Opinion
Australian Referendum and Human Rights
by Dr Laksiri Fernando
Australia is holding a referendum on 14 October (2023) proposing a constitutional amendment in the country in recognising the Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander people as the ‘first nations people’ and creating a body as ‘a voice’ to express their views through representatives to Parliament and the government on policies relevant to their welfare and development. A referendum is usually a vote in the form of ‘Yes’ or ‘No’ to a particular question and the question in this instance is the following.
“A Proposed Law: to alter the Constitution to recognise the First Peoples of Australia by establishing an Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander Voice. Do you approve this proposed alteration?”
In May this year, both houses of Parliament approved the holding of a referendum and since then the campaign for yes and no has been launched by various political parties and organisations. It would have been very much better if the ‘yes’ campaign had been conducted on a bipartisan or nonpartisan basis. Because the voice to parliament is mainly a human rights issue. When a particular community or a group of people is disadvantaged in society, they should be given a special push or place to overcome those disadvantages. In human rights vocabulary this is called affirmative action. In 1998, the UN Sub-Commission on Human Rights appointed a Special Rapporteur on the subject and in his report, he gave the following tentative definition on the matter.
“Affirmative action is a coherent packet of measures, of a temporary character, aimed specifically at correcting the position of members of a target group in one or more aspects of their social life, in order to obtain effective equality.”
Even before this date, affirmative actions were in practice particularly on women, minorities, and indigenous people in some countries. In 1974 when I entered the University of New Brunswick, Canada, I could meet many indigenous students enrolled under affirmative action. When I came to Australia in 1991 however, I unfortunately could not see any indigenous person in Sydney universities. In the American continent it was under John F. Kennedy’s initiative in 1961 that affirmative action programs were initiated in the university sector although a recent Supreme Court decision is meant to be reversing it. Affirmative action programmes are in operation in many democratic countries today for women, blacks, immigrants, poor people, disabled persons, war veterans, indigenous peoples, and specific minorities. Through practice it is revealed that affirmative actions work as human rights promotion. One of the best explanations on the subject is ‘A Philosophical Defense of Affirmative Action’ by Engelbert Ssekasozi (1999).
Voice to Parliament also has some historical origins and emotional aspects. These are clear from the Uluru statement. However, these are not against human rights or against any other Australian. The statement says it is a ‘Statement from the Heart.’ Through a Voice to Parliament some of the emotional claims or sentiments could be appeased. This is a human duty of all other Australians. Apart from the human rights aspects of the proposed referendum, there are very many humanitarian aspects. Whatever the weaknesses of the Uluru statement, it must be admitted that it is the way probably most of the Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander people feel and think at present. Australia as a tolerant and democratic society should be able to understand and allow these views.
When it says, “Our Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander tribes were the first sovereign Nations of the Australian continent and its adjacent islands and possessed it under our own laws and customs” there is no point in having a dispute. However, when it says, “This sovereignty is a spiritual notion: the ancestral tie between the land, or ‘mother nature’, and the Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander peoples who were born therefrom, remain attached thereto, and must one day return thither to be united with our ancestors” there can be some impractical aspects. This confusion enlarges when it follows the following statement. “This link is the basis of the ownership of the soil, or better, of sovereignty. It has never been ceded or extinguished and co-exists with the sovereignty of the Crown.”
The Uluru statement was made in 2017, more than five years ago. Unfortunately, there was no apparent dialogue between those who formulated the statement and modern Australians who would support the ideas/demands with necessary and possible amendments. Indigenous people have every right to express their views and aspirations. Two years before the Uluru statement, Meagan Davis and George Williams wrote ‘Everything You Need to Know About the Referendum to Recognize Indigenous Australians’ (2015) supplying convincing reasons for the matter before us at the referendum. They said, “The 1967 referendum deleted discriminatory references to Aboriginal people but put nothing in their place. Torres Strait islanders have never been referred to in the Constitution. As a result, rather than recognizing Indigenous people, the referendum left a silence at the heart of the Constitution.”
The Australian Government has issued an official pamphlet on the referendum according to the Referendum Act 1984. It has fairly given a balanced assessment on both sides of the coin to vote Yes or No. On the Yes side, what is proposed is a new Chapter IX to the constitution in “Recognition of Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander Peoples.” The proposal further says, “there shall be a body to be called the Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander Voice.” This is what has created the controversy and doubts.
From a human rights perspective, just recognition of indigenous people as the First Nations in the constitution is not enough. There should be some positive measures and mechanisms. A major reason for this necessity is their appalling socio-economic conditions and neglect. Uluru statement says “Proportionally, we are the most incarcerated people on the planet.” This is what needs to be changed with their participation and support. There are several devoted charity and nongovernmental organizations working with indigenous people. But that is not sufficient. What is necessary is an overall development action plan under the national government based on the voices expressed by the indigenous representatives. Their health, education, employment, and security should be looked into with a road map and a plan of action.
