Editorial

A healing touch?

Published

5 years ago

2020/10/4

Although the dust has settled on the matters raised by Dr. A.H. Sheriffdeen’s letter to the President of the College of Surgeons of Sri Lanka (CSSL) and the heat generated by the issue has now cooled, it is worth reflecting on this matter. Emeritus Professor Sheriffdeen has acquired a well deserved reputation as an excellent surgeon and teacher of the highest calibe and it was natural that what he had to say struck a resonant chord among a wide section of society not only because of what he said but also the way he said it. Anybody who read his letter, widely publicized by both the mainstream and social media, would have clearly seen the anguish with what he wrote and empathized with the reality that things were much better in times that are now long past.

Both Dr. Sheriffdeen, in a subsequent letter, and Dr. Jayaindra Fernando, President of CSSL, have expressed dismay about the original letter being publicized the way it was. Fernando has said that the College of Surgeons “were surprised and dismayed” by the publication of what they termed was a “private letter” intended to be read by its members. Sheriffdeen has said that he is appalled that an “internal email” to the President of CSSL had been published as it was. Given the excellent tone and tenor of of what followed, we do not wish to strike a discordant note but want to say in defence of the publication, that the letter did not say it was private and confidential or meant only for the reading of a select audience. Also, at least the mainstream editors (we can’t speak for the social media), would not have seen it as a ‘plant’ – something not common in our line of work. We might add our belief that is was a good thing that a matter as important as this was widely disseminated and provoked extensive discussion among those who matter – both in the medical profession and elsewhere.

The response to the original missive by the paediatric surgeons working at the Lady Ridgeway Children’s Hospital (LRH) deserves the highest commendation by all for the way in which it was worded. This letter was formally released to the press by the President of CSSL and although published elsewhere earlier, is republished in this issue of our newspaper both for the reason that we ran the original story as well as the need for the widest possible dissemination of what for the lack of a better word be styled as the “rejoinder.” The LRH surgeons who called themselves a “Paediatric Surgeon’s Collective” wrote in lighter vein that “it is said in jest that every story has three sides – your side, our side and the truth.” We professional journalists are trained to investigate both sides of what we write in the hope that the truth lies in-between your side and my side and would hopefully be discerned by the readers.

The rejoinder was a model of the best diplomacy which conveyed what the writers had to say with no offense to anybody. It called Prof. Sheriffdeen “one of our beloved and respected teachers” who had striven during his career to impress upon his students the ideals of being a good doctor. They did not try in the slightest way to criticize Sheriffdeen for what he wrote saying “the exasperation of a man who feels betrayed and thwarted is understandable (and) if his impassioned communication…..did help to restore his equilibrium, as he expected, then we will somehow try to take in stride the damage done to our reputation and that of the hospital.” Most letter writers would have socked in the words with which that sentence ended, “even though the events that had taken place are misrepresented.” There was no strident accusation of misrepresentation or any kind of fault finding.

In essence the LRH surgeons made the point that standards of care for any condition is ever-evolving and they are guided by what is appropriate at that point of time. Presently, acute appendicitis in children, does not have to be rushed into the theatre in the night (unlike in Sheriffdeen’s heyday they did not say to their eternal credit). They explained that in the contentious case under discussion, it had been decided to do the appendectomy after fluid resuscitation and antibiotics. It had been planned to operate on the child as the first case the next morning, successful surgery performed and the patient who was fully recovered had been discharged. They agreed that the consultant surgeon does not stay in after normal working hours “but is only a telephone call away.”

All’s well that ends well we are tempted to say with no two-fisted attack on anybody. But there is no escaping the reality that there are great deal of deficiencies in the state healthcare system and that most people in the country have a perception that private healthcare, despite the enormous and in most cases unaffordable cost, is preferable to going to a government hospital. Knowledgeable people know that the finest and most skilled services are present in the state sector. But it is also true that healthcare is today a lucrative business not only for the private hospitals but also for specialist consultants permitted private practice despite being employees of the state health service. We do not think that all these doctors can place their hand their hearts and swear that they put in the necessary hours at their government jobs at the cost of their private practice. There are many who do and perhaps many more that do not. Hopefully the wide discussion of all the issues arising from Prof. Sheriffdeen’s letter will be a healing touch on the country’s healthcare system.

All News Advertisement

Editorial

ME War and the loser

Published

6 hours ago

2026/03/12

Sahan Weerasooriya

Thursday 12th March, 2026

It is not possible to predict who will emerge victorious in the ongoing war in the Middle East or whether the conflict will end without a clear winner though US President Donald Trump and Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu would have the world believe that they will surely be the winners. The US-Israel military power is doubtlessly far superior to that of Iran, but in a war of this nature, military might alone does not guarantee a clear victory.

Difficult as it may be to predict who will win in the current Gulf conflict, the overall loser is already known; it is the world economy. Global markets are heavily reliant on President Trump’s assurance that the war will not last long, and the release of the G7 strategic oil reserves to stabilise the world oil supply. But Trump’s most intense airstrikes on Tuesday have not yielded the desired results. Iran remains defiant and has raised the stakes for the global economy by threatening to bring oil exports from the region through the Strait of Hormuz to a complete halt unless the US and Israel stop attacks. It continues to fire missiles and carry out drone attacks on US interests in the region. Trump has announced that the US will seriously consider providing security to the ships sailing through the Hormuz Strait, but whether the US is equal to the task is the question. It is being argued in some quarters that Trump and Netanyahu have already bitten off more than they can chew.

