Ceylon Today Editorial

Promoting sports for profit without policy

06 May 2017

Sri Lanka has been talking about sports tourism for some time now, but never gone beyond that. Professionals in the tourism industry and other promoters of the trade, classify sports tourism as hard and soft sports. The soft sport aspect is already steady in the country, though not established to profitable levels, with sports such as snorkeling, cycling and mostly to do with leisure and are not promoted properly. The hard sports have now become the more intense of the two where scores of tourists can be made to converge in a place for periods of time; where the need for accommodation and food and drinks, and entertainment, become the demand factor other than what tourist pay for the actual purpose of their visit and involvement with hard sport.

There are also sports such as rock climbing, mountain biking, river rafting, jungle camping and others that could cause dangerous ecological problems, if it is allowed to get out of hand. Sri Lanka is too small a country to be allowing sporting activity to take place incongruously but in today's context it is a necessity to promote tourism. If done in a proper manner it could be a real asset to the locals who should be given top priority for such to be allowed into the villages; and those old ways are not too appreciated by westerners and therefore, should be taken care of. These things could become spokes in the wheel if not handled correctly in a place where culture is most preserved. Marketing such products is not easy unless the true picture is dimmed.

But hard sports such as cricket, golf, football, volleyball, rugby, track and field (marathon running, cross country racing and such) beach volleyball, horse racing and motor racing are some that go under the above said. For reasons only known to authorities, they have neglected the matter of the hard sport being given prominence, for it to actually take place in the country. Today, sport has become a way to promote countries and many countries are keen to promote sports with that in mind.

In the national sports policy of Sri Lanka it has been suggested to develop a variety of sports that could become an active contributor to the local economy. A sport being used as a tool to promote tourism also has been suggested especially after our winning the coveted ICC Cricket World Cup in 1996. And the above mentioned sports are also in the list of proposed activity to be taken to global level and pushed here locally to promote tourism. Another aspect is using the local craftsmen and developing sports equipment and sports memorabilia for the local and foreign markets. Training local talent to compete in sports related work opportunities around the international sports arenas will become the responsibility of the proposal put forward by the Prime Minister a few months back to start that type of training at school level. This also could be used to get foreign children involved to be trained in the sports field and if it could be taken to a higher level such as university level it could be a real asset to the country.

It is time that the sports policy that has to be ratified and introduced because it never had the urgency as called for right now.

Without the sports policy (Sri Lanka lacks in these policy programmes) nothing seems to happen. This time with his appointment in 2015, the sports policy being introduced was one of top priorities of the present Sports Minister which assurance was given by him when taking over the office. He promised it within the first two years, it not likely to take place. We have no proper synthetic track to stage international events; the promise of getting the Sugathadasa Stadium re-laid has been hit with a delay virus, which has no cure. This is not the ideal background for us to ask for or hope for international events to be staged in Sri Lanka that lacks infrastructure and money.

The above said concerns of ecology that its safe guarders look to preserve also affects the industry's growth. That is where the policy that is spoken of can be helpful, with proper guidelines; unless there are legal guarantees Sri Lanka can be a tricky place to promote some of the above said sports that run concurrently with the eco system of the country. The other sad thing is those in the various offices of the Sports Ministry, getting more involved for what they can get out of being with the Ministry, such as foreign scholarships and workshops they can attend because everything is paid for, as the present connections with the international has grown to such extent. These are very rewarding for both the ministry and the official, but whether the proper people are sent for these and what they learn is put to action is the matter of concern.

Daily News Editorial

Dual Citizenship and politics

06 May 2017

In a landmark judgement, the Appeal Court has ruled that Geetha Kumarasinghe is no longer eligible to continue as a Member of Parliament on account of her being a dual citizen – of Switzerland as well as Sri Lanka. This is a direct result of an inclusion of a clause in the 19th Amendment which expressly bars dual citizens from contesting national elections. However, this is the first time that the law has been put to the test.

While Ms. Kumarasinghe will no doubt appeal to the Supreme Court, one cannot underestimate the significance of the Appeal Court decision. The crux of the matter is that one cannot have one leg in Sri Lanka and the other in another country if the true intention is to serve the Motherland. Being an MP or minister requires total loyalty and dedication to the Motherland. Having citizenship or interests in another country may interfere with this mission.

But as several political parties have pointed out, the law in this regard should be equal to all. It is no secret that there are several MPs representing practically all the parties in Parliament who hold dual citizenship or Permanent Resident status in another country, mostly the USA. In fact, several ministers acknowledged that others having dual citizenship could face the same fate and JVP MP Vijitha Herath has also called on the authorities to take similar action against other MPs, both in the Government and the Opposition, having dual citizenship. All right thinking citizens will agree with his suggestion that Parliament should reveal the names of dual citizens in Parliament. Afterwards, they should be given a choice – either renounce the foreign citizenship to become a full-time citizen in Sri Lanka or if that citizenship sounds better than being an MP in Sri Lanka, retain it. In that case, the MP will have to bid adieu to Parliamentary politics. This should be extended to provincial councils and local bodies too.

Although the Frontline Socialist Party (Peratugami) leader Kumar Gunaratnam is not an MP, his case perfectly illustrates the need for insisting on Sri Lankan citizenship for becoming an MP. Gunaratnam who came here from Australia, where he was known as Noel Mudalige, on a visitor visa tried to engage in local politics. Since our laws clearly state that foreigners cannot engage in local politics while on a normal visa, he was taken into custody. Recently, he agreed to renounce his Australian citizenship and regain Sri Lankan citizenship. Now he is freely engaging in local politics without experiencing any problem.

