Connect with us


Corrupt Cameron!



By Dr Upul Wijayawardhana

Maybe, it is time to add a new phrase to the political lexicon: ‘A corrupt Cameron’ to mean a corrupt politician! Perhaps, doing a Cameron can mean using one’s position and influence for doing shady deals, purely for personal gain! I am making these suggestions, based purely on the unveiling drama of political corruption in the UK, the leading actor being the former Prime Minister, David Cameron. Yes, it is the very same David Cameron who opted to go to Jaffna, ‘kissing children’ for votes, instead of being at the opening ceremony of the Commonwealth Heads of Government Meeting in Colombo, in November, 2013!

We are well aware that our political class has become progressively corrupt, since independence from the British, and critics have often made comparisons with politicians of the West to tell us how bad our lot is. However, it looks as if the rapidly-advancing juggernaut of capitalism is making the rest of the world, including Britain, to follow suit. The continuing pandemic has laid bare the vast extent of corruption in most countries. A number of accusations have been made about the award of very fruitful contracts to friends and relations of Ministers in the UK. Of course, corruption comes in many forms and I have referred to in my previous writings about the unwarranted, unjustified campaign against the only vaccine affordable for poor countries, Oxford AstraZeneca vaccine, spearheaded by Chancellor Merkel and President Macron. But Cameron’s actions are in a totally different league!

“We all know how it works. The lunches, the hospitality, the quiet word in your ear, the ex-minister and ex-advisers for hire, helping big business find the right way to get its way”

Guess who said this? It indeed was David Cameron! He said so in a speech, on lobbying, shortly before he became Prime Minister. Just two years after being forced out of that post, his position becoming untenable after the Brexit fracas, what he did was exactly that. Worse still, it looks as if he laid the foundation for his misdeeds, whilst still in office.

Cameron allowed financier Lex Greensill to work from his office, in Downing Street, as a senior adviser on a scheme of dubious value to the government. Two years later, Cameron became a senior adviser in Lex Greensill’s Greensill Capital, a supply chain finance company which thrived on giving loans to companies to tide over till their invoices were paid. His annual salary was one million dollars, for part-time work! On top of that, he got bonuses and shares which he sold at a profit.

Greensill Capital got its funds from investors who were paid back with interest once the short-term loans were repaid. However, Greensill Capital overstretched itself by giving excessive loans and collapsed in March due to the insurers refusing to cover the loans. Many investors were left with huge losses but Cameron, in a matter of two or three years, made a total killing of 10 million dollars, according to the BBC Panorama programme, broadcast on 9th August.

Before the collapse, Greensill Capital, tried to get a new investor: the UK government. David Cameron did his utmost to make it happen. He sent 56 messages, lobbying ministers and senior civil servants. He approached the Chancellor of the Exchequer and wanted the Bank of England to invest more than £10bn of taxpayers’ money in Greensill’s loans. The Bank of England turned Greensill down.

However, prior to this, in June 2020, Greensill had been approved as a lender, under a government scheme, designed to get emergency cash to companies affected by the coronavirus pandemic. Unpaid loans, under this scheme, may result in a loss of around £320 million to the British taxpayer, it is claimed.

David Cameron stands accused of personally promoting Greensill Capital to other investors, too, as he appeared with Lex Greensill, the company founder, in an event promoted by the Swiss Bank, Credit Suisse, in 2019. Those convinced by Cameron to invest have paid a heavy price whilst he has laughed his way to another bank!

There is more: Cameron has helped a genetics firm to get a government contract, it is alleged. It has emerged that he encouraged Health Secretary Matt Hancock to speak at a conference, co-hosted by the firm, Illumina, shortly before it won a £123m government contract for genetic sequencing, without competition.