Indigenous Voice might not be the correct name for the proposed mechanism. However, that can be rectified after the referendum. What is proposed is not a Third Chamber. It cannot override the Australian parliament and it has no veto power as some people incorrectly argue. The ‘Voice’ is also not like a mere commission appointed by a government. Voice is elected by the indigenous people. As the referendum proposal says, ‘Voice may make representations to the Parliament and the Executive Government of the Commonwealth on matters relating to their peoples.’
At a referendum, the ‘yes’ or ‘no’ compulsory vote should be completely a personal decision unlike voting at a parliamentary election. People do not need to worry at all about the dangers of the referendum or the Voice to their sovereignty or democracy. Indigenous people are an innocent, helpless and victimized small community not even exceeding 4 percent of the population. If the campaign for the referendum, already approved by Parliament, becomes further divisive and partisan, the victims again would be the Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander people. This is the most important human rights issue today in Australia.
Opinion
Role of children’s stories in learning English and their impact on children
Children’s stories have always been an important part of childhood. From traditional fairy tales to modern picture books, stories entertain children while also helping them understand the world around them. When children are learning English as a language, stories become an especially valuable tool because they provide a natural, enjoyable, and meaningful way to develop language skills. Through characters, plots, and imaginative situations, children’s stories support vocabulary development, improve communication abilities, and encourage confidence in using English.
One of the greatest benefits of children’s stories in English language learning is that they introduce children to new vocabulary in a meaningful context. Instead of memorising isolated words from a list, children learn words through situations and actions within a story. For example, a story about a farm may introduce words such as “animal,” “field,” “farmer,” and “plant” while showing how these words relate to each other. This contextual learning helps children understand and remember new vocabulary more effectively.
Stories also improve children’s listening skills. When teachers, parents, or other speakers read stories aloud, children hear correct pronunciation, sentence structures, and natural expressions in English. Regular exposure to spoken English helps children become familiar with the rhythm, sounds, and patterns of the language. Even when children do not understand every word, they can often follow the meaning through pictures, gestures, and the events of the story. Over time, this develops their ability to understand spoken English in different situations.
Another important impact of children’s stories is the development of speaking skills. Stories encourage children to talk about characters, describe events, answer questions, and share their own ideas. Activities such as retelling a story, acting out scenes, or discussing what might happen next give children opportunities to practise English in a relaxed environment. Because stories are enjoyable and engaging, children are often more willing to participate and communicate without fear of making mistakes.
Children’s stories also support the development of grammar skills. Through repeated exposure to well-formed sentences, children gradually recognize how English works. They learn common sentence patterns, verb forms, and ways of expressing ideas. For young learners, grammar is often easier to understand when it is presented through a story rather than through direct explanations. For example, a story that describes past events naturally introduces the use of past tense verbs, allowing children to observe grammar in action.
In addition to language development, stories have a strong influence on children’s imagination and creativity. Stories allow children to enter different worlds, meet interesting characters, and explore new ideas. When learning English, imagination makes the language experience more meaningful. A child who becomes interested in a story about a brave character or a magical adventure is more likely to remember the words and expressions connected with that experience. Creativity also encourages children to create their own stories, which further strengthens their ability to use English.
Children’s stories can also help develop cultural awareness. Language is closely connected with culture, and stories often introduce children to different traditions, lifestyles, and values. English stories from different countries allow children to learn about people and places beyond their own experiences. This helps them understand that English is not only a subject to study but also a way to communicate with people around the world.
Reading stories in English can also increase children’s motivation and positive attitudes toward learning. Many children may find learning a new language challenging, especially when they focus only on textbooks or exercises. Stories make learning more enjoyable because they combine education with entertainment. When children associate English with fun and creativity, they are more likely to develop curiosity and continue learning.
The emotional impact of stories should not be overlooked. Many children’s stories contain themes such as friendship, kindness, courage, and problem-solving. Through characters and situations, children can learn important social and emotional lessons. Discussing these themes in English gives children opportunities to express feelings, opinions, and personal experiences. This not only improves language ability but also supports emotional growth.
Teachers play an important role in using stories effectively in English language classrooms. Selecting stories that match children’s age, interests, and language levels is essential. Teachers can support understanding by using pictures, asking questions, encouraging predictions, and connecting the story to children’s lives. Repetition is also valuable, as hearing the same story several times allows children to become more familiar with vocabulary and sentence structures.
Parents can also encourage language learning through storytelling at home. Reading English stories together, listening to audiobooks, or watching story-based programs can provide additional exposure to the language. A supportive environment where children feel comfortable experimenting with English can greatly improve their confidence and progress.
In conclusion, children’s stories have a powerful impact on learning English as a language. They provide children with opportunities to develop vocabulary, listening, speaking, reading, and grammar skills in an enjoyable and meaningful way. Beyond language learning, stories encourage imagination, creativity, cultural understanding, and emotional development. By making English learning engaging and enjoyable, children’s stories help young learners build a strong foundation for future communication and lifelong learning.
Saumya Aloysius
(A children’s writer contributing to both local and foreign newspapers as a freelance writer)
Opinion
When governments destroy mangroves
Any government that comes into power is a caretaker – of its people, environment and security. This is another glaring occasion where their lack of knowledge, or blatant disregard to the environment is causing long-lasting damage to this country.
