Connect with us

Editorial

Prohibiting cattle slaughter

Published

on

The prohibition of cattle slaughter which has been bruited around for many moons was announced last week with our stablemate, The Island reporting on its front page that the government had approved a ban on cattle slaughter. This subject also made news some weeks ago but was laid by, possibly out of concern of hurting Muslim sentiments. Muslims generally are beef eaters and for as long as living memory serves, and probably much longer, they have controlled the beef and mutton stalls in Municipal and other markets. Most butchers belong to that community and previous efforts to ban cattle slaughter has been strongly resisted by Muslims.

Although Sri Lanka is a Buddhist country and Buddhism frowns on the taking of life, most Buddhists are carnivorous. True many Buddhists do not eat beef but are quite happy to eat mutton (actually goat meat in this country), chicken and fish. Many of them accept in their minds and hearts that consuming fish, flesh and fowl run against the tenets of their religion, but they lack the will power to give up their carnivorous ways of pandering to their senses. Not eating beef, of course, has cultural roots. Cattle serve man as draft animals and help us to till our fields and cows give us milk. So how can we as claimed Buddhists eat beef? In India, the vast majority of the Hindu population is vegetarian and the cow is a sacred animal. Many non-vegetarians here say that had they lived in India, it would have been easy to convert to vegetarianism.

The report we quoted in our opening paragraph, though stating that government had approved prohibiting cattle slaughter, did not say that beef eating was being prohibited. It has already been announced that import of beef will be permitted. Last week’s announcement merely said that the Legal Draftsman has completed amendments to certain Acts and Ordinances including the Cattle Slaughter Ordinance No. 9 of 1893, Act No. 29 of 1958 concerning animals, Sections 252 and 255 of the Municipal Councils Ordinance and Ordinance No. 15 of the Urban Council Act of 1987. It added that the Attorney General had certified that these Bills did not clash with the Constitution.

Given the government’s current foreign exchange-strapped situation, how much money will be available for beef imports? That is anybody’s guess. Will it be possible to procure from abroad quantities of beef now consumed by ordinary people at prices they can afford? We have our doubts. Beef and other exotic meat and fish are already imported to the country. The finest Australian beef, lamb, salmon and what have you are on the menus of top-end restaurants in posh hotels and elsewhere – of course at a very high price. They can also be purchased at gourmet food shop and delicatessens although only the very rich patronize such establishments. We are struggling to revive our tourism industry on which very heavy investments have been made and non-availability of epicurean cuisine in the menus of existing classy hotels and restaurants will obviously hinder that not only short term but also in the medium and longer terms. We live in a largely non-vegetarian world and even in India, home to a very large population of vegetarian Hindus where cows are held as holy, cattle slaughter is not prohibited.

Animals as much as humans have a right to life and that is unarguable. Buddhists exhort ‘may all beings be well and happy’ but too many Buddhist live lives which makes that impossible. Goats, pigs, fish, chicken etc. have as much right to life as humans or cattle whose slaughter is to be prohibited. The moral argument against killing cannot be enforced in a lopsided way where some are more free than others although that’s the prevailing order. Hundreds of thousands of our people depend on fisheries for their livelihoods. Is it practical to enforce a ban on fisheries? President Premadasa, influenced by a Buddhist monk he held in the highest regard, imposed a prohibition on state participation in the inland fisheries industry. Large investment made thereon was jettisoned but with years passing, the restrictions were relaxed and the state is once again active in this field. There is little doubt that most dairy cows, once their milk providing days are over, end up with the butcher. So also chickens when they do not lay enough eggs to be economically viable. Also, broiler chickens are widely farmed for their meat. There is no escaping the reality that enforcing a ban on cattle slaughter will be fraught with immense practical difficulties. We will have to wait and see whether these will be overcome and the intention implemented.

Ironically, it was only at the end of last year when it was reported that Asia’s largest meat processing plant was opened in the Katunayake Export Processing Zone by no less than Minister Namal Rajapaksa with other political VIPs in attendance. Social media seized on this in the context of government’s expressed intention on prohibiting cattle slaughter. That report was not accurate. While a large meat processing facility had in fact been opened and is now running in the Katunayake EPZ, it is certainly not Asia’s (nor South Asia’s) largest. It is an export targeting value adding project which, while using some imported beef (though not much), was working mainly with local chicken meat and also has plans for a fish processing factory . The promoter is taking advantage of fiscal incentives for value addition to develop an export segment of his meat processing business. All this amply demonstrates the prevailing hypocrisy in Sri Lanka’s methods of governance. Examples are too numerous to mention so do take your pick.



Continue Reading
Click to comment

Leave a Reply

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

Editorial

O, Democracy!

Published

on

By

Thursday 9th December, 2021

US President Joe Biden’s much-advertised ‘Summit for Democracy’ commences today with the participation of 110 nations. Sri Lanka is not among them. Some political commentators here have called the exclusion of Sri Lanka an indictment of the Rajapaksa government, which is undermining democracy.

