• National Day, patriotism and our banks

• Mohan Samaranayake

• 'Protecting the nation from the threat of separatism is my responsibility'

   

National Day, patriotism and our banks

February 4th of every year is declared a National Holiday in commemoration of our independence; indeed it is a fitting tribute to our beloved Nation.

Even so, it is sad to note that only a small minority of the population will engage themselves in some form of meaningful commemorative activity whilst most others see it as yet another day for fun and frolic, just as they would treat other commemorative holidays.

When the National Day falls on a Sunday, it is hard to understand why some quarters declare another working day as a holiday.

The National Day is National Day and all official commemorative activities are held on February 4.

The Sri Lanka Banks' Association (Guarantee) Limited has declared a special Bank Holiday on February 5 because the National Day falls on a Sunday! It is difficult to understand the rationale for this, unless the Banks are open for normal business on February 4.

If not, declaration of a holiday at the expense and in lieu of the National Day, depriving the people and the State of the usual banking transactions on a normal working day, is tantamount to a 'below the belt' clout on Mother Lanka, certainly not fitting for a country trying to raise its head.

Further, particularly at a time like this when our valiant Security Forces are striving tirelessly around the clock, day in day out, to salvage the Nation, it is unpatriotic for us to demand a special 'off' day just because the National Day - or any other commemorative day - falls on a Sunday.

With this attitude of demanding for additional non-working days which our Nation could ill-afford, we just cannot move forward.

DR. L. A. W. SIRISENA, via email

Mohan Samaranayake

The UN is doing more damage to Sri Lanka than the LTTE. They should be banned from Sri Lanka. (Reference DN Jan. 24).

This should include some of the big shots sitting in their offices in New York who don't do their job properly because they think they have a conflict of interest. Shame on you.

Mohan Samaranayake, keep up the good work.

TANYA DE SILVA, via email

'Protecting the nation from the threat of separatism is my responsibility'

Mr. Mahinda Rajapaksa on assuming office as the President of Sri Lanka, publicly assured the Nation in his swearing in speech before the people, "I'am not the master but the trustee. I pledge to defend by all means the country you have entrusted to me".

On that occasion President Rajapaksa further asserted, "Our main objective of the election was to ensure the victory of a policy and that has been endorsed by the majority of the people. It is a policy that protects the country without dividing it.

It is a policy that takes the country forward by eradicating poverty, under development and backwardness. It is a policy that builds a new Sri Lanka".

It is most heartening and equally laudable that President Rajapaksa has recently re-assured the Nation of his commitment to protect the country without dividing it. He has emphasized "To this end I am prepared to live in or even under a bunker.

Protecting the Nation from the threat of separatism is my responsibility as the President and the Commander in Chief." Bravo! May you be blessed with greater wisdom and courage!

Let us hope that the spirit of this soul stirring message of the President, in the teeth of the continuing vicious terrorist activity, will allay the fears and lift up the souls of the patriotic citizens of Sri Lanka of whatever race or creed they are towards achieving greater bonds of unity, harmony and peace.

In this context it is most regretful to note and it certainly merits total condemnation, that in the light of the scourge of the continuing acts of vicious terrorist violence unleashed by the LTTE, the irreparable harm and damage suffered by the people of Sri Lanka in December 2004, consequent to the tsunami and the serious loss of life and damage caused by recent floods and landslides, sections of its own people, certain local and foreign media and certain countries as pointed out by the Prime Minister are acting inimically to the interests of the people of Sri Lanka.

It is in this background of political duplicity that Prime Minister Ratnasiri Wickramanayake, in an exclusive interview with the Daily News frankly and quite rightly too, severely condemned the double standards of certain countries towards terrorism and erosion of human rights.

Prime Minister Wickramanayake declared "certain countries which though appearing to be stout defenders of human rights turn a Nelsonian Eye towards activities of the LTTE terrorists which not only has killed innocent civilians but also eliminated countless leaders of the Tamil community".

He queried, "What are human rights bodies and organisations doing amidst blatant acts of terrorism in Sri Lanka other than issue statements which are of no avail"? "They always say, 'we condemn this inhuman act'. What is the use, we also know it is inhuman".