Interestingly, in spite of all this, it is claimed by the government that no one seems to have broken rules as there are huge gaps in regulations, though they were supposed to have been strengthened after previous scandals. The best known is the ‘cash-for-questions’ scandal of 1994, when a lobbyist gave ‘brown-paper bags’ stuffed with money for MPs to ask questions which resulted in the collapse of John Major’s government. Tony Blair’s government was tainted by the ‘Bernie Eccleston affair’ after it exempted Formula 1 from the tobacco advertisement ban in 1997, as Bernie Ecclestone had contributed a million pounds to party funds.

We are well aware that our politicians are hypocrites. Ranil objects to the Army conducting the vaccination campaign but has his jab at the Army Hospital, and Sajith, who promised that he would have his jab only after every eligible citizen had theirs, suddenly had the jab on the advice of his treating physician! But Cameron’s hypocrisy beats all this. Shortly before an anti-corruption summit in London, in May 2016, in a conversation with the Queen, Cameron was overheard saying:

“We’ve got some leaders of some fantastically corrupt countries coming to Britain… Nigeria and Afghanistan, possibly the two most corrupt countries in the world.”

Archbishop of Canterbury Justin Welby had intervened to say: “But this particular president is not corrupt… he’s trying very hard” confirming that the Nigerian President Muhammadu Buhari was elected the previous year after vowing to fight corruption.

Neither Cameron nor the other prime ministers have faced any sanctions. Perhaps, our politicians can learn a lesson or two, from their British counterparts, how to legitimize corruption. In any case, without a doubt, they will continue doing Camerons!

Continue Reading
Click to comment

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *


Another mother and son to be admired



It was with a sense of awe, admiration and joy that I read the piece by Capt. Elmo Jayawardene in The Island of 25 Oct. 2021, on the achievements of Dr Pahalagedera Jayathilaka, a handicapped youth from almost the wilderness in a village called Dandu Bendi Ruppa in Nuwara Kalaviya who had achieved almost the impossible, gaining a super First Class from the University of Moratuwa and a PhD in Fluid Dynamics from the National University of Singapore. Thereafter he has been attached to the University of Oxford as a Research Scientist. All credit for his achievements has to go to his mother, Pahalagedera Dingiriamma who did everything within her means to enable her son to achieve the almost impossible, by cultivating vegetables to feed, educate and raise eight offspring.

Dr. Jayathilaka is a person we Sri Lankans have to be proud of and also get children to emulate his achievements. The most important thing about this patriotic son of the soil is that he wants to return to Sri Lanka and give something back to his motherland in return for the free education he has had. This is when most of the youth are clamouring to go abroad.

There is another mother and a handicapped son who have to be admired. The boy is Brian Eaton who had just received his Ordinary Level examination results and he has got A grades for all nine subjects. He was featured in the Sirasa TV programme Lakshapathi, which is the local equivalent of Who wants to be a millionaire. He lives with his mother, who is a seamstress, in Mattakkuliya. He is blind. He has read over 200 books in braille. The mother had to take him by bus to the Blind School in Ratmalana. It used to take about two hours to get to the school and another two hours to return home. As the mother had to wait till school is over, she used to take the material and cut same while waiting for her son. She does the sewing after returning home.

Though they are Christians, Brian had wanted to study Buddhism and seemed to know more about Buddhism than most Buddhist youth.

Brian was accommodated as a special case on the Lakshapathi programme without his having to face the “fastest finger first” selection process. His knowledge of all subjects was such that he was able to answer many questions without any assistance. He came up to the Rs. 2.0 million penultimate question without much difficulty and answered it correctly. Then it was the final question for the jackpot prize of Rs. 3.0 million. Brian decided to withdraw from the programme without attempting to answer the final question as he was not very sure. He withdrew securing Rs.2.0 million. Before he stepped down from the hot seat, the quiz master asked him what would have been his answer. And to everybody’s dismay the answer he gave was correct and he missed out on another Rs. one million.

Brian is an exceptional child who has successfully overcome all disabilities, with the untiring efforts of his mother, to reach the top of the programme which had evaded many of the normal children who had participated in this programme. We wish him success in all his future endeavours.