There is reason to believe that Trump went to war with Iran without a proper assessment of the ground situation. His plan was to make short work of the current Iranian regime with shock-and-awe aerial bombardments and the assassination of Iranian Supreme Leader Ayatollah Ali Khamenei, but his plan has apparently gone awry. The slain Iranian leader’s son has been elected the Supreme Leader. Trump may have expected the Iranian anti-government protesters to make the most of the ongoing bombing spree, come out in their millions and bring down their embattled regime, but they are silent today. Perhaps, they are too scared to challenge the beleaguered regime, which has warned that ‘every soldier has his finger on the trigger’ and protesters will be treated as traitors. It is also possible that the protesters are now disillusioned with the US after realising that Washington has sought to use them as a cat’s paw in its efforts to grab Iran’s oil resources.

Has the US made, in Iran, a military miscalculation similar to the one in Afghanistan? The US Intelligence community and the military estimated that Kabul was resilient enough to hold out for several months after the withdrawal of the US troops in 2021. But that city fell to the Taliban in days, causing the then US President Joe Biden to admit that the collapse had happened “more quickly than the US had anticipated”.

Iran may not have anticipated a joint US-Israel military operation of this magnitude. It remains to be seen whether Iran can sustain its missile and drone attacks vis-à-vis the US-Israeli air strikes on its arms stockpiles and military installations. However, what one gathers from the views of military analysts is that it is very unlikely that President Trump will go so far as to deploy ground troops in Iran, with about 59% of Americans opposing his war, according to opinion surveys. In its war for oil in Iraq, the US had the backing of a much broader international coalition.

Nothing could be more humiliating to the US than Washington’s call for help from Ukraine to deal with the Iranian drones. Ukrainian President Volodymyr Zelensky, whom President Trump once showed the door during a White House meeting, has confirmed that the US sought his help to defend its allies in the Persian Gulf against the Iranian drones. Did Trump start a war without a proper assessment of the enemy’s drone capability?

The enormous economic cost of the Middle East conflict will have to be borne by not only the parties thereto but also by the entire world. Trump’s assurances and the G7 responses have prevented panic in global markets, but unless the US and Israel end the war soon and take steps to keep the Strait of Hormuz functional, oil prices will soar again, pushing the world closer to a global recession. If Trump and Netanyahu stop their war midway, they will face a domestic political backlash. Trump and Netanyahu have the Epstein files and corruption charges to contend with, respectively. The Trump administration is facing midterm elections in November. Politically speaking, Trump and Netanyahu are on a tiger ride in the Middle East.

The biggest challenge before the US and Israel in the ongoing conflict is to prevent Iran from shifting the war to the economic front, and make the global economy scream.

Editorial

Govt. as price gouger

Published

1 day ago

2026/03/11

Sahan Weerasooriya

Wednesday 11th March, 2026

There can be no bigger affront to Karl Marx’s legacy than the JVP’s claim that it espouses Marxism. Marx envisioned the creation of a future society free from exploitation. The latest fuel price hikes announced by the JVP-led NPP run counter to the Marxist principle of freedom from exploitation.

The sudden fuel price hikes, which have come close on the heels of the monthly fuel price revision announced on 28 February, cannot be considered legal, for they are not consistent with the Cabinet-approved fuel pricing formula. The government insisted during the recent panic buying and hoarding of fuel that the existing petroleum stocks were sufficient for more than one month, and there was no need for the public to queue up outside filling stations.

Chairman of the Ceylon Petroleum Corporation (CPC) D. J. Rajakaruna, flanked by Cabinet Spokesman Dr. Nalinda Jayatissa, gave an assurance, at a recent post-Cabinet media briefing, that the local fuel prices would not be increased in view of the global situation at least for another month or two. The fuel price revision on 28 February is proof that neither the CPC nor the Indian Oil Company (IOC) nor Sinopec purchased fuel at the current world market prices. Minister Jayatissa has reportedly claimed that fuel consumption has risen sharply over the past several days, leading to a drop in the existing reserves, and fuel had to be procured at higher global market prices. There is no way the government can justify jacking up fuel prices because the CPC prices revised on 28 February were cost reflective, and fuel stocks currently being released to the market were procured at much lower prices. Therefore, the latest fuel price increases are nothing but unfair and irrational. The motive of the government is to maximise profit at the expense of the public.

A CPC Director also made a vain attempt yesterday to justify the fuel price hikes. He said that by increasing the prices of the existing petroleum stocks, the government had sought to prevent a massive price hike upon the arrival of new fuel shipments. His flawed logic is an insult to the intelligence of the public. It is doubtful whether he was aware that oil had dropped to USD 90 per barrel from USD 119 per barrel in the world market overnight as US President Donald Trump predicted that his war with Iran was nearing its end, and G7 countries took steps to release strategic petroleum reserves to stabilise the market.

