Connect with us

Features

Trump Guilty! And Anniversary Blues

Published

on

Donald J. Trump

by Rajan Philips


Just after 5:00 PM local time on Thursday, a jury of 12 New Yorkers, seven men and five women, found the 45th President of the United States of America, Donald J. Trump, guilty on all 34 counts that he had been charged with for falsifying business records to influence the outcome of the 2016 presidential election. Each one of the 34 counts was about hiding the payment that Trump had authorized to be made to Stormy Daniels, a porn star and adult film actress, to buy her silence about a sexual liaison between them.

Neither the sex nor the silencing of it was illegal, but conspiring and acting to suppress the story from becoming public broke the New York State election law against hiding information from voters to influence an election. Hence the prosecution. And now the verdict.

The liaison had been in 2006 when Trump may not have even thought about running for president. The payment was made ten years later and one month before the November 2016 presidential election to stop the Stormy Daniel story reaching the media. The payment scheme was executed under a plan that Trump had put in place in August 2015, two months after he announced his presidential candidacy in New York.

The plan involved Michael Cohen, Trump’s nefarious personal lawyer taking care of under the table deals, and David Pecker, a tabloid magnate who provided “catch and kill” service to rich clients by buying out and not publishing scandalous stories about them. Pecker would be the “eyes and ears” of the Trump campaign and would look for negative stories from women and “take them off the market place.”

Pecker testified in court that he paid another of Trump’s liaison’s, one Karen McDougal, a former Playboy model, and bought her story, but was not reimbursed by Trump. For Stormy Daniel, the payment was made by Trump’s sidekick lawyer Michael Cohen and Cohen was reimbursed by Trump’s accountant in multiple payment and each payment was recorded as legal fees. Hence the falsification of records.

The jury heard all of this and more, including salacious details about Trump’s one night stand with Stormy, from 22 prosecution witnesses in the month long trial. Trump’s legal defence was largely limited to denouncing Michael Cohen as an inveterate liar and felon and asserting that his testimony should be rejected. The prosecution’s response was that they did not pick Cohen, but Trump did, and not only Cohen but also everyone else involved in this sordid tale.

New York Judge Juan Merchan who presided over the trial has set sentencing for July 11. That would be four days before the start of the Republican National Convention in Milwaukee, Wisconsin, where Trump is to be nominated as the Party’s presidential candidate. Although the charges that Trump has been found to be guilty of carry a maximum jail sentence of four years, the expectations in legal circles are that the Judge may settle for probation rather than imprisonment of a former President. In any event, Trump would certainly be appealing the verdict and the legal basis for his indictment and trial. He will keep grinding the American judicial wheel. And nothing will bar him being a presidential candidate.

Trump’s main defence is also political. He has already indicated that the real verdict would be delivered on November 5th, in the presidential election. He is going all out for victory, for he knows that is the only way he has to get out of his legal troubles. President Biden is in agreement with Trump that the real verdict would be on November 5th, because from his standpoint only the American people could ultimately decide to keep Trump out of the White House.

For now, the Republicans are rallying round Trump and denouncing the verdict from New York as a travesty of justice. The Democrats are celebrating the prevalence and the equal application of the rule of law even to a former President. How many Americans would want to have a convicted felon as their president? In most countries, he could not even be a candidate, and rightly so.

Anniversary Blues

In my column two weeks ago (May 19th), I made little more than passing references to two political anniversaries that come and go during the month of May. The older of the two is the anniversary of Sri Lanka becoming a republic and the First Republic Constitution that was adopted on May 22nd, 1972. The junior anniversary falls on May 19th and it marks the end of the war in 2009 – that came after nearly three decades of political violence and 37 years after Sri Lanka became a Republic. I also noted in passing that unlike the May 19th anniversary, no one observes the May 22nd anniversary officially or unofficially, and my comment itself may not have been noticed by anyone in particular.

So, it was fitting to see Dr. Nihal Jayawickrama’s fulsome reminder last week of the anniversary of the First Republic. I cannot agree more with his opinion that without Dr. Colvin R de Silva’s ministerial stewardship Sri Lanka would not have become a republic in the way and manner it did – as Dr. Colvin was wont to say, “not merely despite the Queen but in defiance of the Queen.” However, in my view, the reason why the republican anniversary has fallen into official disuse is because of the decision of the United Front Government after 1972 to officially celebrate only the Republic Day on May 22nd, and to stop commemorating the country’s independence day on February 4th, purportedly because it was a reminder of the UNP’s ‘fake independence’. That was unfortunate.