Most local politicians vent their ire on the “imperialist white supremacists” of the West in front of appreciative local audiences, but they actually covet residential status in countries such as the UK, USA and Canada. Some of them no doubt seek citizenship in another land as an “insurance policy” lest the political climate in the home country take a turn for the worse from their point of view.

The sons and daughters of most MPs are also studying in Western countries. This is true even for some of the most vociferous followers of Lenin and Marx in local politics. Do they send their offspring to Russia or China? Hardly. Such hypocrisy must end.

The concept of dual citizenship in itself is not a bad one. Many Sri Lankans who had lived abroad for decades are now keen to come back to repay their debt to the Motherland. Prime Minister Ranil Wickremesinghe has appealed to all Lankan expatriates and Diaspora groups to contribute generously to the country’s development drive. Many have already accepted this invitation.

Becoming a Sri Lankan citizen again has many advantages, from property rights to voting rights. Some others do not want to come back on a permanent basis, but seek the convenience of unlimited stays when they come to Sri Lanka occasionally. The demand for dual citizenship is rising and each citizenship ceremony of the Department of Immigration and Emigration attracts over 1,000 Lankans living overseas. The Government has been criticized for the high fees charged for dual citizenship from the principal applicants, but the amount is perfectly reasonable in the context of funds the State had spent on them for education, health and other facilities during the years they had spent in Sri Lanka.

But politics and dual citizenship do not essentially mix, as there is a real possibility of a conflict of interest and distraction from duties. Politics is all about serving the people, every hour of the day. Once simply cannot swear allegiance to another country if there is a genuine desire to uplift the people of Sri Lanka. Only a bona fide citizen and full-time resident can feel the pulse of the people and resolve their problems. Thus the architects of the 19th Amendment, one of the most progressive pieces of legislation seen in recent times, were correct in deciding to include the clause on dual citizenship. Those representatives of the people still holding on to their citizenship in another country must now consider where their loyalties lie and act accordingly.

The Island Editorial

The SAITM imbroglio

06 May 2017

 

A strike launched by government doctors, members of the Ceylon Teachers’ Union and some railway workers was on at the time of writing. They demanded that the South Asian Institute of Technology and Medicine (SAITM) be taken over by the government, moves to scrap the non-contributory pension scheme abandoned and a national policy formulated for international trade pacts. Their real goal, however, is the nationalisation of the SAITM.

The issue is now before courts and it is best left to the learned judges. Ours is only an attempt to discuss the hypocrisy of the proponents and the opponents of private medical education etc. Suffice it to say that the SAITM is not driven by altruism; it is a business venture like any other private educational institute. Similarly, the warring doctors are not telling us the truth, the whole truth and nothing but the truth. They are trying to safeguard their interests. The same goes for the ultra radical political forces opposed to private medical education. The national universities provide them with a fertile recruiting ground and they fear that the government is trying to drain the swamp by helping set up private universities.

The reason given by the strikers for their call for the takeover of the SAITM is that its medical degree programme is not up to the mark and poses a threat to free education and its products may endanger the lives of patients. The SAITM has denied these allegations as baseless. The proponents of private medical colleges demand to know what the stipulated standards of medical education really are. The onus is on their critics to make public those standards, if any.

It is not only badly trained doctors who pose a threat to the public. The number of people killed in road accidents daily averages seven and the mushrooming driving schools which churn out badly trained drivers are blamed for this tragic situation. But, nobody strikes, demanding action against the errant driver trainers. Why?

If private medical colleges pose a threat to free education then, logically, it must be true that private hospitals are a threat to the free health care system. But, there have been no protests against the ever increasing number of private hospitals. Why? Private hospitals and channelling centres have come into being as the state cannot cope with the increasing demand for health care in the public sector. Similarly, private educational institutions including international schools, private degree-awarding institutes and branches of foreign universities have emerged because the state has failed to provide university education to each and every student who qualifies for higher education. So, how can anyone justify protesting against private universities, claiming to protect free education while ignoring or, benefiting from, private hospitals and channeling centres?

The SAITM was established under the Rajapaksa government, which defended it to the hilt. Now, the Joint Opposition (JO), whose de facto leader is former President Mahinda Rajapaksa, is campaigning against the SAITM. It is using the SAITM issue as a bludgeon to beat the incumbent government with to gain some political mileage. Will it reveal to the public what it intends to do with the SAITM in case of capturing power?

The present government has sought to bulldoze its way through as regards the SAITM issue. Its ministers insult the protesting doctors and make public statements that they will set up more private universities come what may. They are only making an already bad situation worse.

The yahapalana politicians also lament that so many students who pass the GCE A/L examination and qualify for higher education are left out as the state-run universities cannot accommodate them for want of resources. This fact, they are using in a bid to justify their decision to permit the establishment of private universities. If they really feel for those unfortunate students they ought to allocate more funds for developing the existing universities and setting up new ones. They ought to get their priorities right and cut down on wasteful expenditure. Their failure to do so has only lent credence to the claim by the opponents of private degree awarding institutes that a sinister attempt is being made to let the national universities wither on the vine.

What has made the SAITIM issue so intractable is the hypocrisy of its intransigent stakeholders who seek to advance their hidden agendas on the pretext of safeguarding public interest. The judiciary can only examine the legal aspects of the issue and give a fair ruling, but a permanent solution will require the stakeholders to reach middle ground without shifting the goalposts and bellowing rhetoric.