It is being argued in some quarters that fuel price increases will help reduce fuel consumption. There is no gainsaying that fuel consumption has to be curtailed during a global crisis, but that objective can be achieved with the help of QR-based fuel rationing. Huge increases in fuel prices are bound to push inflation up, with the prices of all essentials soaring. Private bus owners and trishaw operators have already demanded fare revisions. Even those who have no knowledge of Keynesian macroeconomic theory are familiar with the concept of sticky prices. Price increases are not followed by corrections in this country, and the Consumer Affairs Authority is a paper tiger.

The Opposition is of the view that the government has increased fuel prices to meet the cost of additional thermal power to be produced to overcome a generation shortfall caused by low-grade coal imports. This argument is tenable.

Meanwhile, fuel prices have an embedded debt-recovery levy that helps the CPC pass its legacy debt on to the public. This levy has enabled the IOC and Sinopec to make excessive profits, as they are not required to transfer the proceeds therefrom to the Treasury, according to a former petroleum minister. If so, the solution is to convert the debt-recovery levy into a special-purpose tax, which can be imposed on fuel marketed by IOC and Sinopec as well. It may also be possible to reduce the rate of the levy significantly by widening its application.

The unconscionable profits made from the sudden fuel price hikes are against the legal maxim that “no one should be enriched to the detriment of another”. The JVP-NPP government should be ashamed of fishing in troubled waters. It must stop exploiting the people who are struggling to make ends meet.

Editorial

Heed ominous signs

Published

2 days ago

2026/03/10

Sahan Weerasooriya

Tuesday 10th March, 2026

US President Donald Trump’s Epic Fury has left the world gnashing, with a global fuel shortage looming large. Oil prices have already surged past USD 100 a barrel amidst rising tensions in the Middle East. They are set to climb higher. The US-Israeli air strikes on Iran and retaliatory attacks are not likely to end any time soon. Both sides are targeting oil fields and storage facilities, sending shockwaves across the world.

Trump’s re-election led to euphoria in business circles, which mistakenly thought that he would not resort to anything that would adversely impact the global economy. But he has proved that he is not worried about the world economy at all. When Reuters recently asked him about the surging oil prices, he audaciously claimed: “They’ll drop very rapidly when this [the war on Iran] is over, and if they rise, they rise, but this is far more important than having gasoline prices go up a little bit.” Contrary to his prognosis, gasoline prices in the US rose from USD 2.92 a gallon, the lowest since 2020 to USD 3.40 a gallon. Trump’s plan to make short work of Iran has gone awry for all intents and purposes, and all signs are that the war will drag on indefinitely. It will be a huge gamble for the US to deploy ground troops in Iran. The Republican thinking, according to the likes of

hawkish Senator Lindsey Graham is now that Venezuela has fallen in line, the US may be able to gain control over about 30 percent of the global oil production if it defeats Iran and installs a puppet regime in Tehran. Hope is said to spring eternal.

Iran is apparently shifting the war to the economic front by closing the Strait of Hormuz, and doing everything possible to cause disruptions to the global oil supply. Worse, the intensifying conflict in the Middle East has raised significant concerns about a potential global recession due to energy supply shocks and crippled shipping routes. The region is a critical chokepoint, accounting for roughly 20% of global oil and liquefied natural gas shipments, and supply disruptions threaten to spike inflation and slow global growth.

Managing Director of the International Monetary Fund, Kristalina Georgieva, has warned about worldwide inflation risks arising from the conflict in the Middle East, pointing out that every 10% increase in oil prices, if sustained for most of the year, could lead to a 40-basis point rise in global inflation. This is an unnerving proposition, especially for vulnerable economies, such as Sri Lanka, which is emerging from a crippling economic crisis. The developing nations are without sufficient foreign currency reserves to withstand long-term shocks from a protracted Middle East conflict.

Bangladesh has reportedly been compelled to close its universities as part of a strategy to weather energy supply disruptions due to the Middle East conflagration and the closure of the Hormuz Strait. Other countries in this region and elsewhere may have to adopt such drastic measures to overcome possible fuel supply shortfalls. Bangladesh is reported to have posed daily limits on fuel sales due to panic buying and hoarding.

A trade unionist representing the Opposition in this country has warned of a possible fuel shortage despite the government’s assurances that there are sufficient petroleum stocks. He has urged the government to keep the public informed of fuel availability regularly. He may have issued that warning in good faith, but it is fraught with the danger of triggering another panic buying spree. It was with the greatest difficulty that the government brought fuel panic buying and hoarding under control a few days ago. Everyone ought to act responsibly at this juncture.

There is no need to hit the panic button yet, but urgent action is called for to prevent a possible fuel crisis. The available fuel stocks must be properly managed as the possibility of suppliers invoking the force majeure clause in agreements due to the worsening Middle East crisis and the resultant supply disruptions cannot be ruled out. It will be extremely difficult to replenish fuel supplies in such an eventuality. Prudence demands that the QR-based fuel distribution be reintroduced at the first sign of trouble. There’s no shame in rationing fuel during a global crisis.