Ideally, the UF government could and should have celebrated both February 4th and May 22nd, and that would have established the same healthy tradition as in India where the independence day is celebrated on August 15th and the Republic Day on January 26th. Instead, the UF’s decision to ignore February 4th played straight into the tit-for-tat hands of JR Jayewardene. JRJ dropped all recognition of May 22nd and enshrined February 4th and other state paraphernalia such as the national flag and the national anthem in a Schedule to the 1978 Constitution and rendered them unalterable except through a referendum.

As well in my view, the very institution of the referendum was intended by JRJ to stop future negations of the state paraphernalia and to provide a mechanism for postponing elections. Judicial exuberance would later carry this further, interpretively. Imagine an underlying “basic structure” of the 1978 constitution (that was, in fact, no more than an offspring of the mind of President Jayewardene and the Parliamentary Committee that he presided over) and elevate the institution of the referendum as a requirement to amend any aspect of the basic structure. Dr. Jayawickrama, and Dr. Colvin R de Silva before him, have persuasively argued otherwise, and asserted that there is no need to use the referendum except for the specific purposes stipulated in the 1978 Constitution.

Additionally, I noted that the exceptionally flexible 1972 Constitution carried in its womb the seeds of its own undoing and was totally repudiated and wholly replaced by an exceptionally rigid constitution in 1978. Even though the anniversary of the 1972 Constitution may have fallen into disuse, the political legacy of 1972 has not died and continues to provide the parliamentary antithesis to the presidential usurpation of the 1978 constitution. Operationally, no political leader or party has been able to muster the same skill, strength and purpose of a Colvin R de Silva or a JR Jayewradene that is necessary to constitutionally resolve this political tension. But the tension is there, and it commemorates 1972.

If May 22nd is a formally forgotten anniversary, May 19th is a much remembered one. The end of the war anniversary is remembered officially and unofficially, in the north and in the south, and in places east and west where many Sri Lankans have now migrated. As I noted earlier, the end of the war anniversaries have become the continuation of the war by peaceful means. And I expressed the hope that they would remain peaceful forever and are not influenced or infected by the raw shenanigans such as allegedly involving the current Indian government and Khalistan Sikhs.

This year there has been more than the usual spate of commentaries on the end of the war commemorations. Of all the writeups, I was most struck by Meera Srinivasan’s account in The Hindu, dated May 25th, and entitled “A Poverty of Hope Among Sri Lankan Tamils.” Ms. Srinivasan’s columns are available on line and are often republished in Colombo. She is a well informed and objective writer, but what sets this particular piece apart from her other writings and the writings of others on the end of the war anniversary is, in my view, the exclusive focus on people – the survivors and victims of war. Many of them are double victims of the 2004 tsunami and the 2009 devastation.

The people and their plights are always forgotten in the misallocation of resources, haggling over devolution of powers and debates over political abstractions. Even the ever elusive reconciliation attempts are all top-down and far removed from the needs of the people. Addressing the basic needs of the people on the ground is the most basic obligation of the state and those who aspire to be its leaders.

It should not be difficult for the Sri Lankan state to return to people their land to rebuild their lives, give fishers free access to the sea and the means to transport their haul, provide basic water and sanitary services, establish schools for children, and most of all provide conclusive information on people who have gone missing after surrendering. Who will commit to making a start on this basic agenda before the next anniversary? That could be a question for the upcoming presidential election.



Features

Rethinking post-disaster urban planning: Lessons from Peradeniya

Published

on

University of Peradeniya

A recent discussion by former Environment Minister, Eng. Patali Champika Ranawaka on the Derana 360 programme has reignited an important national conversation on how Sri Lanka plans, builds and rebuilds in the face of recurring disasters.

His observations, delivered with characteristic clarity and logic, went beyond the immediate causes of recent calamities and focused sharply on long-term solutions—particularly the urgent need for smarter land use and vertical housing development.

Ranawaka’s proposal to introduce multistoried housing schemes in the Gannoruwa area, as a way of reducing pressure on environmentally sensitive and disaster-prone zones, resonated strongly with urban planners and environmentalists alike.

It also echoed ideas that have been quietly discussed within academic and conservation circles for years but rarely translated into policy.

One such voice is that of Professor Siril Wijesundara, Research Professor at the National Institute of Fundamental Studies (NIFS) and former Director General of the Royal Botanic Gardens, Peradeniya, who believes that disasters are often “less acts of nature and more outcomes of poor planning.”