MH Nissanka Warakaulle

Continue Reading


Warnapura: A colourful cricketing giant



Bandula Warnapura secured his name in the annals of Sri Lankan cricket as the country’s first Test Cricket Captain. As Sri Lanka’s opening batter, he faced the first delivery bowled by Bob Willis during the inaugural test match played between Sri Lanka and England on the historic day of 17 Feb. 1982, at the P Sara Stadium (previously known as Colombo Oval), in Borella. Further, he scored the first test run for his country. Records are usually meant to be broken as it happens regularly in the sports arena world over. But Warnapura’s feats will never be disintegrated. What a privileged position to be in! It is an exceedingly rare combination of persistent commitment, endurance, and of course, luck, over a long period of time.

My happy memories of Bandula Warnapura were linked with our school days about 12 years prior to the country’s first test match.

I vividly remember his exceptional achievements during his school career at Nalanda College between 1968 and 1972. Towards the latter part of this period he rose to fame of an exceptional degree. His name became a common household one; in fact, no other school cricketer at the time received such media attention. Two other contemporary school cricketers who came close to him were Duleep Mendis and Roy Dias; a wonderful triumvirate who dominated school cricket in the early 1970’s.

In 1971, Warnapura everyone expected the batting machine to break the existing batting record of the Ananda – Nalanda annual cricket encounter (popularly known as “Battle of Maroons”) when he captained the Nalanda cricket team. However, he only managed to score half a century (53), which brought much disappointment to many cricket fans.

As a grade 9 student of Ananda College at the time, I still treasure fond memories of his record-breaking epic innings of 118 not out in 1972 at the big match. He broke the 44-year-old batting record (111) held by another Nalandian P M Jayatilaka in 1928. I was in the Ananda (rival) pavilion; the overwhelming expectation of the other boys of the Ananda pavilion was against him reaching a glorious century. However, I was quietly feeling happy for him and honestly wanted him to achieve the century and surpass the existing record. After breaking the then batting record, the Nalanda pavilion was ecstatic and Bandula Warnapura became a school cricketing legend. I remember well, the legendary cricket commentator Premasara Epasinghe staunchly supporting Warnapura throughout his career.

W arnapura’s subsequent cricketing career was remarkable and by accident in 1979 he captained SriLanka and won a World Cup match against the star-studded Indian team (Gavaskar, Kapil Dev et al.). Most believe that as an ICC associate member, beating an ICC full member was the precursor state for the elevation of the Island nation to the test status in 1981. It was a dream come true for all cricket fans in Sri Lanka. However, at this time around, Warnapura’s cricketing career was on the decline and ended abruptly after the ill-advised rebel South Africa tour in 1984.

Bandula Warnapura’s sad demise at a relatively young age is indeed extremely sorrowful news.

Thank you Bandula for giving us fond memories with great nostalgia during our school days. May you have a fruitful journey of sansara and finally attain the supreme bliss of nibbana!

Prof Ananda Jayasinghe

University of Peradeniya

Continue Reading


Ali Sabry’s equation



by Rohana R. Wasala

Justice Minister Ali Sabry is reported to have said the traditional brand of Islamism which has been practised by Muslims in Sri Lanka for centuries has to be preserved while the religion should not be practised according to the likes of one group. He reportedly made this remark after taking part in a religious ceremony at the Dewatagaha Mosque, Colombo. (This architecturally impressive place of Islamic worship is a proud national monument situated at the heart of the commercial capital; it is a symbol of the peaceful coexistence of Muslims with Sri Lankans of other faiths.) The Minister is reported to have added that unity among Muslims in Sri Lanka should also be preserved just like preserving unity among various religious and ethnic groups.

Sri Lankans of all beliefs interested in the early restoration of the externally disturbed customary religious and communal harmony subscribe to that laudable view with the necessary alterations. But will his equation of Islam with Islamism work in the current context.