Prime Minister Ratnasiri Wickramanayake has also critically condemned the policy adopted by certain countries who link economic aid to the preservation of democracy and human rights and negotiations with the LTTE saying although the international community condemns terrorism, it is that very terrorism that is witnessed in Sri Lanka in black and white.

He criticized those who say that they will withhold aid unless the Government holds talks with the terrorists. In this connection it is noteworthy that false stories are being circulated and even given publicity in the media. The German embassy has contradicted such false rumours.

The veracity and truth of the assertions of the Prime Minister of Sri Lanka is manifestly evident. The countries and others accused of double standards towards terrorism are those who for their own selfish ends and self-aggrandizement refuse to accept the truth regarding the current situation in Sri Lanka.

The truth is that President Mahinda Rajapaksa's Government from day one has repeatedly invited the LTTE for talks and negotiated settlement. President Rajapaksa in his swearing in speech emphatically said, "I will initiate a new round of talks with all those who have a stake in the solution of the National question.

I would like to reiterate my desire to engage in direct talks with the LTTE. We would revise and update the existing ceasefire to overcome its defects. War is not my method".

This is the truth. It is the LTTE who have failed neglected and refused to attend talks and resorted to acts of violence and war. It is noteworthy that it is President Rajapaksa who gave legal sanctity to the ceasefire agreement which in the eye of the law was only a scrap of paper.

In the circumstances, it is manifestly evident that the demand made by a certain group of people in the country agitating against war, pretending to be the paragons of peace, that the Government should stop the war but has never made this demand to the LTTE is untenable, utterly absurd and ridiculous.

It is also noteworthy that their agitation is carried on in the safety of peaceful areas, causing local battles and in fights as it has happened at Hyde Park and more recently at Nugegoda but certainly not in the areas where acts of war are perpetrated by the LTTE.

It is equally unreasonable and demonstrative of double standards for certain countries as pointed out by Prime Minister Wickramanayake to make such demands on the Sovereign State of Sri Lanka currently facing a serious internal problem of terrorism and acts of war by a section of its own people.

What would a super power or Sovereign State do in such situations? Would they accept the advice of President Rajapaksa to sit down and have talks with such elements as he has done? Even forbearance ceases to be a virtue in the light of such heinous acts of terrorism and war.

The answer is self evident on a re-view of history of Ceylon or more recent history of the world. During the Colonial era of Ceylon, history records how Governor Brownrig dealt with a small uprising. The massacre was so heinous that the imperial Government itself had to take action against the Governor concerned.

In the recent past one cannot forget the horrors of the Second Great War between that Axis Powers and the Allies in which Sri Lanka was also involved.

One cannot easily cast away from one's mind the terrible harm and devastation caused to the unarmed civilian population by the dropping of the atom bomb on Hiroshima and Nagasaki where the victims are still suffering. But from the point of view of the Allies that has the desired effect of ending the war.

The Japanese citizens were compelled to appeal to the Emperor to end the war. Under the terms for peace talks the Japanese army had to drop their arms before talks.

Although colonialism is considered to be a thing of the past, it is clear that neo-colonialism often rears its ugly head. The world more recently witnessed the invasion of Iraq by two super powers.

The arrest and incarceration of Saddam Hussein the Head of a Sovereign State. The subsequent prosecution of Saddam Hussein before a Kangaroo Court and his conviction and hasty execution on the charge of killing 142 Kurds. A former U.S. Attorney General Ramsay Clark, a member of Saddam's defence team, called the trial and the execution a 'travesty of justice'.

It is crystal clear that in the eye of the law, no Sovereign Government worthy of her good name is expected to stand by and watch as bystanders the acts of violence and war perpetrated by a section of her own people. The law enjoins the Government to protect her citizens and defend the country. President Rajapaksa has vowed to do just that.

The Nation expects him to do this as the Head of State and Commander-in-Chief. The people themselves must positively respond to their corresponding duty under the law to achieve success.

It may be noteworthy that during the rule of President J. R. Jayewardene who acted firmly in respect of offences against the State, those who were on remand accused of attempting to overthrow the Government by force of arms were offered a pardon on their tendering an affidavit to the effect that they eschewed the path of violence and force of arms.

This writer re-calls the case of one such person who swore this affidavit before him, in the Welikada prison and earned his pardon and later went on to hold ministerial office in Sri Lanka.

VERNON BOTEJUE, Nugegoda