Professor Siril Wijesundara

“What we repeatedly see in Sri Lanka is not merely natural disasters, but planning failures,” Professor Wijesundara told The Island.

“Floods, landslides and environmental degradation are intensified because we continue to build horizontally, encroaching on wetlands, forest margins and river reservations, instead of thinking vertically and strategically.”

The former Director General notes that the University of Peradeniya itself offers a compelling case study of both the problem and the solution. The main campus, already densely built and ecologically sensitive, continues to absorb new faculties, hostels and administrative buildings, placing immense pressure on green spaces and drainage systems.

“The Peradeniya campus was designed with landscape harmony in mind,” he said. “But over time, ad-hoc construction has compromised that vision. If development continues in the same manner, the campus will lose not only its aesthetic value but also its ecological resilience.”

Professor Wijesundara supports the idea of reorganising the Rajawatte area—located away from the congested core of the university—as a future development zone. Rather than expanding inward and fragmenting remaining open spaces, he argues that Rajawatte can be planned as a well-designed extension, integrating academic, residential and service infrastructure in a controlled manner.

Crucially, he stresses that such reorganisation must go hand in hand with social responsibility, particularly towards minor staff currently living in the Rajawatte area.

“These workers are the backbone of the university. Any development plan must ensure their dignity and wellbeing,” he said. “Providing them with modern, safe and affordable multistoried housing—especially near the railway line close to the old USO premises—would be both humane and practical.”

According to Professor Wijesundara, housing complexes built near existing transport corridors would reduce daily commuting stress, minimise traffic within the campus, and free up valuable land for planned academic use.

More importantly, vertical housing would significantly reduce the university’s physical footprint.

Drawing parallels with Ranawaka’s Gannoruwa proposal, he emphasised that vertical development is no longer optional for Sri Lanka.

“We are a small island with a growing population and shrinking safe land,” he warned.

“If we continue to spread out instead of building up, disasters will become more frequent and more deadly. Vertical housing, when done properly, is environmentally sound, economically efficient and socially just.”

Peradeniya University flooded

The veteran botanist also highlighted the often-ignored link between disaster vulnerability and the destruction of green buffers.

“Every time we clear a lowland, a wetland or a forest patch for construction, we remove nature’s shock absorbers,” he said.

“The Royal Botanic Gardens has survived floods for over a century precisely because surrounding landscapes once absorbed excess water. Urban planning must learn from such ecological wisdom.”

Professor Wijesundara believes that universities, as centres of knowledge, should lead by example.

“If an institution like Peradeniya cannot demonstrate sustainable planning, how can we expect cities to do so?” he asked. “This is an opportunity to show that development and conservation are not enemies, but partners.”

As climate-induced disasters intensify across the country, voices like his—and proposals such as those articulated by Patali Champika Ranawaka—underscore a simple but urgent truth: Sri Lanka’s future safety depends not only on disaster response, but on how and where we build today.

The challenge now lies with policymakers and planners to move beyond television studio discussions and academic warnings, and translate these ideas into concrete, people-centred action.

By Ifham Nizam ✍️

Continue Reading

Features

Superstition – Major barrier to learning and social advancement

Published

on

At the initial stage of my six-year involvement in uplifting society through skill-based initiatives, particularly by promoting handicraft work and teaching students to think creatively and independently, my efforts were partially jeopardized by deep-rooted superstition and resistance to rational learning.

Superstitions exerted a deeply adverse impact by encouraging unquestioned belief, fear, and blind conformity instead of reasoning and evidence-based understanding. In society, superstition often sustains harmful practices, social discrimination, exploitation by self-styled godmen, and resistance to scientific or social reforms, thereby weakening rational decision-making and slowing progress. When such beliefs penetrate the educational environment, students gradually lose the habit of asking “why” and “how,” accepting explanations based on fate, omens, or divine intervention rather than observation and logic.

Initially, learners became hesitant to challenge me despite my wrong interpretation of any law, less capable of evaluating information critically, and more vulnerable to misinformation and pseudoscience. As a result, genuine efforts towards social upliftment were obstructed, and the transformative power of education, which could empower individuals economically and intellectually, was weakened by fear-driven beliefs that stood in direct opposition to progress and rational thought. In many communities, illnesses are still attributed to evil spirits or curses rather than treated as medical conditions. I have witnessed educated people postponing important decisions, marriages, journeys, even hospital admissions, because an astrologer predicted an “inauspicious” time, showing how fear governs rational minds.

