 A high powered committee was appointed two years ago to study the implications of GM food imports: this report, as far as I am aware, has not been made public or has been shelved! It is very surprising that neither the Ministry of Health, nor the Ministry of Trade and Imports has made any comment on this matter so far. No responsible government officer or Minister of the Cabinet can remain silent on such an important issue as GM foods, which are known to have far reaching effects on the health of the public as well as the agricultural industry. There is obviously lack of transparency as well as little respect for professional opinion if the recommendations of the GM foods committee have been ignored. The least that I could say on this matter is that a statement from the Ministry of Health is long overdue. DR. N. AMARASEKERA, Nawala. Why is it that the Foreign Employment Bureau requires those who have travelled on their own, privately, for employment to the Middle East to pay the insurance when they return to the ME after vacation in Sri Lanka? Also why do they require people to go to a translator named by them to have the visas translated into English. It is time the staff were trained to read visas from Middle East countries or else employ staff competent to read visas without putting people through the hassle of getting translations through their agents. E. Ranatunga, via email |
|
News | Business | Features
| Editorial | Security
Produced by Lake House |