(CAVEAT: There is no way to check the authenticity of the news report in question unless Minister Ali Sabry confirms or denies what is claimed in it about him. It has not been indicated in which language he expressed these ideas. Did he actually use the words Islam and Islamism speaking in English or their equivalents speaking in another language, or has the media arbitrarily translated into English, using those two terms, what the speaker said in another language?)

But for the purpose of this essay, I assume that the Minister’s words have been reported accurately. I don’t know whether Muslims in Sri Lanka have started using the words Islam and Islamism interchangeably, which, of course, I’d have thought, is a near impossibility, given the universally recognised difference in meaning between the two terms. defines Islam as ‘the religion of the Muslims, a monotheistic faith regarded as revealed through Muhammad as the Prophet of Allah’. Islamism on the other hand, is generally taken to mean Islamist fundamentalism associated with violent militancy, which is purely a religiopolitical movement. The Wikipedia defines Islamism thus: “Islamism (also often called political Islam or Islamic fundamentalism) is a political ideology which posits that modern states and regions should be reconstituted in constitutional, economic and judicial terms, in accordance with what is conceived as a revival or a return to authentic Islamic practice in its totality”.

(By the way, the Wikipedia is no longer regarded as an easily available smart tool for the amateur researcher for the reason that the entries are made by voluntary editors at various levels of scholarship and academic authority and authenticity. The Wikipedia user must be sufficiently educated and well informed to be able to separate the wheat from the chaff. In this case, the definition given is sound enough.) Explaining the relation between Islam and Islamism, the Wikipedia says:

“The relationship between the notions of Islam and Islamism has been subject to disagreement. Hayri Abaza argues that the failure to distinguish between Islam and Islamism leads many in the West to support illiberal Islamic regimes, to the detriment of progressive moderates who seek to separate religion from politics. A writer for the International Crisis Group maintains that “the conception of ‘political Islam’” is a creation of Americans to explain the Iranian Islamic Revolution and (that) apolitical Islam was a historical fluke of the “short-lived era of the heyday of secular Arab nationalism between 1945 and 1970”, and it is quietist-political Islam, not Islamism, that requires explanation.

“Another source distinguishes Islamist from Islamic “by the fact that the latter refers to a religion and culture in existence over a millennium, whereas the first is a political/religious phenomenon linked to the great events of the 20th century”. Islamists have, at least at times, defined themselves as “Islamiyyoun/Islamists” to differentiate themselves from Muslimun/Muslims. Daniel Pipes describes Islamism as a modern ideology that owes more to European utopian ideologies and “isms” than to traditional Islamic religion.”

When Ali Sabry reportedly made the particular remark, he probably had in mind what the Wiki quote refers to as ‘quietist or political Islam’ (which, in common parlance, is called ‘moderate Islam’). Moderate Islam is not regarded as a problem, but Islamism definitely is. It need not be reiterated that the problem of Islamism affects the whole world. As far as Sri Lanka is concerned, Islamic/Islamist fundamentalism came to prominence relatively recently, although it has been smoldering since the mid-20th century as some commentators have pointed out. Given this background, responsible speakers do not use the two words (Islam and Islamism) as alternatives. I believe that minister Ali Sabry speaks as a responsible person. That is why I am sceptical about what has been reported of his speech. But these are strange times. Anything is possible.

However, it is somewhat inconceivable that Ali Sabry, who has been entrusted by the President with such a great responsibility or an array of responsibilities as he bears in a government that sought election on the main platform of “One Law, One Country” and that is poised to bring in a new constitution, made this thoughtless identification of Islam with Islamism.

The President wanted to assure the Muslim community that they were safe and would not be subjected to discrimination under his rule, particularly in the face of incursions into Sri Lanka of rampant Islamist extremism, although most Muslims did not vote for him at the presidential election in November 2019. It is conceivable that the President’s more important aim in appointing Ali Sabry to that key post was to enlist the participation of the Muslim community in governance despite their implicit initial refusal of his goodwill. It is unlikely that Ali Sabry has forgotten this.

Continue Reading