After the devastation of the tsunami, then governments took the initiative to raise natural protection of the island by undertaking massive projects to plant mangroves. It was a long-term project, spanning 20 years, by the armed forces, to get these barriers up. Now the same army is used by this government to chop down these mangroves!!
This is happening right now in the Trincomalee lagoon. Nearly 40 lorry loads of mangrove forest have been taken away already. The excuse used for this is dengue control, a circular issued by the presidential secretariat in June. The ignorance is here; the seawater mixed lagoon does NOT breed mosquitoes. Trincomalee does not pop up in the dengue demographics, even as a high risk area. Yes, there is garbage, and plastic thrown into the mangroves that can be breeding grounds for mosquitoes. These can be cleared away in a clean-up operations, without harming the mangrove trees. It has been done a few times before, by previous government authorities, like coast conservation, who know the value of the mangrove belts. The local rumour becomes believable, that this deplorable act is done to please some local business partners of the area who run pleasure boats in the lagoon.
Yes, unhealthy mangroves can breed mosquitoes. But mangroves are ‘decease swamps’ is a dangerous myth. That mangroves are dirty, stagnant swamps teeming with decease carrying mosquitoes is a misconception that promotes harmful policies to control dengue outbreaks. This top myth justifies the illegal coastal clearance today in Trincomalee. It is destroying an important ecological asset of this country, mangroves, while failing to address the true root of dengue transmission. Where is the coast conservation department in this situ? Have they got CCD permission to carry out this butchery?
Healthy mangroves do not breed dengue mosquitoes, especially the one’s closely connected to the sea like in Trincomalee. The larvae needs completely still unmoving water to breathe at the surface, and mature. The power of tidal flushing which keeps water circulating in the mangroves makes this impossible. Also the daily ebb and flow of ocean tides keeps the water moving in the mangroves and frequently drains the forest floor. The natural hydrology of healthy mangroves, acts as an automatic self-regulating barrier against stagnant water collection, making viable breeding sites virtually impossible.
Also mangroves contain nature’s exterminators. It hosts a massive army of mosquito predators. These mangroves are not dead swamps but vibrant nurseries. Young Fish, dragon flies, crusteasians, and insectivorous birds are natural mosquito predators. Clearing mangroves collapses this natural food web, removing this natural pest control.
In fact, clearing mangroves is counterproductive and will backfire with worsened dengue cases. The heavy machinery will leave a scarred landscape with deep tyre tracks in the marshy soil making stagnant water pools and disrupted drainage. When rainwater fills these artificial depressions it will create perfect stagnant, predator free, fresh water pools, Ideal breeding grounds for Aedes aegypti. Also clearing this kind of buffers can bring in the urban sprawl with its people, housing, and garbage, to the new degraded land.
The collateral damage is even bigger. Destroying mangroves in the name of pest control leaves coastal populations poorer, hungrier, and highly vulnerable to extreme weather. One would have thought at least the people in the coast conservation department were knowledgeable enough about the loss of wave attenuation with removal of mangroves and the risk of flooding and storm surge damages to the coastal areas. Collapse of these fish nurseries should ring alarm bells in the fisheries department. Reduced fish harvest and loss of livelihood for the local fishermen should have had fisheries department people rushing to the site. But neither of the mentioned government departments have raised a murmur, in the face of political influence. This is the sad truth of the country at the moment. Sri Lanka’s climate resilience has been compromised by release of stored ‘blue carbon’ and a loss of natural buffer against rising sea levels, while the responsible people in the government are silent in front of an ignorant political hierarchy.
This is an appeal to the highest authority in the country to stop this environmentally insensitive projects of this nature being coughed up by ignorant municipal members. Clearing these forests directly violates so many policies on conservation. Our local fishermen depend entirely on healthy mangrove root systems—such as those being chopped down. From a health perspective, medical professionals have repeatedly assured us that under the current National Policy Framework, marshy lands and mangrove ecosystems pose no threat of dengue. We request your guidance and intervention to ensure our environment is not sacrificed.
Citizen S
Opinion
Lankan hotels and price discrimination
In planning a long trip to Sri Lanka from the UK, I was disappointed to see different hotel pricing for foreign visitors when compared to local rates. Like many travellers, I prefer to book directly with hotels, rather than international hotel consolidators, as more money goes to local businesses. But the assumption that foreigners should pay more is simply distasteful. As such, I’ve chosen another long-haul destination that does not follow such practices, and hope that Sri Lanka will change its approach to overseas visitors in the near future.
Neil Roskilly Wetherlee UK
-
News7 days agoHerath warns prospective migrant workers not to get fleeced by racketeers
-
Features5 days agoPrison riots and politics: NPP’s biggest challenge and Sri Lanka’s biggest opportunity
-
Editorial6 days agoWhat’s the world coming to?
-
Foreign News7 days agoTensions erupt in Indian state after 11-year-old raped and murdered
-
Features7 days agoDevanesan Annan – in Memoriam
-
Editorial7 days agoPunishment in hellholes
-
Features2 days agoDirty Money
-
News7 days agoRepresentatives of the Organization of Professional Associations (OPA) of Sri Lanka meet the Prime Minister