The incumbent Sri Lankan government may be hauled over the coals for attacks on democracy, but one should not make the mistake of recognising the US as the global standard-bearer of democracy.

Among Biden’s invitees are Jair Bolsonaro of Brazil and Rodrigo Duterte of the Philippines. The Human Rights Watch has this to say about Brazil under Bolsonaro: “President Jair Bolsonaro is threatening democratic rule in Brazil … He is pursuing campaigns to intimidate the Supreme Court, signalling that he may attempt to cancel the 2022 election or otherwise deny Brazilians the right to elect their leaders, and violating critics’ freedom of expression.” But Biden has had no qualms about inviting Bolsonaro to the summit and enlisting his help to ‘set forth an affirmative agenda for democratic renewal and tackle the greatest threats faced by democracies’! The less said about Duterte, the better. So much for Washington’s concern for democracy.

Prominent among the invitees to Biden’s Summit for Democracy is Indian Prime Minister Narendra Modi, whom the US refused an entry visa, for years, over the 2002 Gujarat riots, in which more than a thousand Muslims were massacred. The Obama administration reversed the US decision, and now the White House rolls out the red carpet for Modi, who lectures other nations on minority rights and the virtues of ethnic reconciliation, etc.

What about the report card of the host of the Summit for Democracy? The US, which has undertaken to promote global democracy, has failed to lead by example. The Freedom House World Report (2021) reveals that over the past 10 years the United States’ aggregate ‘Freedom in the World Score’ has plummeted by 11 points; the US is among the 25 countries that have suffered the largest declines during this period. Its current score is 83. Shouldn’t the US inspect the beam in its eyes, first?

The Biden administration says the goal of the Summit for Democracy is to rally the nations the world over against the forces of authoritarianism. But it is obvious that the US is trying to shore up its crumbling international image and counter China’s increasing global dominance. Biden’s summit has little to do with democracy; it is aimed at furthering Washington’s geo-strategic interests, as evident from the invitation extended to Pakistan. The US has no way of dealing with the Taliban without Pakistan’s help.

If the US is so averse to authoritarianism, as it claims to be, will it explain why it has backed evil dictators such as Pinochet of Chile, Marcos of the Philippines, Mohammad Reza Pahlavi  or Shah of Iran, Batista of Cuba, Somoza of Nicaragua, Seko of Zaire, Suharto of Indonesia, Rhee of South Korea, and Saddam Hussein of Iraq? Pinochet’s Caravan of Death, which hunted down Opposition activists in the remote parts of Chile did not cause any concern to the US.

The US has taken upon itself the task of ridding the world of authoritarianism and terrorism but it strove to save LTTE leader Prabhakaran, during the closing stages of the Eelam War IV, in 2009.

If Sri Lanka had signed the SOFA (Status of Forces Agreement) with the US and allowed the stationing of American forces here, perhaps it would have been invited to the Summit for Democracy in spite of the various allegations the Opposition and civil society groups are levelling against the incumbent government.

Continue Reading

Editorial

Expensive jokes

Published

on

Wednesday 8th December, 2021

What the government has been doing in Parliament during the past few days is like smashing up pots in a desolate house, as a local saying goes. The SJB is boycotting the budget debate in protest against an alleged incident where one of its MPs, Manusha Nanayakkara, was roughed up by a government member on Friday. Denying the allegation, the SLPP has accused MP Nanayakkara of threatening the Speaker. Thus, the government and the Opposition have been trading accusations liberally much to the neglect of their legislative duties.

It serves no purpose to have a budget debate without the participation of the main Opposition party therein; the position of the government on its own Appropriation Bill is already known, and none of its members can be expected to criticise it. Therefore, it is the duty of the Opposition to analyse the budget, highlight its flaws and suggest improvements or changes thereto.

Yesterday, the government MPs were heard making sardonic comments at the expense of former Prime Minister Ranil Wickremesinghe, MP, and Opposition Leader Sajith Premadasa, who was absent. Their utterances had nothing to do with the budget. They seem to have taken the SJB’s protest very lightly if their wry sense of humour is anything to go by. They may have been amused by their own jokes, which however went down like lead balloons where the public is concerned. Those who cared to watch yesterday’s parliamentary proceedings were left nonplussed. The public may not have minded the government MPs’ jokes in the House, but for the fact that they are very expensive; parliamentary sittings cost about five million rupees each. Public funds are being wasted in this manner while many people are skipping meals, and vital sectors are experiencing fund cuts.