While teaching students science and mathematics, I have clearly observed how superstition acts as a hidden barrier to learning, critical thinking, and intellectual confidence. Many students come to the classroom already conditioned to believe that success or failure depends on luck, planetary positions, or divine favour rather than effort, practice, and understanding, which directly contradicts the scientific spirit. I have seen students hesitate to perform experiments or solve numerical problems on certain “inauspicious” days.

In mathematics, some students label themselves as “weak by birth”, which creates fear and anxiety even before attempting a problem, turning a subject of logic into a source of emotional stress. In science classes, explanations based on natural laws sometimes clash with supernatural beliefs, and students struggle to accept evidence because it challenges what they were taught at home or in society. This conflict confuses young minds and prevents them from fully trusting experimentation, data, and proof.

Worse still, superstition nurtures dependency; students wait for miracles instead of practising problem-solving, revision, and conceptual clarity. Over time, this mindset damages curiosity, reduces confidence, and limits innovation, making science and mathematics appear difficult, frightening, or irrelevant. Many science teachers themselves do not sufficiently emphasise the need to question or ignore such irrational beliefs and often remain limited to textbook facts and exam-oriented learning, leaving little space to challenge superstition directly. When teachers avoid discussing superstition, they unintentionally reinforce the idea that scientific reasoning and superstitious beliefs can coexist.

To overcome superstition and effectively impose critical thinking among students, I have inculcated the process to create a classroom culture where questioning was encouraged and fear of being “wrong” was removed. Students were taught how to think, not what to think, by consistently using the scientific method—observation, hypothesis, experimentation, evidence, and conclusion—in both science and mathematics lessons. I have deliberately challenged superstitious beliefs through simple demonstrations and hands-on experiments that allow students to see cause-and-effect relationships for themselves, helping them replace belief with proof.

Many so-called “tantrik shows” that appear supernatural can be clearly explained and exposed through basic scientific principles, making them powerful tools to fight superstition among students. For example, acts where a tantrik places a hand or tongue briefly in fire without injury rely on short contact time, moisture on the skin, or low heat transfer from alcohol-based flames rather than divine power.

“Miracles” like ash or oil repeatedly appearing from hands or idols involve concealment or simple physical and chemical tricks. When these tricks are demonstrated openly in classrooms or science programmes and followed by clear scientific explanations, students quickly realise how easily perception can be deceived and why evidence, experimentation, and critical questioning are far more reliable than blind belief.

Linking concepts to daily life, such as explaining probability to counter ideas of luck, or biology to explain illness instead of supernatural causes, makes rational explanations relatable and convincing.

Another unique example that I faced in my life is presented here. About 10 years ago, when I entered my new house but did not organise traditional rituals that many consider essential for peace and prosperity as my relatives believed that without them prosperity would be blocked.  Later on, I could not utilise the entire space of my newly purchased house for earning money, largely because I chose not to perform certain rituals.

While this decision may have limited my financial gains to some extent, I do not consider it a failure in the true sense. I feel deeply satisfied that my son and daughter have received proper education and are now well settled in their employment, which, to me, is a far greater achievement than any ritual-driven expectation of wealth. My belief has always been that a house should not merely be a source of income or superstition-bound anxiety, but a space with social purpose.

Instead of rituals, I strongly feel that the unused portion of my house should be devoted to running tutorials for poor and underprivileged students, where knowledge, critical thinking, and self-reliance can be nurtured. This conviction gives me inner peace and reinforces my faith that education and service to society are more meaningful measures of success than material profit alone.

Though I have succeeded to some extent, this success has not been complete due to the persistent influence of superstition.

by Dr Debapriya Mukherjee
Former Senior Scientist
Central Pollution Control Board, India ✍️

Continue Reading

Features

Race hate and the need to re-visit the ‘Clash of Civilizations’

Published

on

Australian Prime Minister Anthony Albanese: ‘No to race hate’

Australian Prime Minister Anthony Albanese has done very well to speak-up against and outlaw race hate in the immediate aftermath of the recent cold-blooded gunning down of several civilians on Australia’s Bondi Beach. The perpetrators of the violence are believed to be ardent practitioners of religious and race hate and it is commendable that the Australian authorities have lost no time in clearly and unambiguously stating their opposition to the dastardly crimes in question.

The Australian Prime Minister is on record as stating in this connection: ‘ New laws will target those who spread hate, division and radicalization. The Home Affairs Minister will also be given new powers to cancel or refuse visas for those who spread hate and a new taskforce will be set up to ensure the education system prevents, tackles and properly responds to antisemitism.’

It is this promptness and single-mindedness to defeat race hate and other forms of identity-based animosities that are expected of democratic governments in particular world wide. For example, is Sri Lanka’s NPP government willing to follow the Australian example? To put the record straight, no past governments of Sri Lanka initiated concrete measures to stamp out the evil of race hate as well but the present Sri Lankan government which has pledged to end ethnic animosities needs to think and act vastly differently. Democratic and progressive opinion in Sri Lanka is waiting expectantly for the NPP government’ s positive response; ideally based on the Australian precedent to end race hate.

Meanwhile, it is apt to remember that inasmuch as those forces of terrorism that target white communities world wide need to be put down their counterpart forces among extremist whites need to be defeated as well. There could be no double standards on this divisive question of quashing race and religious hate, among democratic governments.

The question is invariably bound up with the matter of expeditiously and swiftly advancing democratic development in divided societies. To the extent to which a body politic is genuinely democratized, to the same degree would identity based animosities be effectively managed and even resolved once and for all. To the extent to which a society is deprived of democratic governance, correctly understood, to the same extent would it experience unmanageable identity-bred violence.

This has been Sri Lanka’s situation and generally it could be stated that it is to the degree to which Sri Lankan citizens are genuinely constitutionally empowered that the issue of race hate in their midst would prove manageable. Accordingly, democratic development is the pressing need.

While the dramatic blood-letting on Bondi Beach ought to have driven home to observers and commentators of world politics that the international community is yet to make any concrete progress in the direction of laying the basis for an end to identity-based extremism, the event should also impress on all concerned quarters that continued failure to address the matters at hand could prove fatal. The fact of the matter is that identity-based extremism is very much alive and well and that it could strike devastatingly at a time and place of its choosing.

It is yet premature for the commentator to agree with US political scientist Samuel P. Huntingdon that a ‘Clash of Civilizations’ is upon the world but events such as the Bondi Beach terror and the continuing abduction of scores of school girls by IS-related outfits, for instance, in Northern Africa are concrete evidence of the continuing pervasive presence of identity-based extremism in the global South.

As a matter of great interest it needs mentioning that the crumbling of the Cold War in the West in the early nineties of the last century and the explosive emergence of identity-based violence world wide around that time essentially impelled Huntingdon to propound the hypothesis that the world was seeing the emergence of a ‘Clash of Civilizations’. Basically, the latter phrase implied that the Cold War was replaced by a West versus militant religious fundamentalism division or polarity world wide. Instead of the USSR and its satellites, the West, led by the US, had to now do battle with religion and race-based militant extremism, particularly ‘Islamic fundamentalist violence’ .

Things, of course, came to a head in this regard when the 9/11 calamity centred in New York occurred. The event seemed to be startling proof that the world was indeed faced with a ‘Clash of Civilizations’ that was not easily resolvable. It was a case of ‘Islamic militant fundamentalism’ facing the great bulwark, so to speak, of ‘ Western Civilization’ epitomized by the US and leaving it almost helpless.

However, it was too early to write off the US’ capability to respond, although it did not do so by the best means. Instead, it replied with military interventions, for example, in Iraq and Afghanistan, which moves have only earned for the religious fundamentalists more and more recruits.

Yet, it is too early to speak in terms of a ‘Clash of Civilizations’. Such a phenomenon could be spoken of if only the entirety of the Islamic world took up arms against the West. Clearly, this is not so because the majority of the adherents of Islam are peaceably inclined and want to coexist harmoniously with the rest of the world.

However, it is not too late for the US to stop religious fundamentalism in its tracks. It, for instance, could implement concrete measures to end the blood-letting in the Middle East. Of the first importance is to end the suffering of the Palestinians by keeping a tight leash on the Israeli Right and by making good its boast of rebuilding the Gaza swiftly.

Besides, the US needs to make it a priority aim to foster democratic development worldwide in collaboration with the rest of the West. Military expenditure and the arms race should be considered of secondary importance and the process of distributing development assistance in the South brought to the forefront of its global development agenda, if there is one.

If the fire-breathing religious demagogue’s influence is to be blunted worldwide, then, it is development, understood to mean equitable growth, that needs to be fostered and consolidated by the democratic world. In other words, the priority ought to be the empowerment of individuals and communities. Nothing short of the latter measures would help in ushering a more peaceful world.

Continue Reading

Trending