One may not buy into the government’s claim that MP Nanayakkara flew across the House, as it were, to threaten the Speaker. But both the Opposition and the government must ensure that none of its members sprint towards the Chair, in a huff, or otherwise. There are ways and means of registering an MP’s protest against the Speaker’s rulings in a civilised manner. There have been instances where some MPs almost harmed the Speaker. In October 2018, a group of Opposition MPs who are now in the SLPP government, almost gheraoed the then Speaker Karu Jayasuriya in protest against his rulings.

The Opposition has faulted Finance Minister Basil Rajapaksa for being absent in the House during the budget debate. Former PM Wickremesinghe yesterday reminded the government that the Finance Minister was duty-bound to be present in the House, and President Chandrika Kumaratunga and President Mahinda Rajapaksa had done so as Finance Ministers. Those who are au fait with parliamentary affairs and traditions will agree with the former Prime Minister. Some government MPs have sought to justify the Finance Minister’s absence, but their line of reasoning sounds absurd. They are trying to defend the indefensible.

The opponents of the executive presidency want it scrapped and powers of Parliament fully restored. But what is the use of enhancing the powers of a Parliament whose members do not carry out their legislative duties and functions to the satisfaction of the public?

Chief Opposition Whip Lakshman Kiriella told Parliament, the other day, that the MPs should be able to gain admission to the Law College and universities by virtue of their legislative experience. Going by the behaviour of some of them, it looks as if they had to be sent back to kindergarten.

Meanwhile, the protesting SJB MPs have chosen to make their speeches on the budget via social media platforms. If the budget debate can be conducted without the presence of the Finance Minister and most MPs, with the Opposition using the Internet to comment thereon, the question is why Parliament should not opt for virtual sessions so that its costs can be kept low, and debates held without interruptions or fisticuffs.

Continue Reading

Editorial

New laws alone won’t do

Published

on

Tuesday 7th December, 2021

The government is keen to amend the election laws to provide for restrictions on campaign expenditure, and President Gotabaya Rajapaksa has given the Legal Draftsman necessary instructions in this regard, Media Minister Dallas Alahapperuma has reportedly said. It is hoped that the new laws to be made will also make it mandatory for candidates and political parties to disclose sources of their campaign finance, and the amounts of funds they receive by way of donations.

Laws to regulate campaign finance are long overdue, and the government initiative is therefore welcome. However, one should not be so naïve as to expect all problems related to campaign expenditure, etc., to disappear with the introduction of a few more laws. It is one thing to make laws; it is another to enforce them properly. We already have enough and more laws to prevent election malpractices, but the problem is that they are not applied correctly and fairly.

Politicians are adept at circumnavigating laws and compassing their political ends. When the 19th Amendment was introduced, it was widely expected to enable key state institutions to emerge independent and strong. But the Constitutional Council tasked with depoliticising those outfits became a mere rubber stamp for the Prime Minister, who manipulated it to further the interests of his government. This is the fate that befalls all laws in this country.

The problem with the election laws is not that they lack teeth; instead, it is that the authorities concerned lack the courage to enforce them strictly. The results of several elections, and the 1982 referendum should have been cancelled, given widespread rigging and violence that marred them. What was witnessed before and during the presidential and parliamentary elections in the late 1980s was the very antithesis of democracy; polling agents were chased away and ballot boxes stuffed openly while the police looked on. The North-Western provincial council polls (1999) were also affected by large-scale violence and rigging, but the results were not declared null and void.

Minister Alahapperuma has said the laws to be made will help usher in a new political culture. One should not be faulted for being sceptical about the possibility of such a radical change happening in Sri Lankan politics simply because of a few more additions to the country’s huge body of laws. If the government is genuinely desirous of changing the existing, rotten political culture, it ought to follow Alahapperuma’s example anent electioneering.

The media has been watching Minister Alahapperuma’s election campaigns with interest over the years. He has had the courage to spurn the conventional campaign methods; he does not use posters, banners, bunting, etc. When he chose to swim against the tide and take the high road, not many expected him to succeed in dirty Sri Lankan politics, but he has received a very positive response from the electorate. He has thus been able to keep the cost of electioneering very low. If he can conduct decent polls campaigns under the existing election laws, and get elected, why can’t others? There are several other politicians who also conduct clean election campaigns, and the onus is on the public to appreciate their courage to be different and reward them with votes. Sending the right men and women to Parliament is half the battle in draining the swamp.

It is heartening that the government has realised the need to regulate campaign finance at last and reportedly taken steps to introduce new laws for that purpose. If the SLPP had cared to set an example to others by keeping its campaign expenditure low, it would not have had to go out of its way to scrap duty on sugar imports in a questionable manner, some moons ago, to please one of its main financiers, thereby causing a huge loss to the State coffers. This scam has damaged its image irreparably.

Now that the government has evinced a keen interest in regulating campaign finance, will the ruling SLPP disclose, suo motu, the amounts of funds it received for the 2019 presidential election and the 2020 parliamentary polls, the sources thereof and actual expenditure.

Continue Reading

Trending